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.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# DATE AND TIME:

Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 2-4:30 p.m.

# PLACE:

Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237.

# CLOSED MEETING:

                        The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly                               ( print page 67412)                            frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)).                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact either Brenda Hardnett or Carol Booker at (202) 203-4545.

Dated: November 1, 2005.

Carol Booker,

Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 05-22236 Filed 11-3-05; 12:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Exhibit 21.1

# Ocean
Energy, Inc.

The
following is a listing of significant subsidiaries as of March 9, 2002:

|                                    | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|----------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|
|                                   
|Big Sky Gas Marketing Corporation   |                              
|Havre Pipeline Co. L.L.C            |                              
|Ocean Angola Corporation            |                              
|Ocean Côte dIvoire, Ltd.           |                              
|Ocean Energy, Inc.                  |                              
|Ocean Energy Limitada               |                              
|Ocean Equatorial Guinea Corporation |                              
|Ocean International, Ltd.           |                              
|Ocean International Holdings, Ltd.  |                              
|Ocean East Zeit Petroleum, Ltd.     |                              
|Ocean (Egypt), Ltd.                 |                              
|Ocean (Egypt) East Beni Suef, Ltd.  |                              
|Ocean Field Services Company        |                              
|Ocean SW Gebel El Zeit, Ltd.        |                              
|Ocean WAG Petroleum, Ltd.           |                              
|Seagull Marketing Services Inc.     |                              
|Seagull Pipeline & Marketing Inc.   |                              
|Seagull Series 1995 L.L.C.          |                              
|Seagull Series 1995 Trust           |                              
|Texneft Inc.                        |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

d1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145540

DEVENDRA SHARMA, M.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145540

COA: 303913

Iosco CC: 09-005343-CZ

ASCENSION HEALTH, INC., d/b/a ST.

JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM, PATRICK

MURTHA, MICHAEL WAGNER, and

CLARENCE DAVID WRIGHT,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 65935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21736]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting 
of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be 
held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, 20506 as follows:
    National Initiatives (application review): November 17-18, 2005 in 
Room 714. A portion of this meeting, from 5:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. on 
Friday, November 18th, will be open to the public for policy 
discussion. The remainder of the meeting, from 8:15 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 
November 17th and from 8:15 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and from 5:45 p.m. to 
6:15 p.m. on November 18th, will be closed.
    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel 
review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial 
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to 
the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of 
April 8, 2005, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to 
subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman. If you need special accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National 
Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days 
prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to these meetings can be 
obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel 
Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or 
call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: October 26, 2005.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 05-21736 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-U
# L_2008345EN.01011502.xml

| 23.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 345/115 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 345/115

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1337/2007 of 15 November 2007 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 992/95 as regards Community tariff quotas for certain fishery products originating in Norway

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 298 of 16 November 2007
  )

On page 9, in the Annex, point (c), fourth column of the table:

for:

‘From 16.6.2008 to 14.2.2009: 30 500
  ’,

read:

‘16.6-14.2: 30 500
  ’.

---
Exhibit 10.2 

KEY EXECUTIVEEMPLOYMENT AND SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 

        **THISAGREEMENT,** made and entered into as of the ____ day of ___________, 2004, by andbetween Alliant Energy Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation (referred to herein as“Alliant” and, together with its subsidiaries and any parent company controllingAlliant, referred to herein as the “Company”), and **EMPLOYEE NAME**(hereinafter referred to as “Employee”). 

W I T N E S S E T H 

        **WHEREAS,**the Employee is employed by the Company in a key executive capacity and theEmployee’s services are valuable to the conduct of the business of the Company; 

        **WHEREAS,**the Company desires to continue to attract and retain dedicated and skilled managementemployees in a period of industry consolidation, consistent with achieving the bestpossible value for its shareowners in any change in control of the Company; 

        **WHEREAS,**the Company recognizes that circumstances may arise in which a change in control of theCompany occurs, through acquisition or otherwise, thereby causing a potential conflict ofinterest between the Company’s needs for the Employee to remain focused on theCompany’s business and for the necessary continuity in management prior to andfollowing a change in control, and the Employee’s reasonable personal concernsregarding future employment with the Company and economic protection in the event of lossof employment as a consequence of a change in control; 

        **WHEREAS,**the Company and the Employee are desirous that any proposal for a change in control oracquisition of Alliant will be considered by the Employee objectively and with referenceonly to the best interests of Alliant and its shareowners; 

        **WHEREAS,**the Employee will be in a better position to consider the Company’s best interests ifthe Employee is afforded reasonable economic security, as provided in this Agreement,against altered conditions of employment which could result from any such change incontrol or acquisition; 

        **WHEREAS,**the Employee possesses intimate knowledge of the business and affairs of the Company andhas acquired certain confidential information and data with respect to the Company; and 

        **WHEREAS,**the Company desires to insure, insofar as possible, that it will continue to have thebenefit of the Employee’s services and to protect its confidential information andgoodwill. 

        **NOW,THEREFORE,**  in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually covenant and agree as follows: 

1.     Definitions.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 11, 2005, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Mindready Solutions, Inc., Saint Lauarent, Quebec, Canada has been added as a party to this venture. Also, Corelis, Inc., Cerritos, CA; and Kaparel Corporation, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 20, 2005. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 12, 2005 (70 FR 47232).                

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-21887 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00323-CV

BRENDA PARRAMORE DAVIS APPELLANT

V.

US BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

SASCO MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 

2005-RF3

APPELLEE

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On August 6, 2012, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, attempting to appeal 

an order that was signed on June 6, 2012. No post-judgment motion was filed to 

extend the appellate deadline, so the notice of appeal was due July 6, 2012. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). On August 22, 2012, we sent Appellant a letter notifying 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

her of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this case because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We stated that unless 

Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal files with this court, on or 

before September 4, 2012, a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal, the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Having received no 

response, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3, 43.2(f). We also dismiss Appellant’s “Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of 

Possession” for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: October 11, 2012
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OKLAHOMA CITY 

POST OFFICE, Oklahoma City, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0521

Issued: September 21, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 7, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 21, 

2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0521.

In a letter dated August 24, 2023 and received August 25, 2023, appellant requested that 

the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authoritie s for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-0521 is dismissed.

Issued: September 21, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Intelligent Systems Corporation
Norcross, GA

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-58134 and No. 333-32157) of our report dated
March 4, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statement and schedule of
Intelligent Systems Corporation and Subsidiaries appearing in the company's
annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2005
# L_2007005EN.01000401.xml

| 10.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/4

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 7/2007 of 8 January 2007 altering the export refunds on milk and milk products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 4 of 9 January 2007
  )

On page 4, the title of the Annex:

for:

‘Export refunds on milk and milk products applicable from 8 January 2007
  ’,

read:

‘Export refunds on milk and milk products applicable from 9 January 2007
  ’.

---
#### ERNEST CHARLES TURNER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10043

August 9, 1978

583 P.2d 452

*William Dunseath,*Public Defender, Washoe County; and *Ernest Charles Turner,*in *pro per,*for Appellant.

*Larry Hicks,*District Attorney, and *JohnL. Conner,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant’s counsel has filed a “no-merit” brief on behalf of his client, *see*Sanchez v. State, 85 Nev. 95, 450 P.2d 793 (1969), claiming appellant’s guilty plea was not voluntary, and *519the prosecutor failed to abide by the terms of a plea bargain. These issues need not be decided. Appellant, in a separate in *pro per*application, has raised an issue which is dispositive and mandates reversal, to wit: his prosecution in Nevada after conviction in another sovereignty for the same crime was statutorily barred.

Prior to any proceeding in Nevada, appellant was convicted in Texas on unrelated charges. The federal government then brought appellant to Nevada to answer charges for bank robbery. The federal district court in Reno accepted appellant’s guilty plea and sentenced him to another prison term. Thereafter, on application of the Washoe County prosecutor, the justices’ court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prose-quendum, to obtain appellant from federal custody and prosecute him for armed robbery in Nevada.1 Appellant pleaded guilty in district court, and was sentenced to consecutive ten-year terms for robbery, and use of a deadly weapon.

NRS 171.070 provides: “When an act charged as a public offense is within the jurisdiction of another state, territory or country, as well as of this state, a conviction or acquittal thereof in the former is a bar to the prosecution or indictment therefor in this state.” Under this section, a defendant may not be prosecuted after a prior conviction or acquittal “in another jurisdiction if all the acts constituting the offense in this state were necessary to prove the offense in the prior prosecution.” People v. Belcher, 520 P.2d 385, 390-391 (Cal. 1974); *cf.*Cal.Pen.Code § 656 (West 1970); Model Pen. Code § 1.11, Tentative Draft No. 5 (1956).2

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.

1

 We need not decide whether the justices’ court had authority to issue such a writ. Compare Nev. Const. art. 6, § 8; *with*Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; art. 6, § 6; *see also*NRS 34.380(1); *cf.*R. v. Whitmer, In and For Salt Lake County, 515 P.2d 617 (Utah 1973); State v. Lackey, 257 P.2d 849 (Okl.Crim. 1953).

2

 Due to the statutory prohibition we therefore need not decide whether under Nevada Const, art. 1, § 8, such multiple prosecution for the same offense violates double jeopardy principles. *Compare*Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959); *[and]*Crane v. State, 92 Nev. 593, 555 P.2d 845 (1976); *with*Commonwealth v. Mills, 286 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1971); *[and[*People v. Cooper, 247 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. 1976); *[and]*State v. Hogg, 385 A.2d 844, 23 Cr. L. 2161 (N.H. 1978).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David CANO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10032.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 13, 2005.

Vicki H. Lamberson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bonita L. Gunden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to vacate the sentence is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to remand the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, for the AmariUo Division for resentencing is GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *584the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.