alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 38 (Friday, February 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8934-8935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-696-000]


New Mexico MSW2 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

February 20, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
New Mexico MSW2 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
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). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard

[[Page 8935]]

to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is 
March 12, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5838097868aaba9acaba096b0b5b5aab7b185a3a0b7a6eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e686b7c6d61404247404b7d5b5e5e415c5a6e484b5c4d00494158">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4173 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

April 27, 2009

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 07

‐ 2027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

TIMOTHY R. HARRELL,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Government’s Position in Light

of District Court’s Decision on

Limited Remand.

No. 06

‐ CR

‐ 20054

Honorable Michael P. McCuskey,

Judge

.

O R D E R

On December 11, 2008, we ordered a limited remand in this case so the district judge

would have an opportunity to review the matter and tell us whether he is inclined to reduce

the defendant’s sentence. The district judge has responded with a “no.” There being no

other reason why this case should remain open, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3191 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3191

To expand eligibility for the My Career Advancement Account program of 
 the Department of Defense to certain military spouses, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2019

Mr. Kim (for himself, Ms. Stefanik, and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand eligibility for the My Career Advancement Account program of 
 the Department of Defense to certain military spouses, 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 ``Spouse Employment Reciprocity and 
Vocational Instruction for Career Enhancement Act of 2019'' or the 
``SERVICE Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE MY CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACCOUNT 
              PROGRAM TO CERTAIN MILITARY SPOUSES.

    (a) Eligibility for Participants Whose Spouses Receive 
Promotions.--A military spouse who is participating in the My Career 
Advancement Account program of the Department of Defense (in this 
section referred to as the ``Program'') may not become ineligible for 
the Program solely because the member of the Armed Forces to whom the 
military spouse is married receives a promotion in grade.
    (b) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report regarding the Program. The report shall include the 
following:
            (1) An assessment of employment rates for military spouses 
        that identifies--
                    (A) the career fields most military spouses 
                frequently pursue; and
                    (B) the extent to which such rates may be improved 
                by expanding the Program to include reimbursements for 
                licensing reciprocity.
            (2) An assessment of costs required to expand the Program 
        as described in paragraph (1)(B).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20269]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than August 13, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Peter D. and Patricia A. Baichi, Solvay, New York; to acquire 
additional voting shares of Solvay Bank Corp., Solvay, New York, and 
thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Solvay Bank, 
Solvay, New York.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 24, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-20269 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Date: 15 November 2023 **********************

NSN: 8940-01-713-8140 (DSAP) * MONOGRAPH M4A18

 **********************

Item: Apple pie dessert spread

Document: PCR-D-005, Dessert Spread, Packaged in a Flexible Pouch, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 125 Component Classification: Secondary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80

Item Characteristics

Appearance: Thick, glossy, medium golden tan color with specks of brown spices and small 

particulates of apples and graham cracker crumbs uniformly distributed throughout.

Odor: Moderate sweet, cooked dairy, buttery, cinnamon, nutmeg, and slight apple.

Flavor: Moderate fruity sour, sweet apple, cinnamon, nutmeg, mild graham cracker, cooked 

sweet cream and buttery.

Texture: After kneading, thick, easily spreadable; not lumpy or pasty.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Excessive darkening, syneresis.

Odor: Scorched, sour, pungent, rancid, stale, metallic. Loss of brown spice.

Flavor: Scorched, bitter, sour, rancid, stale, metallic. Loss of brown spice.

Texture: Pasty, thin to watery.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

N/A

Special Notes

N/A
No. 11-5079.

#### Carlos McGrew, Petitioner v. Carol Gilcrease, et al.

565 U.S. 1150, 132 S. Ct. 1080,

181 L. Ed. 2d 798,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 434.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 888, 132 S. Ct. 266, 181 L. Ed. 2d 156, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5354.
SCPW-23-0000072

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

PAUL A. GARCIA and KIRAH-SHANTEL GARCIA, Petitioners,

vs.

 THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN N.A. WATANABE,

Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit,

State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE. NO. 5CC151000158)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the February 14, 2023 submission

from Paul Garcia, on behalf of the Defendants in 1900 Capital

Trust III, et al v. Garcia, 5CC151000158, we construe the

submission as a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court

for interlocutory review of the proceedings in the Fifth Circuit

Court and conclude that the Petitioners have failed to

demonstrate a right to such review. We further conclude that

the record does not support the conclusion that the Respondent

Judge has exceeded her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-23-0000072

21-FEB-2023

10:11 AM

Dkt. 5 ODDP
manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject

properly before the court in which the judge is subject to a

legal duty to act. See State ex rel. Kaneshiro v. Huddy, 82

Hawai,i 188, 193, 921 P.2d 108, 113 (1996). Finally, alternate

remedies exists in both the Circuit Court and upon a filing of an

appeal, pursuant to Rules 59(e), 60(b), 62(b), 62(d), and 62(g)

of the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 3 and 4 of the

Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Straub Clinic &

Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawai#i 410, 414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288

(1996). Therefore,

It is ordered that the petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 21, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reward  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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  operation of the
Company.

Date: June 22, 2004                        By:    /s/ Earl Ingarfield
                                                  ------------------------------
                                           Name:  Earl Ingarfield
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer/
                                                  Principal Accounting Officer


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or
other  document  authentications,   acknowledging,  or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required  by  Section  906,  has  been  provided  to  Reward
Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Reward Enterprises, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                 EXHIBIT 32.1-1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10226

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN RAY CHEEK,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CV-1514

Before DENNIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Ray Cheek, federal prisoner # 42969-177, filed a pleading that was 

labeled as requesting review of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3472(e)(3)(A),(B)(i) 

but was docketed as a notice of appeal. The district court denied him a 

certificate of appealability (COA), and he now seeks both a COA and 

authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from this court. 

Liberally construed, we will treat Cheek’s filing as a motion for 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 petition. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 

 

* 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

September 6, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10226 Document: 00514631531 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2018
No. 17-10226

2

2244(b)(3)(A). This court may authorize the filing of a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion only if the movant makes a prima facie showing that his claims 

rely on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of 

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear 

and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable. 

§ 2255(h); see also § 2244(b)(3)(C).

However, Cheek fails to make the necessary showing to file a successive 

petition under § 2255(h). Accordingly, Cheek’s COA motion is DENIED. 

Further, Cheek’s IFP motion is DENIED as moot. 

 Case: 17-10226 Document: 00514631531 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Operations, the Consolidated Balance Sheet and the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                              181,071
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       255,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,931)
<INVENTORY>                                         172,844
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    637,306
<PP&E>                                              531,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (230,572)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,545,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               911,404
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                807
<OTHER-SE>                                         (63,975)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        848,236
<SALES>                                             737,134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    737,134
<CGS>                                               473,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       473,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    734,283
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    4,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (475,541)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (475,541)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (475,541)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.065)


</TABLE>
No. 11-7761.

#### Robert Jennings, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1169, 132 S. Ct. 1121,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1000,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 653.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 434 Fed. Appx. 670.
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 3844 STANDARD 35.54 -3.07 12.67

Tolerance

1 3844A THIN GREEN 

LIMIT 37.36 -3.43 12.54 1.82 -0.36 -0.13 1.10

3844B ORANGE LIMIT

(removed 02/19/19) 36.8 -2.44 13.04 1.26 0.63 0.37 1.05

2 3844C THIN BLUE 

LIMIT 36.86 -3.46 12.28 1.32 -0.39 -0.39 0.93

3 3844D THIN VIOLET 

LIMIT 37.23 -2.91 12.54 1.69 0.16 -0.13 0.96

4 3844E RED LIMIT 35.81 -2.67 12.56 0.27 0.40 -0.11 0.45

Shade Number OD GREEN 522 Piece/Roll Number 3844

DLA/MARINE CORP SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT March 14, 2019

Fabric Nomenclature T-SHIRT, 100% COTTON, USMC CR/PD 02-04

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF
#### Crabtree v. Czech

2016 MT 326N

DA 16-0184

12/13/16

Reversed

Dist. 8 (Cascade)
* The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3061

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Jesus Ivan Romero, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 15, 2005 Filed: November 22, 2005

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The Government charged Jesus Ivan Ro mero with a drug conspiracy and a firearm offense. In a tentative plea agreem ent, Romero agreed to plead guilty to the firearm charge and testify truthfully agains t other suspects in exchange for dismissal of the conspiracy charge. After Romero refused to testify, however, the Government withdrew the offer to drop the conspiracy charge. Concluding Romero did not fulfill the plea offer’s conditions, the district court * rejected Romero’s motion for specific enforcement. Without reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his-2- motion to compel specific performance, Rome ro pleaded guilty to a different charge: aiding and abetting a drug transaction. The district court sentenced Romero to 151 months in prison. On appeal, Romero claims he is entitled to specific performance of the withdrawn plea offer, despite his refusal to accept its terms. Romero waived this claim by his unconditional guilty plea to a different charge. United States v. Arrellano , 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8 thCir. 2000) (guilty plea wa ives all nonjurisdictional defenses). Even if the i ssue were appealable, the distri ct court correctly ruled Romero was not entitled to specific performance becau se he refused to agree to the offer’s condition that he testify against other suspects. See United States v. Ayd , 25 F.3d 624, 626 (8 thCir. 1994) (government may with draw offer when defendant cannot perform conditions).
Romero also asserts the district court committed error in refusing to grant him a minor role reduction. This assertion fails because Romero did not carry his burden to prove he was entitled to the re duction. United States v. Johnson , 358 F.3d 1016, 1018 (8 thCir. 2004). Romero offered no eviden ce in support of the reduction and the undisputed facts did not support the reduction.
We thus affirm the district court.

______________________________
No. 10-9995.

#### Patrick Wood, Petitioner v. Kevin Milyard, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1188, 132 S. Ct. 1307,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1035,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1071.

February 17, 2012.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral *1036argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6400

MICHAEL ANTHONY BREYAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HENRY MCMASTER, Governor,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:24-cv-00565-BHH)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6400 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Breyan appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and dismissing Breyan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous 

and for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Breyan v. McMaster, No. 2:24-cv-00565-

BHH (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2024). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6400 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 09-688.

#### Timothy D. Pope, Petitioner v. Alabama, et al.

559 U.S. 938, 130 S. Ct. 1523,

176 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1387.

February 22, 2010.

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