alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR01-13-000]


DeSoto Pipeline Company, Inc.; Notice of Rate Election and Rate 
Petition

May 31, 2001.

    Take notice that on May 1, 2001, DeSoto Pipeline Company, Inc. 
(DeSoto) filed pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(1) and 284.123(b)(2) of 
the Commission's regulations, a notice of rate election advising the 
Commission of DeSoto's intended use an existing state approved 
transportation rate as a fair and equitable proposed rate for 
interruptible transportation services being provided pursuant to 
Section 311 of the NGPA, together with a request for the Commission to 
establish a transportation rate for Section 311 service on a certain 
portion of its system, as well as certain additional compression and 
fuel retention percentages applicable at specific delivery points on 
the DeSoto system. DeSoto's mailing address is 1201 Diary Ashford, 
Suite 190, Houston, Texas 77079.
    DeSoto states that it is an intrastate pipeline company within the 
meaning of Section 2(16) of the NGPA, 15 U.S.C. 3301(16). DeSoto will 
provide interruptible transportation service pursuant to Section 
31(a)(2) of the NGPA through its facilities located in Texas. This 
petition is intended to establish a new system-wide maximum 
transportation rate for Section 311(a)(2) service.
    Pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's 
regulations, if the Commission does not act within 150 days of the 
Petition's filing date, the rates proposed therein will be deemed to be 
fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount that interstate 
pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar services. The 
Commission may, prior to the expiration of the 150-day period, extend 
the time for action or institute a proceeding to afford parties an 
opportunity for written comments and for the oral presentation of 
views, data and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. All motions must be filed with the Secretary 
of the Commission on or before June 14, 2001. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14205 Filed 6-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14420]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-TAA-04482]


Master Pattern, Inc., Norton Shores, Michigan; Dismissal of 
Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Master Pattern, Inc., Norton 
Shores, Michigan. The application contained no new substantial 
information which would bear importantly on the Department's 
determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

NAFTA-TAA-04482; Master Pattern, Inc. Norton Shores, Michigan (May 
23, 2001)


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of May, 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-14420 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### Anthony ACHORONYE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1315.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 25, 2010.

Anthony Achoronye, Appellant Pro Se. Rajeshanand Kumar, Maria Katherine Patterson, Prince George’s County Office of Law, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Achoronye appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court from the bench. *Achoronye v. Prince George’s Cnty.,*No. 8:09-cv-02528-RWT (D.Md. Feb. 19, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte T. J. Hamilton.

October 12, 1936.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14962]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
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 the following 
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 the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel Mentored Scientists Development Award SEP.
    Date: June 28, 2001.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7214, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Roy L White, Review Branch, NIH, NHLBI, 
Rockledge Building II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-0291.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)


    Dated: June 6, 2001.
Laverne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-14962 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### In re: Matthew FAISON, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 10-2439.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. May 28, 2010.

Opinion Filed: June 8, 2010.

Matthew Faison, Jr., Lake City, FL, pro se.

U.S. Attorney VI, Office of United States Attorney, Christiansted, VI, for Respondent.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Matthew Faison has filed a mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, wherein he apparently seeks to compel the District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands to rule on a motion to stay proceedings he filed back in October 2005. Finding no basis for granting mandamus relief, we will deny the petition.

From a review of the District Court docket, an order dismissing the underlying complaint for lack of jurisdiction was entered by the District Court on April 28, 2004, and Faison’s reconsideration motion was subsequently denied in an order entered on March 21, 2005. Despite the fact that the complaint had been dismissed and the Clerk had been directed to close the *189case, Faison filed two post-judgment motions seeking to stay proceedings — one on April 5, 2005 and the other on October 12, 2005. Contrary to Faison’s present contention, the District Court disposed of his request to stay the proceedings in an order entered on October 14, 2005. Accordingly, his petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the District Court to dispose of his stay request is moot.

To the extent Faison may be seeking to challenge the District Court’s disposition of his post-judgment stay motion, such review was available in the form of an appeal to this Court. A writ is not a substitute for an appeal; only if a direct appeal is unavailable will the court determine whether a writ of mandamus will issue. *See In Re Ford Motor Co.,*110 F.3d 954, 957 (1997). Of course, a notice of appeal from the District Court’s October 14, 2005 order was due to be filed more than four and a half years ago.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a wilt of mandamus will be denied.
#### Paula Rosales ROSALES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75642.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*609Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 *.

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Paula Rosales Rosales, Las Vegas, CA, pro se.

Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Paula Rosales Rosales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rosales Rosales’ challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that she failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). Moreover, Rosales Rosales has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001); *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_______________________________

06-20-00012-CR

_______________________________

ROCK ALLEN CONNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 3rd District Court

Anderson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 87CR-18-33754

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the clerk’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as 

that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security 

number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification number.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). The clerk’s record includes a social security number. Rule 9.10(b) 

states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the 

contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in 

paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because 

the clerk’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in 

accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed clerk’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: August 31, 2020
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Conversion
Services International, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2008, I, Scott
Newman, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




1. Such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Conversion Services International,
Inc.




Dated:
March 30, 2009




/s/
      Scott NewmanScott
      NewmanPresident
      and Chief Executive
Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1368 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1368

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 14, 2010.
Whereas since 1939, June has been celebrated as National Dairy Month;
Whereas there are nearly 70,000 dairy farms throughout the United States, and 
        approximately 99 percent of these farms are family owned;
Whereas the dairy industry in the United States produces more than 170 billion 
        pounds of milk annually and contributes tens of billions of dollars to 
        the economy;
Whereas dairy products are an important source of calcium and have been long 
        recognized as an integral part of a healthy diet for both children and 
        adults;
Whereas dairy farmers are significant contributors to efforts to preserve 
        farmland and the rural character of communities across the country; and
Whereas the dairy industry has faced significant challenges recently due to high 
        production costs and low retail prices, which has forced many farms to 
        close: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals of National Dairy Month;
            (2) encourages States and local governments to observe National 
        Dairy Month with appropriate activities and events that promote the 
        dairy industry;
            (3) recognizes the important role that the dairy industry has played 
        in the economic and nutritional well-being of Americans;
            (4) commends dairy farmers for their continued hard work and 
        commitment to the United States economy and to the preservation of open 
        space; and
            (5) encourages all Americans to show their continued support for the 
        dairy industry and dairy farmers.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Anonymous, an Applicant for Admission to the Bar.

[874 NYS2d 393]—

*1236Per Curiam.

Applicant passed the February 2005 New York State bar exam and the State Board of Law Examiners certified her for admission to this Court *(see*22 NYCRR 520.7). The Committee on Character and Fitness has completed its investigation of her application for admission, including an interview of applicant *(see*22 NYCRR 805.1).

Applicant took the Michigan bar exam in July 2005. The Michigan bar authorities found that applicant engaged in misconduct during the exam by writing past the time limit. Her application for admission in Michigan was denied with leave to renew. Applicant renewed her Michigan application in 2008 and it remains pending.

Under all the circumstances, we deny this application for admission without prejudice to renewal following final disposition of applicant’s pending application for admission in Michigan. Upon any such renewal, we will consider all of the facts and circumstances presented by the application and determine whether applicant has established the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law *(see*Judiciary Law § 90 [1] [a]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the application for admission is denied without prejudice to renewal upon the terms set forth in this decision.
Exhibit
32.1



Certifications
of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), Robert Silzer, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of DSG Global, Inc. (the “Company”),
hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | Our
    Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit
    32.1 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | 2. | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations
    of the Company.                                                                                                             



|Date:
    December 18, 2018 | /s/
    Robert Silzer                                  
|--------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|                            | Robert
    Silzer                                      
|                            | Chief
    Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                            | (Principal
    Executive Officer and                   
|                            | Principal
    Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7649

MARCUS A. JOSEPH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director; LAURIE F. BESSINGER,

Warden; R. ADAMS, Lieutenant, ASU Supervisor,

in their individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-3516-2-17AJ)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus A. Joseph, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Kendrick Bell, ROBINSON,

MCFADDEN & MOORE, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Joseph v. Moore, No. CA-95-

3516-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Oct. 3, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register: May 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 36576]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my02-49]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, May 30, 2002.
    Place: 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC, Room 1000.
    Status: Open.
    Matters to be Considered: Securities Futures Products Rulemakings.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-13194 Filed 5-21-02; 4:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
H. Res. 1072 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 2, 2010. 

Whereas classes began at Louisiana State University, formerly named Seminary of Learning of the State of Louisiana, on January 2, 1860; 

Whereas Louisiana State University is the flagship institution 

of the State of Louisiana, and is a land-grant, sea-grant, 

and space-grant institution; 

Whereas Louisiana State University developed seven institutions of higher learning in the State of Louisiana so that 

educational opportunities would be available to the far 

reaches of the state; 

Whereas Louisiana State University has instituted the ‘‘Pelican Promise’’ program providing financial assistance to 

the neediest of students so that they may receive the benefits of higher education; 

Whereas Louisiana State University is designated a Research 

University by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and performs research for the benefit 

of the United States and the State of Louisiana; 

Whereas Louisiana State University has 650 endowed chairs 

and professorships held by distinguished faculty in the 

comprehensive disciplines that support the economy, culture, policy, and scientific prosperity of the State; 
2 

•HRES 1072 EH 

Whereas Louisiana State University offers degrees in 72 baccalaureate programs, 78 master’s programs, and 53 doctoral programs and has awarded more than 100,000 degrees since the institution’s inception; 

Whereas Louisiana State University administers 11 intercollegiate women’s sports teams and 9 men’s sports 

teams, and the ‘‘Tigers’’ have won 46 national championships, including 25 championships won by the women’s 

track and field team; 

Whereas Louisiana State University has answered the call to 

service whether it be officers for military service or operating the Nation’s largest field hospital in the aftermath 

of Hurricane Katrina; and 

Whereas Louisiana State University has provided a quality 

education, basic and applicable research, service to its 

State and Nation, and brought distinction upon the State 

of Louisiana: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes Louisiana State University for over 

150 years of service and excellence in higher education, 

and 

(2) congratulates Louisiana State University on the 

occasion of its 150th anniversary. 

Attest: 

Clerk.