alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Invention for Licensing; Government 
Owned Invention

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are 
available for licensing by the Department of the Navy.
    Patent Application entitled ``Force Discrimination Assay,'' filed 
January 20, 1998, Navy Case No. 78183.
    Patent Application entitled ``Apparatus and Method for Measuring 
Intermolecular Interactions By Atomic Force Microscopy,'' filed May 8, 
1998, Navy Case No. 78838.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the patent applications cited should 
be directed to the Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower 
One, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, and must 
include the Navy Case numbers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R. J. Erickson, Staff Patent 
Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 
North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 
696-4001.

(Authority: 35 U.S C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404)

Matthew G. Shirley,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-17018 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
CAUSE NO S . 12

- 19

- 00119

- CR , 12

- 19

- 00120

- CR, 12

- 19

- 00121

- CR , 12

- 19

- 00122

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LARRY COLEMAN HICKS , } APPEALED FROM 114TH DISTRICT APPELLANT

V. } COURT IN AND FOR
THE STATE OF TEXAS, } SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE ORDER
Came on for review the status of the instant appeal s , and the same having been considered, it appears that Appellant is not currently represented by counsel. On April 3 , 2019, the Docketing Statement was due to be filed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.2 . On April 4, 2019, this Court notified Appellant that a Docketing Statement was to be filed and gave him until April 15, 2019, to file it. As of the date of this Order, no satisfactory response has
been received.
Pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.2 it is ORDERED that the Honorable C hris ti Kennedy
, Judge of the 114th District Court of Smith County, shal l immediately conduct a hearing to determine the cause of Appellant’s failure to file the Docketing Statement and whether the Appellant has abandoned the appeal s

. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court determine whether: (1) Appellant is indigent and e ntitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal; (2) Appellant has sufficient funds to retain counsel; or (3) Appellant desires to represent himself on appeal. It is ADDITIONALLY ORDERED that once findings are made as to the above issues,
the trial court shall appoint counsel, give Appellant an appropriate deadline for retaining counsel, or administer the appropriate warnings concerning the dangers of self

- representation, inaccordance with its findings and the court shall also take necessary action to ins ure the prompt

filing of the Docketing Statement with this Court. It is FINALLY ORDERED that a supplemental record containing the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and any appropriate order(s) attendant thereto be certified to this
Court on or before May 17, 2019

. WITNESS the Honorable James T. Worthen, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, 12 th Court of Appeals District of Texas, at Tyler.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT , at my office this 18th day of April 2019 , A.D.

________________________________ KATRINA MCCLENNY, CL ERK 12 TH COURT OF APPEALS
# Troop Support commander thanks clothing, textiles industry for keeping warfighters in uniform

/ Published May 12, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
The warfighter is always clothed and protected thanks to U.S. manufacturers of textiles, clothing and footwear, the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support commander told American Apparel and Footwear Association members May 10. 

“Not once have I served on deployment and we haven’t had access to the right boots, the right clothing and the right protective equipment,” said Army Brig. Gen. Charles Hamilton. “And that’s because of you folks here.”

Hamilton addressed the AAFA’s Government Contracts Committee during their spring meeting in Philadelphia. It was the first time he spoke to the Clothing and Textiles supply chain’s industry partners as a group since becoming commander 10 months ago.

“One thing that I hope you’ll see from me ... is transparency,” he said. “You’re going to get it from me exactly the way it is ... good or bad. I’m going to be transparent.”

He also talked about the uncertain environment that DLA and its industry partners are working through, including the decrease in military personnel, the threat of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and cybersecurity.

Hamilton outlined C&T’s business projections for coming years, in which sales are forecasted to remain steady through 2020 after they declined following the surge in Afghanistan in 2009.

Foreign military sales, including uniforms for Afghan security forces, have boosted sales recently. And Hamilton said he expects those sales to remain steady for the next three to five years. 

Following his remarks, Hamilton and then a panel of C&T leaders answered questions from AAFA members. Some members expressed concern about the impact that potential minimum wage increases for their employees will have on the cost of delivering products for C&T.

C&T is sensitive to the topic and looking into possibilities to minimize the impact on industry partners, said Steve Merch, Field Clothing division chief.

The AAFA meeting also included uniform updates from the military services and the U.S. Coast Guard.
No. 10-6531.

#### Kenneth Ray Hayes, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 990, 131 S. Ct. 436,

178 L. Ed. 2d 338,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8255.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 309.
NUMBERS 13-14-00736-CR AND 13-14-00737-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

STACIE VOIGT ETZEL, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 38th District Court

of Medina County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Stacie Voigt Etzel, attempts to appeal her conviction for murder and 

tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Her appeals were transferred to this 

Court from the Fourth Court of Appeals by order of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. 

GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a) (West Supp. 2011) (delineating the jurisdiction of 
2

appellate courts); TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005) (granting the supreme 

court the authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to another at any time that 

there is “good cause” for the transfer). 

Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 20, 2015. On September 15, 2015, 

this Court granted appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time and directed appellant 

to file the brief on or before September 22, 2015. On September 25, 2015, the Clerk of 

the Court notified appellant’s counsel that the brief had not been filed and requested a 

response concerning the failure to file the brief within ten days. Counsel has 

nevertheless failed to file either a response or an appellate brief in these matters.

Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make 

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether 

appellant desires to prosecute these appeals; (2) why appellant's counsel has failed to 

file a brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeals; (3) whether 

appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's 

counsel should be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel.

If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue these appeals, 

that present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant 
3

in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and 

state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing counsel.

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record 

of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered and filed 

the 22nd day of October, 2015.
No. 10-7010.

#### Armard Jerome Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1051, 131 S. Ct. 617,

178 L. Ed. 2d 448,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8847.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 935.
No. 10-368.

#### Marilyn Morris, et al., Petitioners v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al.

562 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 602,

178 L. Ed. 2d 436,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8826.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 598 F.3d 677.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6451

JAMES EDMOND WATTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

E. L. PEARSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-97-355-R)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edmond Watts, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Watts v. Pearson, No. CA-97-355-R (W.D. Va.

Mar. 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Brown v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of Revenue Bureau of Individual Taxes 42

05/09/2016

66 MAL (2016)

42

. Reconsideration Denied June 6, 2016.

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 127 A.3d 894
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2678 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2678

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of 
the statute of limitations with regard to certain offenses committed by 
the President of the United States during or prior to tenure in office, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2019

 Mr. Nadler (for himself, Mr. Swalwell of California, and Mr. Deutch) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of 
the statute of limitations with regard to certain offenses committed by 
the President of the United States during or prior to tenure in office, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No President is Above the Law Act''.

SEC. 2. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

    (a) Offenses Committed by the President During or Prior to Tenure 
in Office.--Section 3282 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Offenses Committed by the President During or Prior to Tenure 
in Office.--In the case of any person serving as President of the 
United States, the duration of that person's tenure in office shall not 
be considered for purposes of any statute of limitations applicable to 
any Federal criminal offense committed by that person (including any 
offenses committed during any period of time preceding such tenure in 
office).''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any offense committed before the date of the enactment of this 
section, if the statute of limitations applicable to that offense had 
not run as of such date.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-5769.

#### Ronald Andrew Buchanan, Sr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 937, 131 S. Ct. 344,

178 L. Ed. 2d 223,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7398.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 604 F.3d 517.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1373

ROGER A. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NEXT DAY BLINDS CORPORATION; GREAT WINDOWS SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-02069-WMN)

Submitted: November 25, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Boniface K. Cobbina, LAW OFFICES OF BONIFACE K. COBBINA, P.C.,

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Meredith S. Campbell, Stacey 

L. Schwaber, SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P.A., 

Potomac, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger A. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

orders dismissing his employment discrimination action and 

denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson 

v. Next Day Blinds Corp., No. 1:09-cv-02069-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 1, 

2012; Feb 21, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3730-3731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1683]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1165-000]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, Virginia Electric and Power 
Company (Virginia Power), tendered for filing Service Agreements 
between Virginia Electric and Power Company and Wisconsin Power and 
Light Company and Horizon Energy Company under the FERC Electric Tariff 
(Original Volume No. 4), which was accepted by order of the Commission 
dated November 6, 1997 in Docket No. ER97-3561-001. Under the tendered 
Service Agreements, Virginia Power will provide services to Wisconsin 
Power and Light Company and Horizon Energy Company under the rates, 
terms and conditions of the applicable Service Schedules included in 
the Tariff. Virginia Power requests effective dates of the Service 
Agreements to be November 24, 1997, for Wisconsin Power and Light 
Company and December 22, 1997, for Horizon Energy Company.
    Copies of the filing were served upon Wisconsin Power and Light 
Company and Horizon Energy Company, the Wisconsin Public Service 
Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the North 
Carolina Utilities Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the

[[Page 3731]]

Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1683 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification of the

Chief Financial Officer



I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra
Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/s/ Michael SmithMichael SmithMarch 31, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2583 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2583

  To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

  Mr. Cleaver (for himself and Mr. Graves of Missouri) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION.

    (a) Designation.--Union Station, located at 40 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as ``Harry S. 
Truman Union Station''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry S. 
Truman Union Station''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triton PCS,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, David D. Clark,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as appropriate, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                         /s/ David D. Clark
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name: David D. Clark
                                         Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                         Date: November 12, 2002
No. 10-5075.

#### Michael Paul Harbst, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 237,

178 L. Ed. 2d 158,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6097.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
May 9, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROSALIE BRANDY HART, Appellant

NO. 14-12-01014-CV V.

PAUL ROBERT HART, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on September 20, 2012. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Rosalie Brandy Hart.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.