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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before November 2, 2005 to be assured of consideration. 

## United States Mint 

*OMB Number:*                     1505-0195.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Revision.                 

*Title:*                     Race and National Origin Identification.                 

*Form:*                     Department of Treasury form TDF 35-08.                 

*Description:*                     This form will be used to collect applicant race and national origin information electronically. The data will be used to help Treasury Bureaus identify barriers to selection and determine the demographics of the overall applicant pool.                 

*Respondents:*                     Individuals and households.                 

*Estimated Number of Respondents:*                     160,000.                 

*Estimated Total Reporting Burden:*                     8,000 hours.                 

*Clearance Officer:*                     Tracey Orrison (202) 622-0814, Department of the Treasury, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 13446, Washington, DC 20220.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                 

Michael A. Robinson, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-19668 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4811-16-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2021

No. 04-20-00426-CV

IN RE THE ESTATE OF DONACIANO ALDRETE, JR.

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-18-70

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

We order the reporter's record due January 15, 2021. Appellant's brief will be due thirty 

days after the reporter's record is filed.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### Sheila Brawley PITTMAN v. Chris A. PITTMAN.

No. 2003-CC-1365.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Pittman, Chris Albert; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 97-11639; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 CW 2528.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.
Harrison HALL, Employee v. U.S. XPRESS, INC., Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier

No. 12P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Matthew J. Ledwith, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for U.S. Xpress, Inc., et al.

R. James Lore, Attorney at Law, James S. Aven, Attorney at Law, for Hall, Harrison.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 16th of January 2018 by Plaintiff 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:

*250"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Sanders, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 837]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.), rendered December 11, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 13 years and 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to give the jury a missing witness instruction with respect to an employee at the pizzeria where the robbery occurred. The evidence at trial established that the employee was not present during the robbery and only became involved in the incident when he briefly participated in a chase of defendant. Defendant failed to show that the employee could provide material, non-cumulative evidence *(see, People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20043

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO TORRES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-550-3

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Torres appeals his convictions following a jury trial for

conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or

more of cocaine, possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

cocaine, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments involving proceeds

from a specified unlawful activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A)(ii), (b)(1)(B)(ii), 846. He argues that the district court erred in denying

his motion to suppress drugs and money seized from his residence because the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 2, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-20043

2

initial search of his residence, based upon consent given to federal agents by a

third party, was not valid, and because the subsequent search of his residence,

based upon a warrant and information obtained from the initial search, was not

valid.

We “employ a two-tier standard of review in evaluating a district court’s

denial of a motion to suppress based on an evidentiary hearing.” United States

v. Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir. 1999). “Although the district court’s

findings of fact are accepted unless clearly erroneous, its ultimate conclusion as

to the constitutionality of the law enforcement action is reviewed de novo.” Id.

In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, the evidence is viewed in the light

most favorable to the party prevailing in the district court, considering the

evidence offered at the suppression hearing as well as the evidence admitted at

trial. United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 938 (5th Cir. 1997).

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government,

we conclude that there was no error, clear or otherwise, in the district court’s

finding that Jair Ibarra had apparent authority to grant consent to search

Torres’s residence and that the police authorities had a good faith reasonable

belief that Ibarra had the authority to consent to the search. See Gonzales, 121

F.3d at 939. As there was no error in connection with the agents’ initial search

of Torres’s residence, Torres’s challenge to the subsequent search of his residence

is without merit. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Carl PEARSON, Appellant.

No. ED 81424.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 22, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 19, 2003.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

Bradley S. Dede, Clayton, MO, David L. Thornton, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Timothy J. Lemen, Asst. Prosecuting Atty., Clayton, MO, for respondent.

Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Carl Pearson appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of assault in the third degree. He was ordered to pay a fine of $300. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Drew Anthony Nickason, * From the 441st District

 Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR39587.

Vs. No. 11-12-00356-CR * October 23, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
In the MATTER OF: E.D.

No. 125PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Mr. Wyatt B. Orsbon, Assistant Appellant Defender, For E.D.

Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Mr. Robert T. Broughton, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 4th of May 2018 by Respondent in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following *851order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

          - [Request for Application (RFA) AA211] 

                    A notice announcing the availability of Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 funds for a cooperative agreement for Support for Programs Designed to Reduce the Impact of HIV in Southern Sudan under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, was published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , September 7, 2005, Volume 70, Number 172, pages 53216-53224. This notice is amended as follows:                 
    - Page 53216, Application deadline: delete September 29, 2005 and replace with October 17, 2005
    - Page 53221, Application deadline date: delete September 29, 2005 and replace with October 17, 2005

Dated: September 26, 2005. 

William P. Nichols, 

Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 05-19691 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Teon Jamell WILLIAMS

No. 8P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. Teon Jamell Williams, Defendant-Appellant, for Williams, Teon Jamell

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Ms. Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of February 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of February 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
                    YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, 1996 AND 1995
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                     1997      1996      1995
                                                   --------- --------- ---------
                                                   (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT
                                                        PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                <C>       <C>       <C>
Net income.......................................  $   6,886 $   7,841 $   5,640
                                                   ========= ========= =========
Number of shares outstanding
  Weighted average shares issued.................  5,950,000 5,950,000 5,738,083
  Less: Weighted average shares held in
   treasury......................................  1,116,876   615,534    78,707
  Less: Average shares held by the ESOP..........    476,000   476,000   459,047
  Plus: ESOP shares released or committed to be
   released during the fiscal year...............     94,198    56,300    21,011
  Plus: Average common stock equivalents--
   primary.......................................    268,606   148,451    12,157
                                                   --------- --------- ---------
  Average primary shares.........................  4,719,928 5,063,217 5,233,497
Plus: Average common stock equivalents--fully di-
 luted...........................................     66,564    15,222     2,990
                                                   --------- --------- ---------
  Average fully diluted shares...................  4,786,492 5,078,439 5,236,487
                                                   ========= ========= =========
Earnings per common share
  Primary........................................  $    1.46 $    1.55 $    1.08
                                                   ========= ========= =========
  Fully diluted..................................  $    1.44 $    1.55 $    1.08
                                                   ========= ========= =========
</TABLE>
Order entered January 13, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01590-CV

HO YOO, Appellant

V.

JULIE ELIZABETH HORNOK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-02727-2018

ORDER

On January 2, 2020, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

because the clerk’s had not been filed. Before the Court is appellee’s January 9, 2020 letter 

asking this Court to remove her motion to dismiss from consideration as the clerk’s record has 

now been filed. We construe the letter as a motion to withdraw the motion to dismiss. We 

GRANT the requested relief and withdraw the motion to dismiss.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
STATE v. Robert Dwayne LEWIS

141P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 17, 2018

Ms. Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, FOR Lewis, Robert Dwayne

Mr. Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General

Mr. Thomas J. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General

Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Lewis, Robert Dwayne

Ms. Kathryn L. VandeBerg, Assistant Appellate Defender

Ms. Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina *252The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of May 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of May 2018."
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of First State Financial Corporation (the Company), each certify that, to such officers knowledge on the date of this
certification:



| | (a) | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 4, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ John E. Jed Wilkinson                         
|                       |  |     |  | John E. Jed Wilkinson                             
|                       |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                       |  |    
|Date: November 4, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dennis Grinsteiner                              
|                       |  |     |  | Dennis Grinsteiner                                  
|                       |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Louis R. Cappelli, Appellant, v Lynn Cappelli, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 887]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary *495relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated November 17, 1999, which denied his motion for leave to reargue his prior motion for modification of certain visitation restrictions, which was denied by a prior order of the same court (Goldstein, J.), dated May 8, 1998.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly treated the plaintiffs motion as a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able *(see, Perovich v Liotta,*273 AD2d 367; *Stillway v Guzewicz,*261 AD2d 392; *Roman v Konis,*254 AD2d 269; *McGill v Polytechnic Univ.,*235 AD2d 402). Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-4383MN

_____________

Christopher D. Aburime; Bobby W. *

Lucas; Blanche Clay; Joseph R. *

Richburg; Sandra Williams; Alvin *

Williams; Gwendolyn J. Stevens; Larry *

Washington; Marcia L. Atkins; Robert *

Garner; Richard M. Jones; James Baul; *

Sandra Holmes; Deartice Sanders; Susan *

Hagood; Gloria Williams; Marshall *

Adams; Brandon Carter; Carolyn *

Cockfield; Jeff A. Cooper; Darcy Davis; *

David Francis; Lloyd Gay; Charles *

Mack; Harold Richardson; Jarvis *

Shotwell; Anthony Turner; Steven *

Wagner, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Plaintiffs-Appellants, * of Minnesota.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Northwest Airlines, Inc., *

*

Defendant-Appellee, *

*

Air Line Pilots Association *

International; International Association *

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; *

International Brotherhood of Teamsters; *

Northwest Airlines, Foreman's *

Association; Northwest Airlines, *

Meteorologist's Association; Transport *
-2-

Workers Union of America, *

*

Defendants. *

_____________

 Submitted: June 8, 1998

Filed: July 7, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The Christopher D. Aburime appellants appeal the district court's order granting

in part and denying in part the appellants' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. The

appellants also contend the district court denied them the opportunity to file a

supplemental fee motion. Having considered the record and the arguments and briefs

of the parties, we reject the appellants' arguments. The consent decree governing

attorneys’ fees for this case sets out in painstaking detail the circumstances when fees

are to be awarded. Given this attention to detail, if the parties intended to award

attorneys’ fees incurred during the litigation of fee petitions, we believe they would

have stated so. The consent decree contains no such provision, however, and we

refuse to imply one. Cf. Jones v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 685 F.2d 236,

239 (8th Cir. 1982) (unless expressly prohibited by the consent decree, the district

court should award attorneys’ fees for litigating fee petition). The district court

correctly determined that the appellants are not entitled to the fees resulting from their

fee petition. We conclude that any further discussion of the issues will serve no useful

purpose in this long-running class litigation that now appears before the court for the

third time. We thus affirm the district court without an extended opinion. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
STATE of North Carolina v. Susan Marie MALONEY

No. 198P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Michael E. Casterline, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Maloney, Susan Marie.

Daniel Snipes Johnson, Stewart L. Johnson, Special Deputy Attorneys General, Seth H. Edwards, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th of June 2017 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 17th of August 2017."