alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1671

___________ Janice E. McDonald; * William H. McDonald, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United v. * States Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal * [UNPUBLISHED] Revenue, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 18, 2009 Filed: January 19, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. On April 6, 2006, the Commissioner of In ternal Revenue, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6212, issued a notice of deficiency to th e McDonalds for the taxable year 2002. In response, on July 12, 2006, the McDonalds mailed a petition to the Tax Court challenging the deficiency notice pursuan t to 26 U.S.C. § 6213. Section 6213 states that within ninety days after the notice of deficiency is mailed, the taxpayer may file1 Although the McDonalds' petition was si gned and dated July 3, 2006, it was not postmarked until July 12, 2006, and wa s not received by the Tax Court until July 17, 2006. The ninety day period expired July 5, 2006.
2 The Honorable Harry A. Haines, United States Tax Court Judge. -2- a petition with the Tax Court for a re determination of the deficiency. 1 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a). Both parties filed motions to dismiss, and the Tax Court 2granted the Commissioner's motion. The Tax Court reas oned that because the McDonalds filed their action more than ninety days af ter the Commissioner issued the notice of deficiency, it did not have jurisdiction over the action. The Tax Court's limited jurisdiction de pends upon express statutory authority. Comm'r v. McCoy , 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987). Because the McDonalds did not meet the jurisdictional timely filing requirement in26 U.S.C. § 6213(a), the Tax Court did not have jurisdiction and correctly dismissed th e case. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
No. 09-520.

#### CSX Transportation, Inc., Petitioner v. Alabama Department of Revenue, et al.

562 U.S. 997, 131 S. Ct. 445,

178 L. Ed. 2d 346,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8328.

October 29, 2010.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate *347in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Morales, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 908]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from the judgments of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered January 25, 2013, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
DLA Land and Maritime deputy commander highlights national conference on tactical vehicle fleet
 By Kristin Molinaro
  Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Deputy Commander Kenneth Watson delivered a keynote presentation on behalf of the Agency March 3 at the Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Conference in Austin, Texas.




Deputy commander speaks from podium.
        Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Conference
            Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Deputy Commander Kenneth Watson delivered a keynote presentation on behalf of the Agency March 3 at the Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Conference in Austin, Texas.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Courtesy Photo
                    
                    VIRIN: 200303-D-D0441-0010Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Deputy Commander Kenneth Watson was a keynote speaker at the 2020 Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Conference March 3 in Austin, Texas. Watson was DLA’s representative at the annual conference hosted by the National Defense Industry Association. The forum brings together leaders from of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, military services, industry, contractors and suppliers to address present and future wheeled vehicle requirements. Watson’s presentation included information on the Service Readiness Dashboard tracking tool, the Agency Synchronization Operations Center and how to do business with DLA. He also addressed end-to-end global supply chain management and the roles and missions served by DLA. For more information on doing business with DLA, visit www.dla.mil
#### People v Franklin

3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1082 (Ulster)

denied 3/17/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40496

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO PADILLA-CARDONA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-159-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo PadillaCardona has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Padilla-Cardona has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40496 Document: 00513308484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-40496

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-40496 Document: 00513308484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
#### People v Hunter

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 536 (NY)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2311 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2311

    To exempt a foreign holding company from the application of the 
     provisions of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 22 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Jeffords) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To exempt a foreign holding company from the application of the 
     provisions of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY EXEMPTION.

    (a) In General.--The provisions of the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79a et seq.) shall not apply to a 
foreign holding company that has a gas utility subsidiary company in a 
foreign country contiguous to the United States and the State of 
Vermont, solely as a result of the acquisition, directly or indirectly, 
by the holding company of all the voting securities of a gas utility 
company that--
            (1) is organized and operating under the laws of Vermont; 
        and
            (2) has its service territory contiguous to the gas utility 
        operations of the holding company.
    (b) Applicability to Affiliates.--The exemption under subsection 
(a) also applies to a person or company that--
            (1) is an affiliate (as defined in section 2(a)(11)(A) of 
        the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 
        79b(a)(11)(A)) of the holding company described in subsection 
        (a); and
            (2) is not an affiliate of any other public utility company 
        organized and operating in the United States.
    (c) Inapplicability to Other Acquisitions.--The exemption granted 
by subsection (a) shall not apply to the acquisition or retention by 
any holding company of voting securities of a public utility company 
organized or operating within the United States except as provided in 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-6631.

#### Peter M. Espinosa, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 537,

178 L. Ed. 2d 394,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8421.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 426.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

June 8, 1998.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 13, 1998 
to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0229.
    Form Number: IRS Form 6406.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Short Form Application for Determination for Minor Amendment 
of Employee Benefit Plan.
    Description: This form is used by certain employee plans who want a 
determination letter or an amendment to the plan. The information 
gathered will be used to decide whether the plan is qualified under 
section 401(a).
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 16,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping--6 hr., 56 min.
Learning about the law or the form--1 hr., 44 min.
Preparing the form--3 hr., 47 min.
Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS--32 min.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 207,840 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15732 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16299]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2491-000]


Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 15, 1998.
    Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. (ConEd Energy), a power marketing 
affiliate of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., filed an 
application for authorization to engage in wholesale sales of electric 
energy and capacity at market-based rates, and for certain waivers and 
authorizations. In particular, ConEd Energy requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by ConEd Energy. 
On June 1, 1998, the Commission issued an Order Conditionally Accepting 
For Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates And Directing Revisions To 
Tariffs And Codes Of Conduct (Order), in the above docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's June 1, 1998 Order granted the request for blanket 
approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in Ordering 
Paragraphs (E), (F), and (H):
    (E) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by ConEd Energy 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (F) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (E) above, ConEd Energy is hereby authorized to 
issue securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, 
endorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of ConEd Energy, compatible with 
the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (H) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of ConEd 
Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities.* * * 
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 1, 1998.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20426.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16299 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Culture Action Team meets in Battle Creek

/ Published Aug. 9, 2023
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The ability to attract, develop, and retain a diverse, skilled, and agile workforce is vital to our continued success as outlined in the Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Plan: People and Culture. 

                DLA Disposition Services Culture Action Team                            DLA Disposition Services Culture Action Team            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Jeff LandenbergerVIRIN: 230727-D-YU183-201The Culture Action Team ensures the DLA Disposition Services’ workplace culture stays on the right path. One of their key objectives is assisting the DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon with the biannual DLA Culture Climate Survey. 

The DLA Culture Climate Survey is a way to assess workforce culture. As stated on the website, the purpose of the survey is to provide a confidential mechanism for employees to share their feedback on their work environment, and as a result, it provides an opportunity to engage the workforce and leaders in thoughtful, data-driven discussions that will lead to informed action.

Recently, Culture Champion Jessica Waynick invited the volunteer-based, culture representatives from around the world to meet in-person in preparation for the upcoming survey. Cannon sat down with the team to answer questions and establish survey goals with the group.                 DLA Disposition Services Culture Action Team met with DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon.                            DLA Disposition Services Culture Action Team                            DLA Disposition Services Culture Action Team met with DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Kelly BurellVIRIN: 230725-D-D0441-200

“One of the discussion points I have at each site visit is the importance of giving me honest feedback during survey season,” Cannon said. “The data we receive from the FEVS [Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey conducted by Office of Personnel Management] and the culture climate survey can be used as a tool to improve the culture of this organization.” 

In addition to pre-survey training, the team also received training from the Equal Employment Opportunity & Diversity Office and met with visiting regional directors, directorate directors and DLA Disposition Services Deputy Director U.S. Army Col. Andrew Toussaint. 

“What does culture mean to you,” Toussaint asked the team. “I’m going to share with you one of my favorite quotes from Maya Angelou, ‘If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude.’”

Other agenda topics included finalizing the CAT guidebook for current and future culture representatives, touring the historic Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center, and attending leadership meetings, both at the major subordinate command level and higher DLA headquarters level – a first for most attendees. 

The team plans to meet again during the upcoming Leadership Summit at HDIFC in Battle Creek, Michigan, this October.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[OR-957-00-1420-00: G8-0074]


Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the following described lands are 
scheduled to be officially filed in the Oregon State Office, Portland, 
Oregon, on or before February 23, 1998.

Williamette Meridian

Oregon

T. 16 S., R. 5 E., accepted November 25, 1997
T. 41 S., R. 43 E., accepted November 25, 1997
T. 39 S., R. 4 W., accepted November 21, 1997
T. 20 S., R. 6 W., accepted December 30, 1997
T. 35 S., R. 6 W., accepted December 24, 1997
T. 28 S., R. 6 W., accepted November 12, 1997
T. 31 S., R. 10 W., accepted November 21, 1997

Washington

T. 6 N., R. 19 E., accepted November 21, 1997
T. 30 N., R. 7 W., accepted December 15, 1997

    If protests against a survey, as shown on any of the above plat(s), 
are received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest(s). A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    The plat(s) will be placed in the open files of the Oregon State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1515 S.W. 5th Avenue, Portland, 
Oregon 97201, and will be available to the public as a matter of 
information only. Copies of the plat(s) may be obtained from the above 
office upon required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest 
against a survey must file with the State Director, Bureau of Land 
Management, Portland, Oregon, a notice that they wish to protest prior 
to the proposed official filing date given above. A statement of 
reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the 
State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the 
State Director within thirty (30) days after the proposed official 
filing date.
    The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, survey and 
subdivision. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land 
Management, (1515 S.W. 5th Avenue) P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 
97208.

    Dated: January 9, 1998.
Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,
Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.
[FR Doc. 98-1634 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GLENN C. VINYARD JR.,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00169

- CR

Appeal from the

142nd District Court

of Midland County, Texas

(TC# CR50477)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in a portion

of the trial court’s judgment. We therefore modify the trial court’s judgment to include the

following language:

“Court costs recoverable from Defendant under the terms of this judgment shall not include

costs for the preparation of the reporter’s record, since Defendant was indigent at or near the time

of conviction. Furthermore, per the Eastland Court of Appeals’ decision in King v. State , No. 11

-

17

- 00179

- CR, 2019 WL 3023513, at *5 (Tex.App.

– Eastland July 11, 2019, pet. filed) ( mem. op.,

not designated for publication), any time payment fee may only be constitutionally enforced

against Defendant up to the amount of $2.50, absent any further decision from the Texa s Court of2

Criminal Appeals to the contrary.”

We therefore modify the trial court’s judgment to include the above

- referenced language,

and affirm the judgment of the court below , as modified . This decision shall be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3758-3759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Division 
of Extramural Activities; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings:


[[Page 3759]]


    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date: February 10, 1998.
    Time: 2:00 p.m.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Room 9C10, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Dr. Katherine Woodbury-Harris/Mr. Phillip 
Wiethorn, Scientific Review Administrators, NINDS, National 
Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 9C10, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 496-9223.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate Phase I SBIR Contract 
Proposal(s).

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 13, 1998.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Georgetown, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20007.
    Phone: (202) 338-4600.
    Contact Person: Dr. Lillian Pubols, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Room 9C10, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9223.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate a grant application.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.853, Clinical 
Research Related to Neurological Disorders; No. 93.854, Biological 
Basis Research in the Neurosciences)

    Dated: January 16, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-1718 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M