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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation (ASPE), HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of three new individuals to serve on the Medicaid Commission and the release of one Commissioner from service on the Medicaid Commission. Notice of this announcement is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 2(b)(5)). The Medicaid Commission will advise the Secretary on ways to modernize the Medicaid program so that it can provide high-quality health care to its beneficiaries in a financially sustainable way. 

*New Medicaid Commission Voting Members:*                         John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, Joe Manchin III, and Donald Young.                     

*Medicaid Commission Member Released from Service on the Medicaid Commission:*                         Michael O'Grady.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On May 24, 2005, CMS published a notice (70 FR 29765) announcing the Medicaid Commission and requesting nominations for individuals to serve on the Medicaid Commission. The next meeting of the Medicaid Commission will be held October 26-27, 2005, as previously published in the                     **Federal Register**                     (70 FR 58706). The meeting will be held at the following address: Holiday Inn on The Hill, 415 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001, United States, telephone: 1 (202) 638-1616, fax: 1 (202) 638-0707.                 

*Web site:*                     You may access up-to-date information on this meeting at                     *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/​faca/​mc/​default.asp.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Reiser, Medicaid Commission, (202) 205-8255. 

      ( print page 61977)    Authority:5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2). 

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

Michael J. O'Grady,

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 05-21411 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5150-05-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6812

DONTE CAUDLE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
NASH COUNTY JAIL , Defendant

- Appellee

.

No. 22

- 6813

DONTE CAUDLE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. KEISHA LONG, Nurse , Defendant

– Appellee, and DR. A. ANDERSON; SHERIFF WEST TRIPP , Defendants. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6814 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 42 No. 22

- 6814

DONTE CAUDLE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
SHERIFF WEST TRIPP , Defendant

- Appellee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge ; Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge . ( 5:20

- ct

- 03003

- D; 5:17

- ct

- 03280

- FL; 5:18

- ct

- 03030

- FL )

Submitted : December 15, 2022 Decided: December 20, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and WILKINSON and DIAZ , Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Donte Caudle, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6814 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 43 PER CURIAM:
Donte Caudle filed a single notice of appeal, listing three different district court proceedings in which he wishe s to appeal

. Caudle’s notice of appeal does not identify any specific district court order s from which he intends to ap peal. However, in each of the
three district court proceeding s , the most recent order or judgment was entered on the
district court docket no later than June 2020

. Accordingly, w e dismiss all three appeal s for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5 ) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

T he most recent orders in these district court proceedings were entered no later than
June 2020. Caudle filed the notice of appeal on June 2 2 , 2022. * Because Caudle failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the ap peal period,
we dismiss the consolidated appeal s
.

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Caudle could have delivered the notice to prison officia ls for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). USCA4 Appeal: 22-6814 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 3 of 44 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6814 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-004 

IN RE THE NAME CHANGE OF BOBBY 

FRANCIS LOWRY, V., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent. 

GRANT OF MOTION TO 

PROCEED WITHOUT 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE 

Motion to proceed without payment of the filing fee in this matter is 

GRANTED. 

DATED July 5th, 2024. 

Clerk of the Supreme Court 

07/05/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0404
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7706

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GLEN MARK, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-263-G, CA-95-112-2)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glen Mark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mark, Nos.

CR-89-263-G; CA-95-112-2 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 1995). 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
#### Barbara Jeane Blancato et al. *v.*Sebastian Randino

(14781)

Decided June 24, 1993

Upon reconsideration, sua sponte, of our order of May 26, 1993 (226 Conn. 904), granting the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal, that order is vacated, the petition for certification is granted and the case is remanded to the Appellate Court for reconsideration in light of this court’s decision in *Curry*v. *Burns,*225 Conn. 782 (1993).
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7144** 

ROBERT K. ELLIS, Petitioner

– Appellant,

v. D. BERKEBILE, Warden, Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dist rict of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:10

- cv - 00931 )

Submitted : December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published p er curiam opinion

. Robert K. Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Lara Dee Pyne Crane, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Beaver, West Virginia, Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert K. Ellis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the court’s order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders on the reasoning set forth therein. See Ellis v. Berkebile , No. 5:10

- cv - 00931 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 6, 2010 & Oct. 1, 2010). We also deny Ellis’ pending motions for appointment of counsel, an emergency dental exam and treatment, transcripts at government expense, a copy of his dental records, and for injunctive relief. 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
# C_2007149EN.01000201.xml

| 3.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4683 — ABN AMRO/OSG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 149/03)

On 18 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4683. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4683. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman Basic JONATHAN W. WRIGHT

United States Air Force

ACM 38448

22 May 2014

Sentence adjudged 28 May 201 3 by G CM convened at Joint Base San

Antonio

– Lackland, Texas . Military Judge : Donald R. Eller (sitting alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge and confinement for 1 0

months

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Jeffrey A. Davis.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen and

Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

MARKSTEINER , MITCHELL and W EBER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

mater ially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

ST EVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 95-31081

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

PAUL J. MAYEUX,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Acting Warden;

RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney

General,

Respondents-Appellees.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-672-G)

__________________________________________________

July 2, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paul J. Mayeux appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas

corpus, 28 U.S.C. §2254. He argues that the evidence was insufficient, and that recordings of

telephone conversations allegedly made in violation of his Fourth Amendment r i ghts were erroneously2

admitted into evidence. We have reviewed the record and the district court ‘s opinion on these issues

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district

court. Mayeux v. Whitley , No. 95-0672 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 1995).

Mayeux argues that the “reasonable doubt” jury instruction was unconstitutional under Cage

v. Louisiana

, 498 U.S. 39, 111 U.S. 328, 112 L. Ed. 2d 339 (1990), and Sullivan v. Louisiana

, 508

U.S. 275, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993). The reasonable doubt instruction that Mayeux

challenges is equivalent to the instruction upheld by this court in Weston v. Ieyoub

, 69 F.3d 73, 74-75

(5th Cir. 1995). Because of the inclusion of the phrase “abiding conviction,” there was no reasonable

likelihood that the jury applied the instructions in a way that violated the constitution. S ee Weston

,

69 F.3d at 75.

Mayeux asserts that the district court erred in affording the presumption of correctness to the

state habeas court’s finding that Mayeux failed to establish that the witness’s statements were false.

A ssuming arguendo that the presumption of correctness does not apply, Mayeux has fa iled to

establish that the prosecutor knowingly allowed the vict im’s perjured testimony to go to the jury. S ee

Blackmon v. Scott

, 22 F.3d 560, 565 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

,

__ U.S.

__, 115 S. Ct. 671, 130 L. Ed.

2d 604 (1994).

Finally, Mayeux asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective and attempts to incorporate by

reference the argumen t s which were presented to the district court in his habeas petition. An

appellant may not incorporate in his brief his arguments from other pleadings. Y ohey v. Collins

, 985

F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5205]


Announcement of Meetings of the International Telecommunication 
Advisory Committee

SUMMARY: The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee 
announces meetings of ITAC Study Group A to debrief the recent meeting 
of ITU-T Study Group 3 (Charging and accounting) and prepare for ITU-T 
Study Group 2 (Operational aspects of service provision, networks and 
performance). Members of the public may participate, and may join in 
the discussions.
    The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will 
meet on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 2-4 p.m. There is one item on the 
agenda, a debrief of the outcome of the recently-completed meeting of 
ITU-T Study Group 3. Directions to the venue of the meeting may be 
obtained from Julian Minard, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#08656166697a6c626d487b7c697c6d266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0cdc9cec1d2c4cac5e0d3d4c1d4c58ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will 
meet by conference call on October 20, 2005 at 2 p.m. to discuss a 
contribution to ITU-T Study Group 2. Information on the call in number 
and passcode may be obtained from Julian Minard, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05686c6b6477616f604576716471602b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="274a4e494655434d4267545346534209404851">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will 
meet on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 from 9 a.m. to noon to discuss 
further contributions to ITU-T Study Group 2. Particulars on this 
meeting may be obtained from Julian Minard, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb3b7b0bfacbab4bb9eadaabfaabbf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d2024232c3f2927280d3e392c3928632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 5, 2005.
Anne D. Jillson,
Director, FACA Support, International Communications & Information 
Policy, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-20548 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ William D. Harvey                          
|William D. Harvey                              
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Patricia L. Kampling                                      
|Patricia L. Kampling                                          
|Executive Vice President-Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

May 4, 2010
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of G.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, RESEARCH 

DEVELOPMENT & ENGINEERING 

COMMAND, PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1175

Issued: October 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Russell T. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $625.50.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgment by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of $625.50.

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulations (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id. 
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds it is in compliance with the Board’s

Rules of Procedure.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT that the fee petition is granted in the amount of 

$625.50.

Issued: October 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
#### In re: MICHAEL F. MALEY, Attorney at Law.

No. 12055

January 7, 1980

ORDER

Pursuant to the stated form of discipline, SCR 113(1), approved by this court in our Order Granting Petition, September 14, 1979, we hereby authorize the publication, in accordance with SCR 121, of the following letter of reprimand, submitted by the State Bar of Nevada Disciplinary Board, Southern District, Paul R. Hejmanowski, Vice Chairman:

*Michael F. Maley,*Attorney at Law, 1111 Las Vegas, Blvd. So., Suite 330, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104

Eleven separate grievances were filed against you by former clients and one former employee. These grievances were the subject of a formal disciplinary proceeding against you under SCR 105(2). You have admitted the substance of each of the charges made.

In several instances, you accepted, or even solicited, fees from clients and then failed to perform the services promised. In one case, you solicited $2,500.00 for the avowed purpose of hiring lawyers who were specialists in a particular field to conduct certain research for a client. You took the money, failed to hire any specialists, failed to render any services, and refused to refund the money.

In another case, you prevailed upon a relatively unsophisticated client to invest in a real estate transaction in which you and a relative were involved, promising her unusally high returns. She actually made no profit but, rather, spent months pursuing you for the return of her investment. Ultimately, you returned only three-fourths of her investment, after deducting some alleged attorneys fees and costs. As in other cases, you had no records to substantiate that you had rendered legal services to the client.

In another instance, you paid an employee from your trust account. One such check was returned for insufficient funds.

In other matters, you failed in your duty to adequately represent your clients in litigation. You failed to file lawsuits, failed to appear at a client’s deposition, failed to appear at a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and generally failed to pursue your clients’ cases with any diligence whatsover.

*38Your conduct constituted a serious and persistent pattern of violation of the ethical standards of an attorney. Based upon your conditional plea of guilty in return for a stated discipline, it was determined that you should be given this public letter of reprimand together with other substantial sanctions, including a fine, suspension and restrictions on your practice for three years, as well as a requirement to make restitution of several thousand dollars.

It is so ORDERED.

Mowbray, C. J., and Thompson, Gunderson, Manou-kian, and Batjer, JJ.