alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-616-000]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 24, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 16, 1998, Northern Border Pipeline Company 
(Northern Border), 111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, 
filed a request with the Commission in Docket No. CP98-616-000, 
pursuant to Sections 157.205, and 157.212 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to 
construct a tap on its system in Will County, Illinois authorized in 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP84-420-000, all as more 
fully set forth in the request on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Northern Border proposes to install a tap to serve as a future 
point of interconnect with Amoco Chemicals (Amoco). Northern Border 
states that a tap would consist of a twelve-inch tee and valve. The 
estimated cost of the proposed facilities would be $52,000 which 
Northern Border would install on Amoco's property as partial 
consideration for an easement across its property. Northern Border 
reports that it would file to obtain Commission approval to operate the 
proposed tap, at such time Amoco elects to interconnect with Northern 
Border.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant 
to Section 7 of the NGA.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17327 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-5768.

#### Edward Lane, Petitioner v. Florida Parole Commission.

565 U.S. 921, 132 S. Ct. 346,

181 L. Ed. 2d 218,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6887.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Baym Satterfield 

~ir8men's Pm-don Ccmmlettianer 

Austin, Texas 

Ret Coztstruction of 

iSa. 7, V.A.C.S. 

“Mr. A. vaa a r.&ul 

of fire depswtnsmt part3 

eeblmdto ruDh utextent 

d at other types of employth8 Board grant him pwBt8rmnt 

y Wit to bs etnplay8d on the 

dlsablllty IS suah that he could 

on fobs other thm fire depertment 

"OwofourBoardah8ssuahraa#pemIlqgandve 

vould appreclats your ruling at your earliest aonvenle~ce.'~ 

Ipar purpaesa of this oplaloIi,ve as8uxm thatilmflreauD in puetatlon has mdm full aomplieoce vitb all other Pwl- 

~bu8 of At‘t. 6243-t. 
to 
I 

zr ui&Boardfidl8u l larttw offiotthrt8iinm 18 pnpthlly dlubled, vmt ir, wtwa he 18 only ale to pefox-mm o? tIm umaltmkkr o? l vor&nanbutlr ablstopmzeum 

and rotaln employment roawmably wIted to his phyrlorl condltion and ability to work, then the Board mhould grant patlal 

~lsabllity, oacodlng to th. da&roe thoraaf-. 

We trust that the above fully fxmiera your qubrtion. 

Your. very truly
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ANTHONY BRASWELL,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 569 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 3rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6186
SOLOMON SMITH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-218-2) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 8, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Solomon Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Ann Bullock Walker, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We note that the claims that Appellant attempted to add in hisresponse in opposition to Appellee's motion to dismiss, his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and his informal brief were not presented to the state court. Accordingly the claims were not exhausted, and dismissal was proper on that ground. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). As to Appellant's sufficiency of the evidence claim, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Angelone , No. CA-96-218-2 (E.D. Va., Jan. 15, 1997). Because the appeal presents no substantial or complex issues, we deny Appellant's motion to authorize preparation of a transcript at government expense and his motion for appointment of counsel. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the August 31,
1999 Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  794,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    840,504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,838,069
<PP&E>                                       1,744,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                 911,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,257,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,387,630
<BONDS>                                        808,413
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,069
<COMMON>                                       508,029
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,257,649
<SALES>                                     10,508,096
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,709,073
<CGS>                                       10,081,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,231,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,043)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,865
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 11-5297.

#### Scott A. Burnside, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 900, 132 S. Ct. 294,

181 L. Ed. 2d 178,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5550.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3.1. APPENDIX 3.1**

**MATERIEL RECEIPT -PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT SOURCE**

## 0. 

2

**AP3.1-**

AP3.1-1

APPENDIX 3.1
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40842 

Conference Calendar

 

RODNEY JAMES DILWORTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FNU VANCE, Officer; S. SIMON,

Officer; P. JOHNSON, Officer;

T. BOOTHER, Officer; FNU CUNDIFF,

Officer; JERRY BALLARD, Officer;

ROBERT RHODES, Officer; JOHN DOES,

Officers;

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CV-275

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

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rodney James Dilworth, Texas inmate # 632515, appeals the

take-nothing judgment in his civil rights suit filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dilworth had at least three “strikes” within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) when he filed the instant

notice of appeal, and he did not argue that he was under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. Dilworth is therefore barred
No. 00-40842 

-2-

from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). Accordingly, the district court’s order allowing

Dilworth to proceed IFP on appeal is RESCINDED as improvidently

granted. Dilworth has fifteen days to pay the full $105 filing

fee or risk dismissal of his appeal for want of prosecution. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.3.1.2.
No. 11-5713.

#### Shelby Bolden, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 919, 132 S. Ct. 343,

181 L. Ed. 2d 215,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7113.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 344.
"richardastrust.com" <richard@astrust.com>

09/11/2007 08:33 PM To Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, george <georgew2@comcast.net> cc bcc Subject link
For Follow Up:
Low Priority History: This message ha s been forwarded. Margaret Dominic from ARI called me this afternoon Hawaii time to give me the links of the ARI tech schooling links. He informed me that once a month, ARI people sit down with the EPA and go over new guidelines for training of technicians. I asked for any type of training methods for Hydrocarbon Refrigerants. All he told me was to look for ARI 700, 700c, and 740 from there most of the tech manuals are written. But, 700 on the recovery does not have any guidelines on h ydrocarbon recovery. I did inform him of a possible new refrigerant HCR188C. All he said was when it passes, they will get something together. He also sent me to NATE but told me no one has any training manuals on Hydrocarbon Refrigerant at this time. All I asked was when HCR188C passes what will these organizations do in training. He told me they will put something together. I thanked for his assistance and informed him that we were writing some guidelines with the help of the EPA,. All he said was the industry will look at it and put in their own guidelines in the future after my clearance. Richard
http://www.ari.org/education/overview/ http://www.natex.org/data.htm
Richard Maruya phone 808 2351890 fax 808 235 011 6 cell 808 5614688 e mail richard@maruya.net or richard@astrust.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e

- mail may contain confidential or privileged

information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the mes sage to the intended recipient, then please notify us by return e

- mail immediately. Should you have received this e

- mail in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
No. 10-11292.

#### Darnell Leroy Parrish, Petitioner v. Nevada.

565 U.S. 877, 132 S. Ct. 239,

181 L. Ed. 2d 136,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7014,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 127 Nev. 1165, 373 P.3d 949.
No. 10-8056.

#### Marcus Sims, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1206, 131 S. Ct. 1057,

178 L. Ed. 2d 874,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1006.

January 24, 2011.

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

Same case below, 398 Fed. Appx. 494.
Honorable Gene N. Fondren OpinionNo. C-409

Chairman, Subcommittee on Municipaland Private Corporations House of ReDresentatlves Austin,Texas

Dear Mr. Fondren: Re: Effect of proposedamendments to H. B. 20 and H. B. 371. Your request for our opinion states that the subcommittee of the House Committee on Municipal and Private Corporations Is currently consideringH. B. 20 and H. B. 371. Since the Introductionof these Bills, the subcommitteehas been advise.dthat litigationhas arisen. In an effort to avbid any prejudicialeffect by these Bills on such litigation,amendments to both Bills have been proposed. You have requested our opinion concerningwhether these proposedamendments would be effective to the extent that the provisiohs of such Bill will not affect any pending litigationor the title to real estate. The proposed amendment to H. B. 20 is as follows: “nor shall the provisions of this Act affect, in any way, the title to real estate, the ownership of which has been contestedor attacked or 1s involved inany pending suit or litigation.” The proposedamendment to H. B. 371 provides: “Sec. 4. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any revenue time warrantnor revenue bonds, the validity of which has been contested or attacked in any pending suit or litigation; nor shall the provisions of this Act affect, In any way, the title to real estate, the ownership of which has been contested or attacked or is involved in any pending suit or litigation.”

-1936-. 4

Honorable Gene N. Fondren, page 2 (C-409 )

H. B. 371 Is a proposedamendment to Article 1015g, V.C.S.,which authorizesany city or town to acquire any toll bridge within a distance of fifteenmiles of its corporate limitsand making provisionsrelating thereto. H. B. 20 proposes to validate certainproceedingsby certain citiesand towns under, among others, Artic'le1015g,V.C.S. The proposedamendments to H. B. 20 and H. B. 371 clearly Indicate on their facea Legislative intent to restrict the applicability of suchBills and to expressly excludeany application of either Bill to any party in any pending suit or litigation Includingthat inwhich the title to real property is In question. There are many instances inwhich such type of limitation has been placed. See; for example, Articles 2815g-7 and 2922a-1,V.C.S. It is our opinion that It is within the province of the Legislature to restrict the application of its enactments In this manner, and that the proposedamendments In questionhere will precludeH. B. 20 and H. B. 371 from affecting pending litigation,including that inwhich the title to real property Is in question.

SUMMARY ------- The proposedamendments to H. B. 20 and H. B. 371 are effective to the extent of making the provisions of such Bill inapplicableto any pending litigation Including that affecting the title to real property. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney 'Generalof Texas 

# AZ2 PAUL PHY AssistantAttorney General PP:ss

-1937-,

Honorable Gene N. Fondren, page 3 (C-409 )

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman John Reeves Pat Bailey Milton Richardson Ralph Rash APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Stanton Stone

-1938-
# J i"&^

PD 1070-14 PD-1070-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 2/9/2015 9:58:28 PM

Accepted 2/11/2015 3:53:35 PM ABEL ACOSTA CLERK IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

ADRIANBRONCHA ALEXANDER FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS February 11, 2015 ABELACOSTA, CLERK VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appealfrom the Tenth Courtof Appeals Waco, Texas 10-12-00281-CR
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: I. COMES NOW, Appellant in the above styled case, and makes and files this his request for an extension of time to file his Motion for 

### Rehearing andwould show unto the Courtthe following: Court Below: Tenth Court ofAppeals Cause Number Below: 10-12-00281-CRDate Petitionfor Discretionary Review Refused: 1-14-15 PresentDeadline for FilingAppellant's Motionfor Rehearing: 2-9-2015 Days requestedfor this extension: 5 days Date to which extension is requested: 2-16-15 Number ofextensions previously granted: 1 I. 

### The Appellee's request is based upon the following reasonable explanation of the need for additional time, within the personal knowledge of Charles W. McDonald, the attorney signing this motion, T.R.A.P. 10.5(b), namely: II. Continued extensive interior and exteriorrepair following severe 

### waterdamage to counsel's office has delayed my ability to getworkout. Counsel also had a briefdue in the Tenth Court ofAppeals onthe same 

### date as this motion andrespectfully requests an additional 5 days to file 

### Appellant's Motionfor Rehearing. The motionis partially completed. 

### Byprevious agreement, this motionis unopposedbyopposing counsel. III. 

### WHEREFORE, this Attorney for the Appellant prays that the 

### Court grant this motion and extend the time and deadline for the filing 

### ofAppellant's Motion for Rehearing, or the Court grant such additional time as isjust andproper."V Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Charles W. McDonald Charles W. McDonald 2024 Austin Avenue Waco, Texas 76701 Pone: (254) 752-9901 Fax: (254) 754-1466 SBOT NO. 1353880

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing instrument was served upon the State Prosecuting 

### Attorney, P.O. Box 12405, Austin, Texas, 78711, and Abelino "Abel" Reyna, McLennan County Criminal District Attorney, 219 N. Sixth Street, Suite 200, Waco, Texas 76701-1363, as allowed by rule and law, this 9th day ofFebruary, 2015.

/s/ Charles W. McDonald Charles W. McDonald
No. 10-10745.

#### Joseph Michael Griffith, Petitioner v. S. A. Bird, et al.

565 U.S. 847, 132 S. Ct. 167,

181 L. Ed. 2d 80,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6442.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 713.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 14, 2016

jam 

# Order

Clerk September 14, 2016

1 54136 ( 2 7)

ANTHONY EDWARD CIAVONE

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 54136

COA: 331220

SANFORD SCHULMAN

, Wayne CC: 15

- 008054

- NM

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED as moot, because Plaintiff

- Appellant has paid the filing fee in full.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 576-577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-183]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,845]


Onan Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama; Including Leased Workers 
of Act Personnel and Services, Incorporated et al; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on October 23, 1997, applicable 
to all workers of Onan Corporation, located in Huntsville, Alabama. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on November 7, 1997 (62 FR 
60280).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information provided 
by the company shows that some employees of Onan Corporation were 
leased from ACT Personnel and Service, Incorporated, Snelling Temporary 
Services, Olsten Staffing Services, Team Source Personnel, and Interim 
Health Care to produce gasoline engines at the Huntsville, Alabama 
facility. Worker separations occurred at these companies as a result of 
the permanent closing of Onan Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include workers of ACT Personnel and Service, 
Incorporated, Snelling Temporary Services, Olsten Staffing Services, 
Team Source Personnel and Interim Health Care, Huntsville, Alabama 
leased to Onan Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Onan Corporation adversely affected by imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33,845 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Onan Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama and leased 
workers of ACT Personnel and Service, Incorporated, Snelling 
Temporary Services, Olsten Staffing Services, Team Source Personnel 
and Interim Health Care, Huntsville, Alabama engaged in employment 
related to the production of gasoline engines for Onan Corporation, 
Huntsville, Alabama who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after September 9, 1996, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.


[[Page 577]]


    Signed at Washington, DC this 22nd day of December, 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-183 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>

                                                          EXHIBIT  21
                                                          -----------

                Falcon Products, Inc. and Subsidiaries



                    SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                    ---------------------------

     The following are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company: Howe
Furniture Corporation; Howe Europe a/s (a Danish corporation); Johnson
Industries, Inc.; Falcon Products (Shenzhen) Limited (a Chinese
corporation); Falcon Mexican Holdings, Inc.; and Falcon De Juarez,
S.A. de C.V., Fundiciones Tecnicas, S.A., and Falcon De Baja
California, S.A. de C.V. (Mexican corporations). Falcon Mimon, a.s.
(a Czech Republic corporation) is an 84% owned subsidiary of the
Company.
No. 10-10819.

#### Kenya Marquis Hutson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 851, 132 S. Ct. 176,

181 L. Ed. 2d 87,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6086.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 416 Fed. Appx. 662.