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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

      ( print page 59029)    

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Caribou-Targhee National Forests' Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, November 30, 2005 in Idaho Falls for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

The business meeting will be held on November 30, 2005 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting location is the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Headquarters Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Timchak, Caribou-Targhee National Forest Supervisor and Designated Federal Officer, at (208) 524-7500.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The business meeting on November 30, 2005, begins at 10 a.m., at the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Headquarters Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Agenda topics will include looking at funding for this upcoming year, briefed on project status from last year's approved projects, and welcoming the new Forest Supervisor/Designated Federal Officer.

Dated: October 3, 2005.

Lawrence A. Timchak,

Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 05-20320  Filed 10-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4778 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program to December 31, 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2010 

Mr. POMEROY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program to 

December 31, 2010. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Flood Insur5 ance Program Extension Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PRO7 GRAM. 

8 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the Na9 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2008’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4778 IH

1 (b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 

2 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 

3 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall be considered to have taken effect on 

6 February 28, 2010. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
The CITY OF CHARLOTTE v. UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

183PA16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 18, 2018

Benjamin R. Sullivan, Jr., Nicolas E. Tosco, Attorneys at Law, Charles C. Meeker, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, DeWitt McCarley, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The City of Charlotte.

Martin L. White, R. Susanne Todd, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, David V. Brennan, Attorney at Law, for University Financial Properties, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant Briefs filed on the 17th of December 2018:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of December 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua MCRAVION, Defendant.

No. COA17-1177

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

NEW TRIAL.
In the MATTER OF Paul L. ERICKSON, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000399 Opinion No. 27844

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted September 28, 2018 Filed October 31, 2018

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and William Curtis Campbell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Paul L. Erickson, of Ashville, North Carolina, Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:

**236By order of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar dated August 14, 2008, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in North Carolina for five years.1*N.C. State Bar v. Erickson* , 07 DHC 17 (N.C. State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Comm'n filed Aug. 14, 2008). Respondent, who was also licensed in South Carolina at the time of his North Carolina suspension, failed to notify the Commission on Lawyer Conduct in writing of his suspension as required by Rule 29(a), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

Following his five-year suspension, respondent was reinstated in North Carolina on October 25, 2013. After being reinstated in North Carolina, respondent, believing he had been reciprocally suspended in South Carolina since 2008, contacted this Court to inquire about obtaining reinstatement in South **237Carolina. This contact led to the belated discovery of respondent's North Carolina suspension.

We find reciprocal suspension from the practice of law in South Carolina for five years is appropriate in this matter. However, we order the reciprocal suspension be retroactively applied from the date of respondent's North Carolina suspension.

**RECIPROCAL SUSPENSION.**

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur. HEARN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

While I agree with the imposition of a suspension, I would not apply the suspension retroactively from the date of respondent's North Carolina suspension.

1

According to the order of discipline, respondent represented multiple North Carolina clients in 2003 and 2004 whom he knew to be participating in fraudulent mortgage-elimination and debt-elimination schemes. In relation to these schemes, respondent provided improper legal advice, made knowingly false and misleading statements in court, filed documents he knew to be fraudulent, and advanced fraudulent and frivolous legal arguments which relied on fraudulent documents, all with the intent to mislead various courts. The chair of the North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Commission stated respondent's conduct caused "significant harm and significant potential harm to clients, to the legal profession, to the administration of justice, and to the public."
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 24, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01571-CR

No. 05-13-01572-CR

RAY ANTHONY MYERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-56192-W, F13-56193-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Lang

Ray Anthony Myers waived a jury and pleaded guilty to felony DWI and possession of 

cocaine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§§ 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2014); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), 

(c) (West 2010). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at seven 

years’ imprisonment on the felony DWI case and three years’ imprisonment on the cocaine case. 

On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly 

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, 
-2-

there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised 

appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and 

counsel in Anders cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeals.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/ Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131571F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

RAY ANTHONY MYERS, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01571-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F13-56192-W).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices 

FitzGerald and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered the 24th day of November, 2014.
-4-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

RAY ANTHONY MYERS, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01572-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F13-56193-W).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices 

FitzGerald and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered 24th day of November, 2014.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                                March 27, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Dear Sirs:

        Arthur Andersen has represented to us that their audit of our results
of operations and financial condition for the year ended and as of December 31,
2001 was subject to its quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and that there was
the availability of national office consultation.  Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to our audit.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        American Cellular Corporation

                                        By:   /s/ Everett Dobson
                                           -------------------------------
                                                President
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00376

- CV

RUEBEN MENDOZA APPELLANT

V.

FORT WORTH HOUSING AUTHORITY AND AMERIT EX SECURITY APPELLEES

----------
FROM THE 352ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO . 352

- 259031

- 12

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- After p ro se appellant Rueben Mendoza failed to file his brief , we notified
him that if he did not file a response reasonably explaining his failure to timely file
a brief, we would dismiss the appe al for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App.
P. 38.8(a)(1). Mendoza filed a response, but it did not set out a reasonable

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

explanation for his failure to file a brief , and Appellee Fort Worth Housing
Authority (FWHA) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal b ased on Mendoza’s
failure to file his brief and his failure to state a reasonable explanation for his

failure to file his brief. Mendoza filed a response to FWHA’s motion, in which he
stated that because of his health issues, he was “being forced to step back,
heal[,] and regenerate . . . and leave this case unfinished.” Therefore, we grant

FWHA’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R.
App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER a nd GABRIEL, JJ.

DEL IVERED: November 20, 2014
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">3 Star Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of JENNIFER GALARZA, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered July 2, 2013. The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated March 19, 2013, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,690.</p><p>ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated March 19, 2013 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered July 2, 2013 (<i>see</i> CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.</p><p>At the commencement of a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties stipulated that the sole issue was whether plaintiff had exhausted its remedies. The only witness at trial was an employee of defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC), who testified that plaintiff's assignor was not a covered person because plaintiff had not established that its remedies against the owner of the vehicle had been exhausted.</p><p>Since plaintiff's assignor was aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle which plaintiff's assignor was in at the time of the accident, plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from MVAIC (<i>see Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co.</i>, 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; <a href="../2014/2014_50414.htm" target="_blank"><i>Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 42 Misc 3d 150</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50414[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Here, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against the owner of the vehicle (<a href="../2011/2011_51878.htm" target="_blank"><i>see BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 33 Misc 3d 131</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51878[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]; <a href="../2011/2011_52517.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 36 Misc 3d 129</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52517[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.</p><br>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.<br>Decision Date: November 01, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Charter Millburn L.P. and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                      25,080,303
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  543,875<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,595,019<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,595,019<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,531,141<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,185,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,345,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,345,779
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,345,779
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include subscriptions receivable of $402,325 and
interest receivable of $141,550.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $4,970,841.
<F3>Liabilities include accrued brokerage fees of $150,207, accrued
management fees of $42,916 and redemptions payable of $619,297.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $76,367, net
change in unrealized of $4,050,018 and interest income of $1,404,756.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Joylynn JONES, Administratrix of the Estate of Charlene Jones, Plaintiff, v. Robert D. BOYD, M.D., Defendant.

No. COA18-198

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Bernard PERRY

No. 25P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Perry, Michael Bernard.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of January 2018 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 7th of June 2018."
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie L. WALKER.

No. 2003-KH-2472.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Walker, Freddie L.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 222,577;

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for its consideration. The district court is di*616rected to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.
|   | (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:  August 15, 2011            |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                        |   |
| /s/ Charles Jenkins                         |   |
| Charles E. Jenkins, Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer)               |   |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20596

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RENE AMAYA AGUIRRE, also known as Jose Maria,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-301-1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rene Amaya 

Aguirre has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Aguirre has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20596 Document: 00514412774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2018
No. 17-20596

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-20596 Document: 00514412774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2018