alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36669-36670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-62-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Refund Report

June 30, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 25, 1998, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) filed a refund report to comply with the 
settlement of the Gas Research Institute's (GRI) Docket No. RP98-217-
001.
    On June 10, 1998, Columbia Gulf passed on the 1997 refund received 
on May 29, 1998, from the GRI, as a result of the settlement in Docket 
RP98-217-001. This Docket was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) on April 29, 1998. The refund credits made on 
June 10, 1998 reflected Columbia Gulf's eligible firm customers pro 
rata amounts.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be

[[Page 36670]]

filed on or before July 7, 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 proceedings. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17889 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6376

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLODOALDO FAUSTINO SALAS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-12-MU) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clodoaldo Faustino Salas, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Salas’ claim that his sentence is not proper in light of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is without merit. We recently held in United States v. Sanders , 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. 2 PER CURIAM: Clodoaldo Faustino Salas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * See United States v. Salas , No. CR93-12-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2001). 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
No. 11-5916.

#### Ronregus Arnold Jordan, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 925, 132 S. Ct. 356,

181 L. Ed. 2d 225,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7051.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 635 F.3d 1181.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 484

_____________________________
J ACK D ZIEDZIC a nd E LIZABETH D ZIEDZIC , Appellant s ,

v.

US B ANK N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION as Trustee Successor in Interest to Bank of A merica National Association as Trustee S uccessor by merger to Lasalle Bank National Association as T rustee for Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Wmalt series 2006 AR 8 Trust
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Don H. Lester , Judge

.
October 24, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and W ETHERELL and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Brian K. Korte and Scott Wortman of Korte & Wortman, P.A., West Palm Beach

, for Appellant s

. Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee; William P. Heller of Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale; and Celia C. Falzone of Akerman LLP, Jacksonville

, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19275]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1222-DR]


New York; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of New York (FEMA-1222-DR), dated June 16, 1998, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that in a letter 
dated July 2, 1998, the President amended his previous declaration to 
reflect the incident period for this disaster as May 31, 1998, through 
and including June 2, 1998.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-19275 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
Exhibit
32.1













CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Community Properties Trust (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen Griessel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my
knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that:








1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
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/
      Stephen GriesselStephen
      GriesselChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      12, 2008
No. 11-5722.

#### Edward Harvey Stokes, Petitioner v. Oregon.

565 U.S. 920, 132 S. Ct. 343,

181 L. Ed. 2d 215,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6998.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 350 Or. 44, 248 P.3d 953.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3043 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3043

 To amend section 6906 of title 31, United States Code, to permanently 
            authorize the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 30, 2019

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick (for herself, Mr. Gallego, Mr. O'Halleran, Ms. 
Brownley of California, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Cook, Mr. Young, Mr. Stanton, 
 and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 6906 of title 31, United States Code, to permanently 
            authorize the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Permanently 
Authorizing PILT Act''.
    (b) Permanent Authorization.--Section 6906 of title 31, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2019'' and inserting 
``each fiscal year''.
                                 <all>
```
Table 1. Distribution of telephone status estimates for households with adolescents 13-17 years, United States, 2012-2018 

Year Proportion of cell-phone only 

households 

Proportion of landline only 

households 

Proportion of dual-use 

households 

Proportion of phoneless 

households 

2012 36.2% 3.5% 58.6% 1.7%

2013 40.5% 2.4% 55.3% 1.8%

2014 44.8% 3.0% 50.5% 1.7%

2015 49.3% 2.1% 47.0% 1.7%

2016 55.2% 1.9% 41.2% 1.7%

2017 55.7% 1.7% 40.4% 2.2%

2018 57.0% 2.2% 38.3% 2.3%

Source: National Health Interview Survey and American Community Survey.

* Defined as households with both landlines and cell-phones
No. 10-11071.

#### Willard Eugene O’Neal, Jr., Petitioner v. Greg Province, Warden.

565 U.S. 865, 132 S. Ct. 210,

181 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6488.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 921.
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

### Da+e!Deciember \^iO»5*"" DEC 23 2015

XD^J-CVD^o:. \%im$ 3?72 F.!nA3SO Sou4-U 

### Re;Cause No:l32225^A-WR-%22*-03 n S+yfectlN Re:Wiliram Wayward Free,maM,Sr. CUrK-Por 4W CoorA- of Appeal RO. Box 12302 A os4iM.Texas 727 H 

### Dear WVr.. AbeLhcosta, x , ,. Xr» aod»i uon4H^i •qou-'te -Ict:-qo^ Kmouj+hcif X address hau eouv4 appot'iJkd s^weu,M^oW\e^ A. u/.U ausuj.er tat) ie44ers CoMcefTul.A/<fMq UMA-da+a 

### base ^'.Ktore ,|M4en>re4*hoAi ^4^^^ twyes+.cja^o^ 4V&4Vie \s -te> have cfo/ue-YorN\e. J a/w oaaKiM^cjoll

### d^oarc -(Wh "^ (Lour4- W\re, UV -ho See«retW-f-for ^c (Oio w^Weouies4o k\s dW<ok sW 4pu-,are too<xI 

### kware. of-fti* .\ssuepLuMl ivjct add^4Vi^ i-s&oe, 

### uaurlej •uou.-b^JJouiaJDOoJr^'lU Mattel ^°Vr ^^ •
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Dennis N. Beal, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Corinthian
Colleges, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. May 12, 2004
    
    /s/ DENNIS N. BEALDennis N. BealExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 10-10845.

#### Jonathan Henslee, Petitioner v. Sherri Simmons, et al.

565 U.S. 852, 132 S. Ct. 179,

181 L. Ed. 2d 89,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6080.

October 3, 2011.

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

*90Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 275.
**CH 2**

**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

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

*Change 13*

**AP8.36. APPENDIX 8.36**

**DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS DELAY STATUS(MATERIEL RETURNS PROGRAM)**

AP3.36-2

2

APPENDIX 3.36

AP8.36-1

APPENDIX 8.36
September 22, 2015 

Dear Mr. Henderson: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA-2015-2718). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes and models for the proposed UAS operation. The 

descriptions should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information 

can be located in the aircraft manuals. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 10/6/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-5375. Non-Argument Calendar. Theodore WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Respondent-Appellee. July 29, 1997. Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Southern Di strict of Florida (No. 91-8542-CVNCR), Norman C. Roettger, Jr., Judge. Before ANDERSON, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM. As no member of this panel, nor any other judge in regular active service on this Court, has requested that this Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Fed.R.App.P .; 11th Cir. Rule 35- 5), the suggestion of rehearing en banc is DENIED. However, the panel modifies its original panel opinion, published at 114 F.3d 177 (11th Cir.1997), into two respects. First, we delete the second paragraph before the conclusion (which begins "The error in Williams' reasoning ..."). Second, we add the following paragraph to our discussion. Williams argues for the first time on rehearing that the Smith v. Kelso, 863 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir.1989), four-step analysis for determining whether a defendant's non-severed trial was fundamentally unfair has been supplanted by the decision in Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Williams asserts that Zafiro sets forth a new standard for determining when a refusal to sever rises to the leve l of prejudicial error, and that standard is to be applied by federal courts reviewing state court judgments in 28 U.S. C. § 2254 proceedings. However, Zafiro was not a habeas case. Instead, it involved a direct appeal of a federal criminal conviction in which the Supreme Court examined Rule 14, Fed.R.Crim.P., and established a standard for determining when th at rule requires severance. See id. at 539, 113 S.Ct. at 938. Ofcourse, Rule 14 does not apply to state c ourts, and it is not at all clear that Zafiro establishes a rule of constitutional law to be applied to state court judgments in § 2254 proceedings. We have no need to decide that issue in the present case, because Williams never made that argument in the district court; instead, he based his argument there upon the Smith standard. Nor did he make such an argument in this Court before we issued our decision.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 13-0703

Filed August 13, 2014

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAMAR ANTHONY JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes 

(plea) and Nancy S. Tabor (sentencing), Judges. 

Jamar Anthony Jackson appeals the judgment and conviction entered 

after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit a forcible felony and accessory after 

the fact. AFFIRMED.

Lauren M. Phelps, Davenport, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Amy Devine, Assistant County 

Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., Potterfield, J., and Sackett, S.J.* Tabor, J., 

takes no part.

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013). 
2

SACKETT, S.J.

Jamar Anthony Jackson appeals the judgment and conviction entered 

after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit a forcible felony and accessory after 

the fact. He contends the trial court failed to adequately inform him of the rights 

he would give up by pleading guilty and erred in accepting the plea. He also 

contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The entry of a guilty plea and its acceptance is a final adjudication of a 

defendant’s guilt. State v. LaRue, 619 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Iowa 2000). By 

pleading guilty, a defendant waives any constitutional challenge that would 

undermine the conviction, with five recognized exceptions. Id. A defendant 

retains the ability to challenge insufficient trial information or facial constitutional 

vagueness of the statute, claim a plea was uninformed or involuntary, bring a 

double jeopardy claim, challenge the sentencing statute, and claim ineffective 

assistance of counsel that calls into question the voluntariness of the plea. Id. 

He challenges only the last of these on appeal, arguing counsel was ineffective in 

failing to challenge the court’s inadequate plea colloquy. Because the record is 

not adequately developed to allow us to consider the merits of this claim on direct 

appeal, we affirm Jackson’s conviction and preserve his ineffective-assistance 

claims for further development during postconviction proceedings. See State v. 

Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          22,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,721,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,954,069
<PP&E>                                       4,958,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,779,909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,509,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,338,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,424,336
<OTHER-SE>                                   (946,079)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,509,815
<SALES>                                      3,847,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,847,173
<CGS>                                        2,786,361
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,786,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               223,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                763,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                   280,623
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            483,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   483,124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>