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

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [FDA 225-05-8004]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of an Implementation Plan on the sharing of confidential information between the European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General and the United States Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services.  The purpose is for both participants to cooperate to facilitate the sharing of documents and/or information related to food safety.

# DATES:

The agreement became effective on September 23, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew E. Eckel, Office of International Programs (HFG-1),  Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville MD, 20857, 301-827-4480; FAX 301-480-0716.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and Implementation Plans between FDA and others shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , the agency is publishing notice of this Implementation Plan.                

Dated: November 10, 2005.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

      ( print page 69978)          ( print page 69979)    

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[FR Doc. 05-22829 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
Exhibit
10.1.5









May 29, 2008







Steven
      Helmers, Esq.
            Christopher
      Reitz, Esq.Black
      Hills Corporation
            Aquila,
      Inc.625
      Ninth Street
            20
      West Ninth StreetRapid
      City, SD 57709
            Kansas
      City, MO 64105Re:
            Partnership
      Interests Purchase Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreement (collectively,
      the "Agreements") by and among Aquila, Inc. ("Aquila"), Black Hills
      Corporation ("Black Hills"), Great Plains Energy Incorporated ("Great
      Plains") and Gregory Acquisition Corp.
  ("Gregory")




Dear
Steve and Chris:




Under the
terms of the Agreements, as modified by those certain letters dated as of June
29, 2007, August 31, 2007, September 28, 2007, November 30, 2007, January 30,
2008, February 28, 2008, March 28, 2008, and April 28, 2008, Black Hills, Aquila
and Great Plains are to attach schedules setting forth Retained Agreements and
Shared Agreements prior to May 30, 2008.  We recognize that this
deadline may be implausible and therefore propose extending the date set forth
under section 2.2(1) and 8.5(d) of the Agreements to June 20, 2008.





If you
are in agreement, please sign below on the attached signature page where
indicated and return a copy of this letter to me by fax or e-mail.








Very
      truly yours,
              Great
      Plains Energy IncorporatedBy:
      /s/ Mark G. English
              Name:
      Mark G. English
              Title:
      General Counsel











ACKNOWLEDGED,
CONSENTED TO, AND ACCEPTED BY:





BLACK
HILLS CORPORATION








By:  /s/
Steven J. Helmers





Name:  Steven
J. Helmers


Title:    Sr.
Vice President and General Counsel








AQUILA,
INC.








By:  /s/
Chris Reitz





Name:  Chris
Reitz


Title:    General
Counsel








GREGORY
ACQUISITION CORP.








By:  /s/
Mark G. English





Name:  Mark
G. English


Title:    Secretary
and Treasurer
21- ZgZ 9 ZFILED 

OCT012021 

No. 83496 

ELVA TH A. BROWN 

OLE 0 -UPREME COURT 

BY ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL E Ty cLERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a 

motion to quash or cancel restitution. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; Michael Villani, Judge. 

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from an 

order denying a motion to quash or cancel restitution, this court lacks 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 

P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

J. 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Michael Anthony Gonzalez 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

At, 

--- 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

i0) I947A 

MICHAEL ANTHONY GONZALEZ, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent.
* 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. 95-20906 Conference Calendar

ROGER O. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RONALD W. KILLAM, DR., Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA H 95-1209

- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roger O. Moore, #662174, contends that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Ronald W. Killam as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992). To prevail on a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived him of the right secured by theNo. 95-20906 - 2 - Constitution and laws of the United States while acting under color of state law. Manax v. McNamara , 842 F.2d 808, 812 (5th Cir. 1988). Although Moore is now incarcerated for murdering his wife, Moore’s allegations against Dr. Killam related to his treatment by the physician prior to his incarceration. To the extent that Moore asserted a medical malpractice claim against his private physician, Dr. Killam, his § 1983 action was properly dismissed by the district court. In his complaint and on appeal, Moore also asserts that Dr. Killam did not release his medical records to his defense attorney and altered the records resulting in prejudice to Moore’s defense in the criminal trial for the murder of Moore’s wife. “[C]ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgment.” Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). In order to recover damages for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, the “plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id . Even if Killam could be found to be a state actor by conspiring to convict Moore wrongly, his claim against Killam may not be considered in the § 1983 action under the rule in Heck because Moore had not demonstrated that his conviction andNo. 95-20906 - 3 - sentence have been invalidated. This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 219, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### GRAVES v. WALSTON

No. 297 PC

No. 110 (Fall Term)

Case below: 46 NC App 606

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 15 August 1980.
# USS Oklahoma Sailor Accounted For From World War II (Banks, L.)

/ Published Aug. 27, 2020
WASHINGTON,
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                  August 13, 2004

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q by Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period
ending June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, Jack A. Hockema, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to such officer's knowledge:

      (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
           78o(d)); and

      (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
           Report.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the date first above written.


                                           /s/ Jack A. Hockema
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Jack A. Hockema
                                           Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and will be retained by
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.01 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Federal Way, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0161

Issued: January 12, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On November 17, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an April 27, 2022 decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0161.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

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

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the April 27, 2022 decision was October 24, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 17, 2022, more than 180 days after the

April 27, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0161 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

1

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

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0161, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0161 is dismissed.

Issued: January 12, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

at § 501.6(d).
Filed 2 / 8 / 24 In re A.E. CA4/ 3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A

. E., a Person Coming Under the

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A

. E.,

Defendant and Appellant. G062617

(Super. Ct. No. 23DL0412)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a n order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Joe

T. Perez, Judge. Dismissed.

William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.2 There is very little to be said about this case, which comes to us as a Wende

appeal from appointed counsel. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).)

Because the matter was transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court for disposition, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdictio n.

DISCUSSION

Appellant, a minor, was charged in Orange County Juvenile Court with one

count of robbery. (Welf. & Inst . Code, § 602 , subd. (a).) Following the jurisdictional

hearing, the court sustained the allegation and released appellant to his mothe r, who

resides in Los Angeles County. It then transferred the case to Los Angeles County for

disposition. ( Welf. & Inst. Code

, § 3 75 , subd. (a) .) Seeking review of the court ’ s

jurisdictional findings, appellant appealed in this court.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a

brief which set forth the facts of the case , but he was unable to find any arguable issues to

raise on appellant ’ s behalf

. He t herefore invited us to review the record pursuant to

Wende

. Counsel also pointed out as a “ potential issue ” that this court may lack

jurisdiction to hear the appeal, due to the transfer order. Appellant was given 30 days to

file written argument i n his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no

communication from him.

Counsel rightly flagged jurisdiction as a potential issue in this appeal.

Although appellant is challenging the juvenile court ’ s jurisdictional findings, those

f indings are not separately appealable from the dispositional order. ( In re Hunter W.

(2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 358, 368; In re James J. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1339 , 1342

-

1343.) Because the case was transferred to Los Angeles County for disposition, appellate

jurisdiction lies in that county, and we do not have the authority to consider appellant ’ s

appeal.3 DISPOSITION

Appeal dismissed.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.
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.                  

###### Legal Services Corporation

# AGENCY:

Legal Services Corporation. 

      ( print page 69787)    

# ACTION:

Development of Strategic Directions—Request for Comments. 

# SUMMARY:

LSC is in the process of developing Strategic Directions for the years 2006-2010. Toward that end, the Legal Services Corporation is soliciting comments on a Draft Strategic Directions 2006-2010 document. 

# DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before December 19, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

Written comments may be submitted by mail, fax or email to Charles Jeffress at the addresses listed below. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Charles Jeffress, Chief Administrative Officer, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007; 202-295-1630 (phone); 202-337-6386 (fax);                         *cjeffress@lsc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In 2000, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Board of Directors adopted Strategic Directions 2000-2005. LSC is now in the process of developing Strategic Directions for the years 2006-2010. This notice is being published in the                     **Federal Register**                     requesting public comment for the Board's consideration prior to final adoption. The draft LSC Strategic Directions 2006-2010 document is available at the LSC Electronic Public Reading Room on the LSC Web site at:                     *http://www.lsc.gov/​FOIA/​foia_​epr.htm.*                     Comments should be submitted as set forth above.                 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President and General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05-22803 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
#### IN RE WILL OF EDGERTON

No. 154 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 60.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 June 1976.
Case 1:07-cv-03321-PKC Document 3 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6426
THOMAS ADAM ELLINGTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. J. SMITH, Sergeant; J. TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-139-5-BR) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Adam Ellington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 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 relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ellington v. Smith , No. CA-96-139-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 1996). 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
EX-10.38





 Exhibit 10.38 

THE FRESH MARKET HOLDINGS, INC. 

c/o Apollo Management VIII, L.P. 

9 West 57th Street 
 New
York, NY 10019 
 January 20, 2022 
 Christopher
Himebauch 
 Chief Human Resources Officer 
 Re: Stock
Option 
 Dear Chris: 
 We are pleased to inform you that
we have made certain favorable changes to the stock option that was previously granted to you pursuant to the Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) of The Fresh Market Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”). Specifically, your
option to purchase 300,000 shares that was granted on December 31, 2018 (“Option”) has been modified as follows: 

(i) Effective upon an IPO (as defined in the Plan) and provided you remain employed through the date of the IPO, your Option will vest as to
5% of the portion thereof that is unvested at the time of the IPO; and 
 (ii) Effective upon an IPO, a number of shares equal to the shares
underlying the portion of the Option that vests pursuant to the preceding clause will be released from the transfer restrictions imposed by Section 9(a) of the Option Plan, provided that the foregoing will not be construed as releasing any
shares that are non-transferable by reason of a standstill agreement or related agreement entered into at the request of the managing underwriters of the IPO. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the shares released from the transfer restrictions will be treated as having been released pursuant to Section 5 of your
option grant letter, and therefore will reduce the number of shares that may subsequently be released upon an Investor Sale (as defined in such Section 5). 

Except for these changes, your Option will remain in effect in accordance with its terms. 

Sincerely, 
 THE FRESH MARKET HOLDINGS, INC. 

 
 



 
 Jason Potter, CEO