alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 62008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21497]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Times: Tuesday, November 1, 2005; 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

Place: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

Status: November 1--10 a.m. (Closed); 3:30 p.m. (Open).

Matters To Be Considered

Tuesday, November 1 at 10 a.m. (Closed)

    1. Strategic Planning.
    2. Financial Update.
    3. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
    4. Rate Case Planning.
    5. Pricing of International Services.

Tuesday, November 1 at 3:30 p.m. (Open)

    1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, September 26-27, 2005.
    2. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO Jack Potter.
    3. Committee Reports.
    4. Quarterly Report on Service Performance.
    5. Tentative Agenda for the December 6, 2005, meeting in 
Washington, DC.

For Further Information Contact: William T. Johnstone, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

William T. Johnstone,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-21497 Filed 10-24-05; 4:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7476

LARRY E. PATTERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; E. DELBRIDGE, Mail Room Supervisor; R. LANN, Lead

Investigator; KNOWN AND UNKNOWN PERSONS, ALL

LISTED AND NOT LISTED SUED IN BOTH THEIR

OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES HEREIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-98-197-3)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry E. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and

the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Patterson v. Garraghty, No. CA-98-197-3 (E.D.

Va. Aug. 11, 1998; Sept. 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 071105E]


Endangered Species; File No. 1475

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FFWCC), Florida Marine Research Institute 
(Richard E. Matheson, Principal Investigator), 1481 Market Circle, Unit 
1, Port Charlotte, FL 33953 has been issued a permit to take smalltooth 
sawfish, Pristis pectinata, for purposes of scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and
    Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, 
Florida 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Jennifer Skidmore, 
(301)713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 21, 2004, notice was published in the 
Federal Register (69 FR 29274) that a request for a scientific research 
permit to take smalltooth sawfish had been submitted by the above-named 
organization. On January 26, 2005, notice was published in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 3682) that a request to amend the permit application to 
include takes of loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley 
(Lepidochelys kempii),green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys 
imbricata) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles. The 
requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the 
regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of 
endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth 
in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
Stephen L. Leathery,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-21303 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACQUELINE C. SIMONELLI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-16664

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01250-LB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 17, 2015*** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Jacqueline Simonelli appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her takings action arising out of

FILED

MAR 04 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 

 

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s approval of a development next to Simonelli’s

property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Colwell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009),

and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Simonelli’s action as unripe because

Simonelli had not been denied compensation through any state court procedures. 

See Williamson Cnty. of Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172,

175 (1985); see also San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d

1095, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that takings claims are unripe until the

plaintiff has sought and been denied compensation through the state’s procedures,

and that abstention is “irrelevant” since there are no claims from which to abstain). 

The City’s requests to dismiss the appeal, and to strike Simonelli’s

declaration, presented in its answering brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-16664
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael P. ODonnellMichael P. ODonnellExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


November 13, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David F. DeVoe, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

     (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.

/s/ David F. DeVoe

David F. DeVoe
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
September 25, 2003

[A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and will be retained by Fox
Entertainment Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, OFFICE 

OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE 

CURRENCY, Downers Grove, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0089

Issued: November 3, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On October 29, 2020 appellant sought appeal from a purported May 1, 2020 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 21-0089.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse OWCP decisions issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

(FECA)2 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3. This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse 

decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date appellant filed her appeal. 3

1 The Board notes that appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the 

time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

Although the case record as transmitted to the Board does contain a document from OWCP 

dated May 1, 2020, it is an informational letter and, thus, does not constitute a final adverse 

decision subject to review under 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a). As there is no final adverse 

decision over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the 

appeal docketed as No. 21-0089 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No 21-0089 is dismissed.

Issued: November 3, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15a-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the AnnualReport of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

 
 (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 
 
 (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust. 
 
  SIMMONS BANK,  
TRUSTEE FOR THE

PERMIAN BASINROYALTY TRUST
Date: March 15, 2018  By:   /s/    RON E. HOOPER   Ron E. Hooper,   *SVP Royalty Trust Management*
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the PermianBasin Royalty Trust and will be retained by the Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
#### ROY A. WOOFTER, District Attorney of Clark County, State of Nevada, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE JAMES B. KELLY as Justice of the Peace, North Las Vegas Township, County of Clark, State of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 7575

September 23, 1974

526 P.2d 337

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Roy A. Woof-ter,*District Attorney, Clark County, for Petitioner.

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, Clark County, and *Robert L. Reid,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent and parties in interest.

*346OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

By complaint filed in the Justice’s Court of North Las Vegas Township, the State attempted to charge certain defendants with grand larceny, murder of a peace officer, and first degree murder. The respondent justice of the peace held defendants to answer on the grand larceny count, but refused to hold them on the murder counts as alleged in the complaint. Instead, the magistrate purported to hold defendants on a charge of “second degree murder,” and in effect purported to discharge them from the complaint insofar as it charged them with any higher degree of murder.

By alternative petition for writ of mandamus or certiorari, the State has therefore sought to challenge the magistrate’s refusal to hold the defendants for trial on the murder charges as alleged, contending that the magistrate’s ruling was without or in excess of his jurisdiction. Numerous arguments are proffered in support of this contention; however, we conclude it is unnecessary to treat them.

Neither certiorari nor mandamus may issue, if the State has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, so that it may proceed on the murder charges in the form the State deems proper, and on which the magistrate would not permit it to proceed. NRS 34.020(2); NRS 34.170. In facts like those of this case, such remedies appear available, e.g. by way of information filed pursuant to NRS 173.035(2), or by grand jury indictment, Tellis v. State, 85 Nev. 557, 459 P.2d 364 (1969).

The petition herein is therefore denied.
**
**Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.**

**PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS**

 

9601 AMBERGLEN BLVD., SUITE 117

AUSTIN, TEXAS78729

512-249-7000
 
306 WEST 7TH STREET, SUITE 302

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-4987

817-336-2461

www.cgaus.com
 
1000 LOUISIANA, SUITE 625

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5008

713-651-9944

**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENTOF CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES,INC. 

March 6, 2019 

Permian Basin Royalty Trust 

Simmons Bank 

2911 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Suite 850 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

Gentlemen: 

Cawley, Gillespie &Associates, Inc., hereby consents to the use of the oil and gas reserve information in the Permian Basin Royalty Trust Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2018and in the Permian Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ending December 31, 2018, based on reserve reports dated January 21,****2019, prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. 

 
Submitted,
Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-693
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,875
<PP&E>                                         103,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,880
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,362
<SALES>                                        123,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,419
<CGS>                                           85,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   356
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,039
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,840
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,199
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas March 25, 2021 No. 04-21-00099-CV IN RE Catalina SALAZAR From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-0846-CV Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay are denied. An opinion will be forthcoming.
It is so ORDERED March 25, 2021.
PER CURIAM
ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      202,495
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,692
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          27,057
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        18,997
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   2,169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,410
<COMMON>                                         5,969
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       59,198
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             23,067
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  88,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,800
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            80,155
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              20,079
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,233
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  56,909
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  253,410
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      221,306
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             3,628
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     203,192
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     206,820
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         14,486
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 576
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  15,062
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         8,133
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,929
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        487
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    6,442
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         6,377
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        6,391
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          41,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID RAY KING and MARK McDOUGALD

No. 7412SC346

(Filed 15 May 1974)

1. Criminal Law § 161— assignment of error abandoned

An assignment of error not supported by argument and authority is deemed abandoned.

2. Criminal Law § 117— accomplice testimony — instructions not required

In the absence of a special request, the failure of the court to charge the jury to scrutinize the testimony of an accomplice will not be held for error.

Appeal by defendants from *Canaday, Judge,*10 December 1973 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Cumberland County.

Defendants appeal from judgments sentencing them to prison upon their convictions for felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. They assign as errors (1) the denial of their motions for nonsuit and (2) the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury to scrutinize the testimony of the State’s witness, Ralph Long, an accomplice.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney E. Thomas Maddox, Jr. for the State.*

*Mitchel E. Gadsden for defendant appellants.*

*550PARKER, Judge.

[1] Appellants have set forth no argument and have cited no authority in support of their first assignment of error, which is accordingly deemed abandoned. In any event, there was ample evidence to warrant submitting the cases to the jury.

[2] As to appellants’ second assignment of error, the rule is that in the absence of a special request, the failure of the court to charge the jury to scrutinize the testimony of an accomplice will not be held for error, the matter being a subordinate and not a substantive feature of the case. *State v. Brinson,*277 N.C. 286, 177 S.E. 2d 398. Here, there was no request for such an instruction.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur.