alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13309]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. PR95-12-000]


Sonat Intrastate-Alabama Inc.; Notice of Petition for Rate 
Approval Pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's 
Regulations

May 25, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 22, 1995, Sonat Intrastate-Alabama Inc. 
(SIA) filed in the captioned docket a petition pursuant to Section 
284.123(b)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
(Commission) Regulations under the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 
(NGPA) for approval of a maximum systemwide rate for transporting 
natural gas pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA, all as more fully set 
forth in the petition which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    SIA files this petition pursuant to the Commission's Letter Order 
issued in Docket No. PR92-16-000 on May 6, 1994, requiring SIA to file 
a Sec. 284.123(b)(2) application on or before May 20, 1995, to justify 
SIA's existing systemwide transportation rate or a changed systemwide 
rate. SIA proposes to retain its existing maximum systemwide 
transportation rate of 29.4 cents per MMBtu for Section 311 
transportation services. SIA requests the Commission to determine that 
the rate proposed herein is a fair and equitable rate for performing 
Section 311 transportation services.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make a protest with reference 
to said application should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426, a 
petition to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 
385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before 
June 9, 1995. All protests filed with the Commission will be considered 
by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not 
serve to make the protestants parties to a proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party 
in any hearing therein must file a petition to intervene in accordance 
with the Commission's Rules.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13309 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Robert STRATTON, petitioner, v. Brian COLEMAN, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

No. 12-8093.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of *McQuiggin v. Perkins,* 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:14-CR-77 RLM

)

JEFFERY PAUL MILLER )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation upon a plea of guilty issued on August 20, 2014. Accordingly,

the court ADOPTS those findings and the recommendation, ACCEPTS defendant

Jeffery Miller’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of Counts 1 and 2 

of the Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and 18 U.S.C. §

1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: September 8, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT (10gg)

                         BRUSH ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC.

                Amendment No. 1 to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan
     for Non-Employee Directors (As Amended and Restated as of May 1, 2001)

            Pursuant to Section 12 of the Brush Engineered Materials Inc. 1997
Stock Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Directors (As Amended and Restated as of
February 7, 2001) (the "Plan"), the Board of Directors of Brush Engineered
Materials Inc. hereby amends the Plan as follows effective as of February 3,
2004.

            1.    Section 9 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

9. ASSIGNABLITY AND TRANSFERABILITY

            (a) Except as provided in Section 9 (a) and 9 (b) below, no options
or deferred shares shall be transferable by an Eligible Director except by will
or the laws of descent and distribution, and options shall be exercisable during
the lifetime of an Eligible Director only by an Eligible Director or, in the
event of an Eligible Director's legal incapacity to do so, by an Eligible
Director's guardian or legal representative acting on behalf of an Eligible
Director in a fiduciary capacity under state law and/or court supervision.

            (b) Notwithstanding Section 9 (a) above, options may be transferable
upon the death of an Eligible Director, without payment of consideration
therefor, to any one or more family members (as defined in the General
Instructions to Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933) of an Eligible
Director, as may have been designated in writing by an Eligible Director by
means of the form of beneficiary designation approved by the Committee. Such
beneficiary designation may be made at any time by an Eligible Director and
shall be effective when it is filed, prior to the death of an Eligible Director,
with the Committee. Any beneficiary designation may be changed by the filing of
a new beneficiary designation, which will cancel any beneficiary designation
previously filed with the Committee.

            (c) Notwithstanding Section 9 (a) above, options may be transferable
by an Eligible Director, without payment of consideration therefor, to any one
or more family members (as defined in the General Instructions to Form S-8 under
the Securities Act of 1933) of an Eligible Director; provided, however, that
such transfer will not be effective until notice of such transfer is delivered
to the Company; and provided, further, however, that any such transferee is
subject to the same terms and conditions hereunder as an Eligible Director.

            2. The Plan shall not otherwise be supplemented or amended by virtue
of this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, and shall remain in full force and effect.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 27597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12821]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / 
Sunshine Act Meetings
[[Page 27597]] 




Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 30, 1995.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-12821 Filed 5-22-95; 9:12 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
opinion). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at 

sentencing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A .0
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KURT JEFFREY ANGELONE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL FURST,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-36047

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05538-RJB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Kurt Jeffrey Angelone appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying Angelone’s motions to reconsider the voluntary

dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction

FILED

NOV 25 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Angelone’s motions

to reconsider because Angelone failed to establish grounds for such relief under

either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing

circumstances warranting reconsideration or relief from judgment under Rule 59(e)

and 60(b)); Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th

Cir. 2006) (explaining that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) “is used sparingly as an

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted)). 

Contrary to Angelone’s contentions, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Angelone’s motions to appoint counsel and medical experts

and his motion to compel discovery. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th

Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and requirement of “exceptional

circumstances” for appointment of counsel); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751

(9th Cir. 2002) (providing standard of review and describing trial court’s broad

discretion to deny a motion to compel); Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term

Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (identifying standard of

2 12-36047
review for appointment of an expert under Fed. R. Evid. 706(a)).

We reject Angelone’s contention concerning alleged judicial bias.

AFFIRMED. 

3 12-36047
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1633 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1633

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend Federal Tort Claims 
   Act coverage to all federally qualified community health centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2005

 Mr. Ney (for himself, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Davis 
of Illinois, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. 
  Alexander, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, 
 Mrs. Capito, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Taylor of 
North Carolina, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Renzi) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend Federal Tort Claims 
   Act coverage to all federally qualified community health centers.

    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 ``Protecting Every Health Center Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    Section 224(g)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
233(g)(4)) is amended by striking ``receiving Federal funds under 
section 330'' and inserting ``as described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) of 
the Social Security Act''.
                                 <all>
```
OCTANE FITNESS, LLC, petitioner, v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC.

No. 12-1184.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 01, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted.
Jose Antonio COSSIO, Jr., petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE.

No. 13-7171.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) Cause No. 3:14 CR 00055

)

JAMES LEDONNE )

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

Comes now defense counsel, Kevin Milner, and hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant 

to N.D. Ind. L. R. 83-8(c), to allow him to withdraw his appearance. In support of the motion, defense 

counsel states as follows: 

1. Defense counsel was retained on May 22, 2014 to represent the defendant. On this same 

date, the detention hearing was held in front of the Magistrate. Just prior to the commencement of 

the hearing, the Magistrate, for good reason due to events which had occurred in an unrelated case 

that preceded the defendant’s, specifically inquired of defense counsel whether it was his intention to 

represent the defendant throughout the entire case. Defense counsel responded that it was intention 

to do so and added that it was not his practice to withdraw, or words to that effect. 

2. Defense counsel meant what he said and still stands by that practice. However, in this case

defense counsel must move to withdraw his appearance. Certain representations were made to 

defense counsel by the defendant that were relied upon by defense counsel in making his decision 

whether or not to enter his appearance. The representations turned out to be inaccurate, perhaps due 

to miscommunication. Nonetheless, because of the nature of the inaccuracy, defense counsel believes 

the attorney-client relationship has been damaged irreparably. 

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 19 filed 06/11/14 page 1 of 2
3. Defense counsel has notified the defendant of this motion more than 7 days prior to its 

filing, in writing, as required by L. R. 83-8(c)(1). See attached. 

4. For the foregoing reasons, defense counsel respectfully requests that he be allowed to 

withdraw his appearance in this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Kevin Milner_______________

 Kevin Milner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kevin Milner, hereby certify that I did serve the attached motion upon all parties of record 

by electronically filing the same with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South 

Bend Division, on the 11th day of June, 2014

/s/ Kevin Milner_____________

Kevin Milner

1201 N. Main Street, Suite A

Crown Point, IN 46307

(219)406-0556

2

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 19 filed 06/11/14 page 2 of 2
UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(X)QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THESECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For quarterly period ended June 30, 2001OR

( ) TRANSITION   REPORT   PURSUANT   TO  SECTION  13 OR 15(d)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number 1-10602

**MID-AMERICABANCORP**(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

**500 West Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky    40202**      (Address of principal executive offices)                (Zip Code)

**(502) 589-3351**(Registrant's telephone number,including area code)

**NONE**(Former name, former address andformer fiscal year,if changed since last report)

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for a shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes    X   No       

(continued)
Clarence RANDOLPH, Jr., petitioner, v. LOUISIANA; and Clarence Randolph, Jr., petitioner v. Louisiana.

No. 13-6514.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12304]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5208-7]

Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc., Greer, South Carolina; Notice of 
Proposed De Minimis Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed de minimis settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has offered approximately 135 de minimis 
parties who sent gas cylinders to the Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. 
Site (SITE) an opportunity to enter into an Administrative Order on 
Consent (AOC) to settle claims for past and future response costs at 
the Site. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement 
for thirty (30) calendar days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the 
proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, 
improper, or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement and a list 
of proposed settling de minimis parties are available from: Ms. Paula 
V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Waste 
Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30365, 404/347-5059, ext. 6169.
    Written comments may be submitted to the person above within thirty 
(30) calendar days of the date of publication.

    Dated: May 4, 1995.
H. Kirk Lucius,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12304 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
```
PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP2000
      Ross Avenue, Suite 1800Dallas
      TX 75201-2997Telephone
      (214) 999 1400Facsimile
      (214) 754 7991




Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  To the
Board of Directors of The First American Corporation:
  We have
examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that First American Commercial Real Estate Services,
Inc. (the "Company" and an indirect subsidiary of The First American
Corporation) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for
commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as
the commercial tax service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2007
and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iii),
1122(d)(2)(i)-(iv), 112(d)(3)(i)-(iv),1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and
1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the
servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management's
assertion identifies the individual securities defined by management as
constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.
  Our
examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and. performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria.
  In our
opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing
customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is
fairly stated, in all material respects.
  /s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
  February
12, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


          I, Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex,  Inc.,
     a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  do hereby certify,  in accordance
     with 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as created  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

              (1) the accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
              for the three  months  ended March 31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully
              complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d),  as
              applicable,  of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
              and

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


                                                              PHOTOMEDEX, INC.


Dated: May 10, 2004
                                                By: /s/ Jeffrey F. O'Donnell
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Jeffrey F. O'Donnell
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



         A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 of
the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002   ("Section   906"),   or  other   document
authenticating,  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  PhotoMedex,  Inc. and will be retained by
PhotoMedex,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.