alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19166]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 090705C]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings; 
Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public scoping meetings, request for comments; 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 12, 2005, a notice of public hearings by the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council was announced in the Federal 
Register. That document contained an error in relation to the comment 
acceptance period under the DATES heading. This document corrects that 
error. All other information remains the same.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until October 31, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through any of the following 
methods:
    <bullet> Mail: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904
    <bullet> Fax: 302-674-5399
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbb2b5bdb49bb6babdb6b8f5b4a9bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be2e5ede4cbe6eaede6e8a5e4f9ec">[email protected]</span></a>

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director 
of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management, 302-674-2331, ext. 19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In FR doc. E5-4969, on page 53780 of the September 12, 2005, issue 
of the Federal Register, under the DATES heading, the comment 
acceptance period was listed as November 15, 2005. The correct date for 
the end of the comment acceptance period should read October 31, 2005. 
The DATES heading of this document reflects the change.

    Dated: September 21, 2005.
Emily Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-19166 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60509 Conference Calendar

JOHN JOSEPH DEDEAUX, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CAPTAIN BANNISTER; SHERRIE PHILLIPS; EMMITT L. SPARKMAN, Warden; JUSTIN HALL; TODD GUELKER; PAULA GUELKER; E. G. NEALS; VERA SPEARS; WILLIAM PERRY; LIONEL SIMON; WILLIE GILLOM; JACKIE MOORE; JACQUELINE SIMS; RONALD WILLIAMS; SALLY SPENCER; DAVID HELMIC; JOHN SMITH; SHERMAN BUFORD; DOCTOR WELCH, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-159-S-A

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Mississippi prisoner John Dedeaux, No. 93417, appeals from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint. Dedeaux’s complaint alleged that he suffered an adverse reaction to medicine prescribed for a bladder infection and that his attempts to file an administrative remedy procedure (ARP) complaining of this problem were thwarted by unknown persons; that, after defendant Todd Guelker filed falseNo. 98-60509 -2- disciplinary charges against him, Dedeaux was confined in a shower stall for several hours until a disciplinary cell became available; that his confinement in the shower stall exacerbated a congenital problem with his left knee; that he was denied appropriate medical treatment for his knee; and that he was required to perform work which was inconsistent with his medical limitations. By failing to address in his appellate brief the problems related to his bladder infection, his inability to file an ARP, the allegedly false disciplinary charges filed by defendant Guelker, or the allegedly inappropriate work assignments he received, Dedeaux has abandoned these issues. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(a)(9)(A). Dedeaux does not suggest that his relatively brief confinement in the shower stall was cruel and unusual punishment

per se , and this court has held that a short period of confinement under unpleasant conditions does not violate the constitution. See Davis v. Scott , 157 F.3d 1003, 1004-06 (5th Cir. 1998). Nothing in the record suggests that the defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to a serious medical problem when they confined Dedeaux in the shower stall. Farmer v.

Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Dedeaux received constitutionally adequate medical treatment. His disagreement with that treatment will not support a § 1983 claim. Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).No. 98-60509 -3-

AFFIRMED.
SCOT-17-0000811

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

_________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF CONTESTED CASE HEARING RE CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE APPLICATION (CDUA) HA-3568 FOR THE THIRTY METER TELESCOPE AT THE MAUNA KEA SCIENCE RESERVE, KA # OHE MAUKA, HAMAKUA, HAWAI # I, TMK (3)404015:009

_________________________________________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

(BLNR-CC-16-002 (Agency Appeal))

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FILING FEES (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Nakayama, J., recused)

Upon consideration of Temple of Lono’s motion to set aside the order dismissing the appeal for non-payment of the filing fees, filed on January 8, 2018, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that good cause exists for the untimely payment of the filing fees, which was received by the appellate clerks’ office on January 11, 2018. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted. The January 4, 2018 order dismissing the appeal for non-payment of the filing fees is set aside, and the appeal is reinstated.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 12, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCOT-17-0000811 12-JAN-2018 02:34 PM
Catrina JARRETT v. William Andrew JARRETT

No. 354P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 28, 2016.

G. Russell Kornegay, III, Attorney at Law, Preston O. Odom, III, Attorney at Law, John Paul Tsahakis, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Jarrett, William Andrew.

Catrina Jarrett, Celia Pistolis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, TeAndra Miller, Attorney at Law, Cary, Amy Vukovich, Attorney at Law, Emma Smiley, Attorney at Law, for Jarrett, Catrina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of September 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of October 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th of September 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of October 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of October 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of October 2016."
In the MATTER OF: W.C.D.

No. 456P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, Mardi Jean Ditenhafer, for Ditenhafer, Mardi.

Roger A. Askew, Attorney at Law, for Wake County Human Services.

Erica R. Messimer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for GAL.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of December 2016 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
The Fidelity Bank v. N.C. Department of Revenue

392A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 29, 2016

Donalt J. Eglinton, Attorney at Law, New Bern, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Amy P. Wang, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for The Fidelity Bank.

Perry J. Pelaez, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Revenue.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 28th of December 2016 by Petitioner:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of December 2016."

*531Petitioner shall have up to and including the 7th day of February 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2009267EN.01005702.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/57

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Promomadrid v OHIM (MADRIDEXPORTA)

(Case T-180/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark MADRIDEXPORTA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 267/99

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Promomadrid Desarrollo Internacional de Madrid, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark MADRIDEXPORTA as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133133 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. WORKING, INC., Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Justices Appellee,

v SC: 133133 COA: 264356 Oakland CC: 2004-058369-CB ELAINE D. HEITSCH, Personal Representative of the Estate of AGNES DARDEN, Deceased,Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Paul Tidwell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 5, 2013  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate Dis trict of T exas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00326

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324

- 595838

- 16
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Woma ck 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### H.L., A 

### C HILD2 MEMOR

ANDUM OPINION Appella nts filed an “Emerge ncy No tice of Appeal” on Oct ober 20 , 2020, in
which they state that they are appealing the trial court’s denial of their petition for writ of habeas corpus. We sent Appellants a letter on October 27, 2020, noting our

conce rn tha t we may not have juri sdiction over this appeal because the trial court
clerk had informed this court that the trial judge ha s not signed an order in this case and that it appear s there are no final judgments or ord er s subject to app eal. See Tex.
R. App. P. 2 6.1(a). In the letter, we informed Appellants that they had until November 16, 2020, to furnish this court with a signed copy of the order the y seek to appeal. We a ls o advised Appellants that if no o rder h a d b een signed and fu r nished to this court by November 16, 2020 , t his appeal w ould be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Although Appellants filed a response

to o ur lette r, they have not furnished this cour t a signed copy of the order th ey seek to appeal , nor have the y showed grounds for juris d iction

. Because we have no jurisdiction to address Appellants’ appeal , we di smiss the appeal for want of jur isdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 ( providing for filing of noti ce of appeal from
date that judgment or order is “ signed ” ) , 43.2(f) , 44.3; see also Sammour v. Fed. Gov’t , N o. 02

- 20

- 00268

- CV, 2020 WL 6601596, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Nov. 12, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op. ) (“There is no signed order or judgmen t in this case. We
therefore di smiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.”).3 /s/ Dana Wo mack
Dana Womac k Justi ce Delivered: December 17, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      37,139,418
<SECURITIES>                                49,188,332
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,037,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (64,492)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,894,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            91,858,983
<PP&E>                                       7,755,684
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,582,427)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              96,466,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,639,935
<BONDS>                                          6,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       285,062
<OTHER-SE>                                  85,120,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                96,466,831
<SALES>                                     13,717,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,950,893
<CGS>                                        6,741,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,741,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,419,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,733,424)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,733,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,733,424)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.341)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.341)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4076 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4076

 To address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane 
   and other home heating fuels in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2014

 Mr. Shuster (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Petri, Mr. Walz, Mr. 
 Ribble, Mr. Kind, Mr. Latta, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Dent, and Mr. Duffy) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane 
   and other home heating fuels in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Home Heating Emergency Assistance 
Through Transportation Act of 2014'' or the ``HHEATT Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PROPANE AND HOME HEATING FUEL EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
covered emergency exemption issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration shall remain in effect until May 31, 2014, unless the 
Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the Governors of 
affected States, determines that the emergency for which the exemption 
was provided ends before that date.
    (b) Covered Emergency Exemption Defined.--In this section, the term 
``covered emergency exemption'' means an exemption issued under section 
390.23 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or extended under 
section 390.25 of such title that--
            (1) was issued or extended during the period beginning on 
        February 5, 2014, and ending on the date of enactment of this 
        Act; and
            (2) provided regulatory relief for commercial motor vehicle 
        operations providing direct assistance supporting the delivery 
        of propane and home heating fuels.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) may be 
construed to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
from issuing or extending a covered emergency exemption beyond May 31, 
2014, under other Federal law.
                                 <all>
```
John Joseph ZINKAND v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 314P08-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 7, 2017

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

John Joseph Zinkand, for Zinkand, John Joseph.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of May 2017 by Petitioner for De Novo Review and Injunctive Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2017."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 19th of May 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Macon County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of May 2017 by Petitioner to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of June 2017 by Petitioner for Petition for An Order For Default Judgment:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2017."
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00236-CV

In re Faithann Jessop, Loretta Jessop and Kathryn Jeffs

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TOM GREEN COUNTY

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

Relators Faithann Jessop, Loretta Jessop, and Kathryn Jeffs no longer wish to pursue

their petition for mandamus and have filed a motion to dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: October 22, 2008