alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL22-44-000]

On Monday, June 13, 2022, Commission staff will hold a conference call with Grand River Dam Authority (Grand River) beginning at 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the conference call is to discuss Grand River's formula rate protocols. The discussion during the conference call will be limited to this matter.

                    All interested parties are invited to listen by phone. The conference call will not be webcasted or transcribed. However, an audio listen-only line will be provided. Those wishing to access the listen-only line must email Nishi Parekh at                     *Nishi.Parekh@ferc.gov*                     by 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on Thursday, June 9, 2022, with your name, email, and phone number, in order to receive the call-in information before the conference call. Please use the following text for the subject line, “EL22-44-000 listen-only line registration.”                

                    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free 1 (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.                

                    For additional information, please contact Nishi Parekh at (202) 502-8325 or                     *Nishi.Parekh@ferc.gov.*

Dated: June 1, 2022.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-12238 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
H. Con. Res. 18 Agreed to March 21, 2013

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF THE CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE 

OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order 

of Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as the 

‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the 32nd 

Annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service (in this resolution 

referred to as the ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to 

honor the law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty 

during 2012. 

(b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on May 15, 

2013, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of 

the Senate jointly designate. 

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed by the 

Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event 

shall be— 

(1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and 

(2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress. 

(b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall assume full 

responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities 

associated with the event. 

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 

sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 

sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment, as may be required for the event. 

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 

restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 

Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations 
H. Con. Res. 18—2 

on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable 

to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
Brenda WHITE, Petitioner, v. SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN SURGICAL HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 19-8114.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
# C_2017105EN.01000401.xml

| 4.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/4

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

(2017/C 105/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that are presently designated in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

1

2

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities presently designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex X to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 26 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 15 October 2017, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

1

(2)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

2

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00329-CR

Johnelle James Davis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 55666, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty to burglary of a habitation in June 2004, and the trial court

sentenced him to forty years’ imprisonment on July 9, 2004. On February 14, 2005, appellant filed

a notice of out-of-time appeal in the trial court, but that notice of appeal was not forwarded to this

Court until May 13, 2013. In March 2012, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus.

In his application, he argued that he was entitled to an out-of-time appeal due to alleged irregularities

and problems at the plea hearing. The court of criminal appeals denied appellant’s application on

June 20, 2012. On May 13, 2013, appellant filed a second notice of appeal, stating that he was filing

“his direct appeal . . . which was initially filed on February 18th of 2005.”

Appellant’s 2005 notice of appeal was not timely filed, as appellant acknowledged

by titling it a notice of out-of-time appeal, and the court of criminal appeals denied his 2012 request

for an out-of-time appeal. Appellant’s most recent notice of appeal, filed in May 2013, is likewise
untimely and does not operate to give us jurisdiction over this appeal. See Castillo v. State, 369

S.W.3d 196, 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 16, 2013

Do Not Publish

2
# C_2017384EN.01000804.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/8

---

EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2016

(2017/C 384/31)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.era.europa.eu/The-Agency/MB/Pages/Management-Board-Meeting-42-on-27-June-2017.aspx

---
Cynthia M. YODER, Petitioner v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 19-5250

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2017384EN.01001204.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/12

---

SHIFT2RAIL JOINT UNDERTAKING

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2016

(2017/C 384/47)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://shift2rail.org/about-shift2rail/reference-documents/

---
Thomas Edward WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5540

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued May 31, 2013

Decided July 2, 2014

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Nos. 12

‐ 3120, 12

‐ 3258, 12

‐ 3322, 12

‐ 3654

B IG R IDGE

, I NC

. &

FTS I NTERNATIONAL P ROPPANTS

, LLC,

Petitioners, Cross

‐ Respondents,

v.

N ATIONAL L ABOR R ELATIONS B OARD

, Respondent, Cross

‐

Petitioner. On Petitions for Review and Cross

‐ Applications for Enforcement of Orders

of the National Labor Relations Board.

Nos. 14

‐ CA

‐ 30379, 14

‐ CA

‐ 30406, 14

‐ RC

‐

12824, 30

‐ CA

‐ 82116, 30

‐ RC

‐ 6783

O R D E R

Big Ridge, Inc. and FTS International Proppants, LLC lost unrelated cases before the

National Labor Relations Board. Petitioners argued that the Board lacked a quorum at the

time it issued decisions in their cases, see 29 U.S.C. § 153(b), because three of the Board’s

five members—Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn—were improperly

appointed under the Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1Nos. 12

‐ 3120, 12

‐ 3258, 12

‐ 3322, 12

‐ 3654 Page 2

In NLRB v. Noel Canning

, No. 12–1281 (June 26, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held these

three appointments invalid because “when the appointments

... took place, the Senate was

in the midst of a 3

‐ day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the

scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the

recess appointments here at issue.” Slip op. at 2.

As “in the absence of a lawfully appointed quorum, the Board cannot exercise its

powers,” Noel Canning

, slip op. at 3 (citing New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB

, 560 U.S. 674,

687–88 (2010)), we G RANT the petitions for review and V ACATE the Board’s orders in both

cases. We also D ENY the cross

‐ petitions of the Board for enforcement of its orders.
Mary Lou VOSBURGH, et al., Petitioners, v. BURNT HILLS-BALLSTON LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

No. 19-986.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Order entered May 22, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00660-CV 

IN RE ALTESSE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC. AND SHAWNA BOUDREAUX, 

Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 219-04978-2014 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Fillmore and Evans 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relators to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

 JUSTICE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Jurisdiction of         Names under which
Subsidiary                                     Incorporation          Subsidiaries do Business
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
Advanced Assembly Automation, Inc.            Ohio                    Advanced Assembly Automation, Inc.

Armac Industries, Co.                         Delaware                Armac Industries, Co.

Assembly Machines, Inc.                       Pennsylvania            Assembly Machines, Inc.

Assembly Technology & Test, Inc.              Delaware                Assembly Technology & Test, Inc.

Assembly Technology & Test Limited            England and Wales       Assembly Technology & Test Limited

Assembly Technologie & Automation GmbH        Germany                 Assembly Technologie & Automation GmbH

Detroit Tool and Engineering Company          Delaware                Detroit Tool and Engineering Company
                                                                      Peer

Detroit Tool Metal Products Co.               Missouri                Detroit Tool Metal Products Co.

DT Canada Inc.                                New Brunswick,          DT Canada Inc.
                                                Canada

DT Capital Trust                              Delaware                DT Capital Trust

DT Industries Foreign Sales Corporation       Barbados, West          DT Industries Foreign Sales Corporation
                                                Indies

DT Industries (UK) Limited                    England and Wales       DT Industries (UK) Limited

DT Industries (UK) II Limited                 England and Wales       DT Industries (UK) II Limited

DT Resources, Inc.                            Delaware                DT Resources, Inc.

Hansford Manufacturing Corporation            New York                Hansford Manufacturing Corporation

Kalish Canada Inc.                            New Brunswick,          Kalish Canada Inc.
                                                Canada

Pharma Group, Inc.                            Delaware                Stokes-Merrill Corporation
                                                                      Stokes
                                                                      Merrill
                                                                      Lakso
                                                                      Kalish
                                                                      Scheu & Kniss

Mid-West Automation Enterprises, Inc.         Illinois                Mid-West Automation Enterprises, Inc.

Mid-West Automation Systems, Inc.             Illinois                Mid-West Automation Systems, Inc.

Sencorp Systems, Inc.                         Delaware                Sencorp Systems, Inc.

Swiftpack Automation Limited                  England and Wales       Swiftpack Automation Limited
</TABLE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., 

Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP 

(LEAD CASE)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”) Unopposed 

Motions for Extension of Time to Serve Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 

20.) The Court, having considered the unopposed motion, and for good cause shown, finds that 

the motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadlines are extended for Cobblestone to comply 

with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 and serve contentions to Cisco Systems, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise 

Company, and Aruba Networks, LLC (“Defendants” to December 4, 2023 and the deadline for 

Defendants to comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 to February 12, 2024. 

All other deadlines shall remain in place absent further Order of the Court.

.

____________________________________

ROY S. PAYNE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012. SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 86
Lawrence T. NEWMAN, Petitioner, v. Robert W. YORK

No. 19-89

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fifth District denied.
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 4.8

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                          CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING  SERVICES  AGREEMENT,  dated January
12,  2004 (the "First  Amendment"),  is by and among  Bartholomew  International
Investments  Limited,  Inc.  (the  "Consultant"),  and  NANNACO,  Inc.,  a Texas
corporation (the "Client").

                                    RECITALS

         A. The  Consultant  and the Client  entered into a Consulting  Services
Agreement dated November 17, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A (the "Agreement"),  pursuant to which the Consultant agreed to provide certain
consulting services to the Client.

         B. Client and  Consultant  wish to amend  Section 2 of the Agreement to
extend the duration of the Agreement and provide for additional consideration in
exchange for additional consulting services.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  foregoing,  and the mutual
agreements, representations,  warranties and covenants contained herein, and for
other  good  and  valuable   consideration   the  receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

A.       Section 2 of the  Agreement  shall be deleted in its entirety and shall
         read as follows:

"2.      Consideration.

         Client agrees to pay Consultant,  as his fee and as  consideration  for
services  provided,  Three  Million  (3,000,000)  shares of common  stock of the
Client.  By amendment  dated January 12, 2004 Client agrees to pay Consultant an
additional 15,000,000 shares of common stock of the Client."




                                       29
<PAGE>

EXECUTED on the date first set forth above.

                                CLIENT:

                                NANNACO, INC.




                                By: _________________________
                                    Andrew DeVries, III - CEO




                                CONSULTANT:

                                BARTHOLOMEW INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS
                                LIMITED, INC.



                                By:
                                   -----------------------------------
                                   Name: Terry Byrne
                                   Its:




                                       30
MULTIVENTAS Y SERVICIOS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. ORIENTAL BANK.

No. 19-1096.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1721

ASRAT TADESSA,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A70-680-915)

Submitted: March 18, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mikre Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D.

McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior

Litigation Counsel, Daniel E. Goldman, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Asrat Tadessa, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, appeals the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her

motion to reconsider its ruling dismissing the appeal in

deportation proceedings. The immigration judge had denied her

application for asylum and withholding of deportation, and the

Board was not persuaded to reconsider. We have reviewed the record

and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a),

(b)(1) (2002). We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
* Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1374
EDWARD W. MURPHY, Petitioner, versus KENTUCKY CARBON COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-844-BLA, 88-2704-BLA) Submitted: August 17, 1999 Decided: October 7, 1999 Before ERVIN, * HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward W. Murphy, Petitioner Pro Se. Ronald Eugene Gilbertson, KILCULLEN, WILSON & KILCULLEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece, Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Edward W. Murphy seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1999). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Murphy v. Kentucky Carbon Coal, BRB No. 98-844-BLA, (B.R.B. Mar. 16, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED