alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12268]



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



NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and Industrial 
Innovation; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and 
Industrial Innovation--#1194.
    Date and Time: June 6, 1995, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Rooms 330, 340, 530, 580, 565, and 970, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Program Directors: Dr. Pius Egbelu, Operations 
Research and Production Systems, Dr. Warren DeVries, Manufacturing 
Machines and Equipment, Dr. Christina Gabriel, Integration 
Engineering, Dr. George Hazelrigg, Engineering Design, and Dr. Kesh 
Narayanan, Materials Processing and Manufacturing, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-
1330.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate unsolicited proposals as part of 
the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12268 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
1

NUMBER 13-13-00604-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ROY LYNN MCDAVID JR., APPELLANT,

v.

JOHN DOE LAND AND STRUCTURE OWNER, 

5701 COUGAR DRIVE, APT - D, 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78745, APPELLEE. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 261st District Court

of Travis County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001

(West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.).
2

Appellant, Roy Lynn McDavid Jr., proceeding pro se, perfected an appeal from a 

judgment entered by the 261st District Court of Travis County, Texas, in cause number

D-1-GN-11-003724. Appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on grounds 

that he no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss 

the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) 

("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

14th day of August, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., )

as Trustee for Merrill Lynch )

Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage )

Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, )

Series 2003-OPT1, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 1:15-cv-00015-PPS-SLC

)

JOY JONES, et al., ) Removed from Allen County Superior

) Court, 02D01-10-10-MF-871

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was filed in Indiana state court in 2010. Defendant Joy Jones removed it

to this federal court on January 16, 2015. (Docket Entry 2.) Plaintiff Wells Fargo’s motion

to remand (DE 11) is pending and not yet fully briefed. Jones’s motion from 2011 to

“Strike Plaintiff’s Assignment of Mortgage and ‘Original’ Notes and Allonges” (DE 7) is

also still pending, and appears to be fully briefed, so I will take up that motion.

Jones’s motion seeks to strike exhibits that Wells Fargo filed purporting to be the

mortgage, note, and assignment documents at issue. Jones apparently challenges the

validity of the assignment, and Wells Fargo’s standing to sue Jones. In effect, Jones’s

motion to strike gets at the very heart and substance of this case. A motion to strike is

not the appropriate means for doing this. The validity, interpretation, and effect of the
challenged documents are matters properly addressed in other ways, through

dispositive motions or trial for example, but not a motion to strike.

THEREFORE Jones’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Assignment of Mortgage and

“Original” Notes and Allonges is DENIED. (DE 7.)

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 16, 2015

/s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
Jesse Joe GUTIERREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9772.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Kenneth L. VONEIDA, petitioner, v. Kevin STOEHR, et al.

No. 13-189.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing 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: 95-12369]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5208-9]


Open Meeting of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration 
Dialogue Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: FACA Committee Meeting--Federal Facilities Environmental 
Restoration Dialogue Committee.

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

SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), we are giving notice of the next 
meeting of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue 
Committee. The meeting is open to the public without advance 
registration.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues related to 
improving the Federal facilities environmental restoration process.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 6, 1995, from 9 a.m. until 5 
p.m. and on June 7, 1995, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton City Centre, 1143 
New Hampshire Ave, NW., Washington D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons needing further information on 
the meeting or on the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration 
Dialogue Committee should contact Sven-Erik Kaiser, Federal Facilities 
Restoration and Reuse Office (5101), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-5138.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
Sven-Erik Kaiser,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 95-12369 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Ralph Sherman WILKINS, petitioner, v. Todd ALLEN.

No. 12-10125.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
INCLUDED IN PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         $37,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,659
<PP&E>                                          11,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,742
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,400
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,903
<SALES>                                         39,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,483
<CGS>                                           24,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,017
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,364
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,364
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27944-27945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12928]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[ID12-1-6992b; FRL -5206-7]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Idaho on April 14, 1992 for 
the City of Pinehurst PM-10 nonattainment area (59 FR 43745 (August 25, 
1994)) as satisfying certain PM-10 planning requirements for the area 
just outside the City of Pinehurst which was designated nonattainment 
in January 1994. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, 
the EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 
direct [[Page 27945]] final rule. If no adverse comments are received 
in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated 
in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the 
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received 
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed 
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 
notice.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston, 
Environmental Protection Specialist (AT-082), Air Programs Section, at 
the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant 
to this proposed rule are available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the following locations. The interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air Programs Section, 
1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
The State of Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, 
Boise, ID 83720.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Cole, EPA, Idaho Operations 
Office, 1435 N. Orchard St., Boise, ID 83706, (208) 334-9555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: April 29, 1995.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-12928 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of G REIT, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:          (i) the accompanying Annual Report on    Form 10-K of the    Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/SCOTT D. PETERS       Scott D. Peters *Chief Executive Officer and President* *(principal executive officer)*Date: March 17, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’sForm 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general information language in suchfiling.
Robert DiBARTOLOMEO, petitioner, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections.

No. 12-8775.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.14

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") made this 30th
day of September, 2003 by and between TLC Vision Corporation (the "Company") and
B. Charles Bono III ("Employee").

      Whereas the Company and Employee entered into an EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the
"Agreement") dated May 15, 2002, and

      Whereas, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement as set
forth below,

      Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and
Employee hereby agree as follows:

      1. Section 8 (f) entitled: Termination by Employee within Eighteen Months
of Effective Date is deleted in its entirety and a new Section 8(f) is hereby
inserted in its place as follows:

            Termination by Employee for Any Reason. Notwithstanding anything to
      the contrary contained in this Agreement, Employee, upon prior written
      notice to the Company, may for any reason terminate his employment with
      the Company at any time prior to November 15, 2004. In the event of such
      termination, the Company shall pay to Employee, within (30) days of such
      termination, an amount equal to three (3) times Employee's Base Salary
      specified in Section 5(a) (as in effect as of the date of termination)
      plus an additional amount equal to the greater of (i) three (3) times
      Employee's Bonus for the previous year or (ii) the average of Employee's
      Bonus for each of the three years immediately preceding the date of such
      termination.

      With the exception of the foregoing, the Agreement shall remain in effect
      in accordance with its terms.

      In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment the day and
      year first above written.

"COMPANY"                               "EMPLOYEE"

TLC VISION CORPORATION

By: /s/ Elias Vamvakas                  /s/ B. Charles Bono III
    ---------------------------         -----------------------
Name: Elias Vamvakas                    B. Charles Bono III
    ---------------------------
Title: Chief Executive Officer
       ------------------------
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana

PAMELA REUHL 

Plaintiff(s) 

v. Civil Action No. 2:13cv404

ST. MARY MEDICAL

 Defendant(s)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

9 the plaintiff 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

 dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus postjudgment interest at the rate of % along with costs.

9 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff .

/ Other: Judgment is entered on behalf of defendant, St. Mary Medical and against the plaintiff, Pamela

Reuhl.

This action was (check one):

9tried to a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

9tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was

reached.

/decided by Judge Rudy Lozano on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

DATE: 4/30/2014 ROBERT TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ RMNagy

by 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00404-RL-JEM document 15 filed 04/30/14 page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) No. 2:15 CR 3

)

DION COURTNEY )

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY AND

 ADJUDICATION

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge (DE # 8), to which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(3), the Magistrate

Judge’s findings are now ADOPTED, defendant’s plea of guilty to the offenses charged

in Counts I and II of the Felony Information is now hereby ACCEPTED, and defendant

is adjudged guilty of those offenses. A sentencing date will be set under separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 21, 2015

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Frederick Karl JOST, petitioner, v. James HARTLEY, Warden.

No. 12-10705.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**FRANCIS ADAMS, JR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 404 WAL 2015** 

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David ZEBROWSKI, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6285.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2006.

Decided: April 26, 2006.

David Zebrowski, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

David Zebrowski seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, which the district court properly construed as a succes*204sive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Zebrowski has not made the requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Zebrowski’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). To obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Ze-browski’s claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

For these reasons, we deny a certificate of appealability, decline to authorize Ze-browski to file a successive § 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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.*