alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals 
and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or 
commercial property such as patentable material, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the grant 
applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse 
and Alcoholism.
    Date: June 7-8, 2000.
    Closed: June, 7, 2000, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Open: June 8, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: Progam documents.
    Place: Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Conference Rooms E1/
E2, Bethesda, MD. 20892.
    Contact Person: James F. Vaughan, Executive Secretary, National 
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of 
Health, PHS, DHHS, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 11, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-9719 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon McClendon, Appellant.

— Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), rendered on November 23, 1981, to be recalendared before a new panel of this court when perfected, and assigned counsel relieved and new counsel assigned, all as indicated. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Carro, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
1	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	2	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	3	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	4	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	5	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	6	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	7	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	8	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	9	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	10	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	11	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	12	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	13	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	14	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	15	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	16	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	17	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	18	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	19	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	20	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	21	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	22	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	23	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	24	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	25	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	26	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	27	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	28	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	29	 



     


    

 

 



 






    	 	30
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-246-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Technical 
Conference

April 20, 2001.
    In the Commission's order issued on March 30, 2001,\1\ the 
Commission directed that a technical conference be held to address 
issues raised by filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 94 FERC para. 61,389 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Tuesday, 
May 22, 2001, at 10 a.m., in a room to be designated, at the offices of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10323 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6896

DERRANCE L. RAMSEY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANNY BROWN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00745-MJP)

Submitted: October 6, 2010 Decided: March 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew F. Lindemann, Robert D. Garfield, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, 

P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Danny Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for summary judgment on the grounds of 

qualified immunity. Brown takes issue with the district court’s 

findings and contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity 

because there are no genuine issues of material fact. However, 

the respective versions of the facts offered by the parties 

below were so divergent that judgment as a matter of law is 

precluded. And “a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified 

immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary 

judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not 

the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for 

trial.” Culosi v. Bullock, 596 F.3d 195, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995)). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 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
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Friendly Energy Corporation(the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"),





I,
      Donald
      Trapp, Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002,
      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 result of operations of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
      14th
      day of September 2006.





/s/
      Donald Trapp


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


Donald
      Trapp, Director
#### Hein HETTINGA, dba Sarah Farms; Ellen Hettinga, dba Sarah Farms, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, in his capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-15140.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 14, 2011.*

Filed April 21, 2011.

*733Alfred W. Ricciardi, Esquire, Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Bradley Cohen, Kelsi Brown Corkran, Michael Raab, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hein and Ellen Hettinga (“the Hettingas”) d/b/a Sarah Farms appeal the adverse grant of summary judgment in their action challenging the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) interpretation of the 2006 amended Arizona-Las Vegas Milk Marketing Order (“Amended Order”) as applied to them and seeking refund of $324,211.60 in assessments paid for the month of April 2006. We affirm.

The USDA’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to substantial deference and must be given controlling weight “unless an ‘alternative reading is compelled by the regulation’s plain language or by other indications of the agency’s intent at the time of the regulation’s promulgation.’” *Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala,*512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994) (quoting *Gardebring v. Jenkins,*485 U.S. 415, 430, 108 S.Ct. 1306, 99 L.Ed.2d 515 (1988)); *see Auer v. Robbins,*519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997); *Miller v. Cal. Speedway Corp.,*536 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir.2008).

Here, the agency’s interpretation of the Amended Order is contradicted by neither its plain language nor other evidence of regulatory intent. The Hettingas did not lose their producer-handler exemption status in April 2006 due to failure to meet one of the five “designation requirements” or fulfillment of one of the three “cancellation conditions,” and therefore the Amended Order’s new cancellation provision, providing for a one-month enforcement grace period, does not, on its face, apply. *See*7 C.F.R. § 1131.10(a), (c). Rather, USDA claims the Hettingas were immediately and automatically disqualified from producer-handler exemption status for the month of April 2006 because they exceeded the monthly three-million pound sales cap. *See id.*§ 1131.10 pmbl. Reading the regulation as a whole, we cannot say the agen*734cy’s interpretation of its own regulation is unreasonable. *See Or. Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.,*339 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 16, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00568

- CR

IN RE Justin SOWERS

Or iginal Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On August 14, 2018, r elator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. After

consi dering the petition and because relator is represented by trial counsel, this court concludes

relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion w ill issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on August 16, 2018

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s . 2018CR07490 , etc. , styled The State of Texas v. Jason Sowers , pending

in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6147 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6147

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2010

 Ms. Schakowsky (for herself and Mrs. McCarthy of New York) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS AS PHYSICIANS FOR 
              PURPOSES OF FURNISHING CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 1861(r) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' before ``(5)''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
        (6) a clinical psychologist, but only with respect to the 
        furnishing of qualified psychologist services described in 
        subsection (ii) for which the psychologist is legally 
        authorized to perform by the State and who is acting within the 
        scope of the psychologist's license (or other authorization 
        under State law)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mary Calabro, Respondent, v Salvatore Calabro, Appellant.

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Willen, J.), dated March 24, 1987, which granted the motion of the. plaintiff wife to vacate an untimely jury demand.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision of whether or not to relieve the defendant husband of his waiver of the right to a jury trial rested within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and we are not prepared, under the circumstances here, to say that the court improvidently exercised its discretion *(see,*CPLR 4102 [e]; *Gonzalez v Concourse Plaza Syndicates,*41 NY2d 414). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### People, Respondent, v Thomas Termotto, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeals denied (two appeals). Memorandum: The motion of the District Attorney to dismiss the appeals for failure to file briefs within 60 days is denied. Briefs have been filed on behalf of appellant. Although appellant has indicated that he will retain private counsel, he has not yet done so. The appeals will be placed on the calendar for argument at the August-September Term of court on the briefs filed by assigned counsel. Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30, 2002
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                               By: /s/ Larry D. Smith
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Larry D. Smith
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


                               By: /s/ Frank L. DeLay
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Frank L. DeLay
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 8, 2002
#### In re RUPPANER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1897.)

In the matter of Antoine Ruppaner.

No opinion. Motion granted. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 212, 1130, and 39 N. Y. Supp. 763, 1130.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

# AGENCY:

Advisory Group on Electron  Devices, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, May 24, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Eliot Cohen, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.

The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on Radiation Hardened Devices, Microwave Tubes, Displays and Lasers. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. § 10(d) (1994)) it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: April 11, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-9414  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 12-3483(E)

JOSEPH J. FROIO, APPELLANT,

V.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before SCHOELEN, BARTLEY, and MOORMAN, Judges.

*

O R D E R

On May 29, 2015, the Court granted in part the appellant's application for attorney fees and

expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). On June 18,

2015, the appellant filed a supplemental application for attorney fees and expenses in the amount of

$28,886.62. The Secretary filed a response in opposition to the appellant's supplemental application

on August 7, 2015. On September 21, 2015, the parties filed a joint notice to the Court that the

parties had reached a settlement regarding the appellant's supplemental application and the

appellant's unopposed motion to amend his supplemental application (Joint Notice and Motion). In

the joint notice, the parties notified the Court that they have agreed that the appellant shall release

the Secretary from all claims to attorney fees and expenses related to this matter, in exchange for a

total payment in the amount of $18,000. Joint Notice and Motion at 2. Accordingly, the parties

moved the Court to issue an order granting the appellant's motion to amend his June 18, 2015,

supplemental application to reflect the total amount sought as $18,000 and to grant the supplemental

application as amended. Id. at 3.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the appellant's unopposed motion to amend his June 18, 2015, supplemental

EAJA application, to reflect the full amount of attorney fees and expenses requested as $18,000, is

GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the appellant's supplemental EAJA application, as amended, is GRANTED. 

DATED: October 20, 2015 PER CURIAM.

 Judge Moorman is a recall-eligible Judge who has been recalled to further service by the

*

Chief Judge. 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1).
#### Randle *vs.*Stone *&*Company, for use.

Where, at the term when a case was tried, the losing party made a motion for a new trial, which was approved by the court, subject to future revision, and ordered to be spread upon the minutes, and ' the rule *nisi*was made returnable to the next term, and where there was not sufficient time during the term to make out and file a brief of the oral and copy of the written testimony, and the court granted an order that defendant have thirty days after the adjournment to file a brief of evidence, “ subject to the approval of the court and revision of counsel,” this did not require the approval of the brief before it was filed, and if it was filed within the time prescribed, it was error, on the call of the motion, to dismiss it because the brief of evidence had not been approved.

Judgment reversed.

January 5, 1886.

Hall, Justice.
Exhibit 32



<PAGE>



      In connection with the Annual Report of Coventure International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John
Hromyk, the President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 the Company.


                                  By:/s/ John Hromyk
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                      John Hromyk, Chief Executive and Principal
October 28, 2003                      Financial Officer