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 Justice

###### Parole Commission

# Public Announcement: 

Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409) [5 U.S.C. Section 552b].

# Agency Holding Meeting: 

Department of Justice, Parole Commission.

# Time and Date: 

10 a.m., Thursday, May 6, 2010.

# Place:

 5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

# Status: 

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open Parole Commission meeting:

1. Approval of Minutes from the January 21, 2010 Quarterly Business Meeting.

2. Reports from the Chairman, Commissioners, and Section Administrators.

3. Revision of YRA Set Aside Rule.

# Agency Contact:

Patricia W. Moore, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5933.

Dated: April 27, 2010.

Rockne J. Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-10436 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-32638 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-45969 and 333-56395 on
Form S-8 of Bionutrics, Inc. of our report dated December 8, 2000, except for
Note 14, as to which the date is December 30, 2000 (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern), appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Bionutrics, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2000.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona

January 17, 2001
AGREEMENT DATED
                            FEBRUARY 8, 2001 BETWEEN
                    SUNSHINE PCS CORPORATION (THE "COMPANY")
                      AND LYNCH PCS CORPORATION A ("LPCS")


         This  will  confirm  the  agreement  between  the  Company  and LPCS as
follows:

         1.  Immediately  prior  to  the  effective  time  of  the  registration
statement  relating to the  spin-off of the Class A common  Stock of the Company
(the "Registration Statement") and contingent upon such effectiveness, LPCS will
contribute to the capital of Fortunet  Communications,  L.P. all indebtedness of
the Company to LPCS under  Promissory  Notes dated  November  21, 1995 issued by
predecessors of, and assumed by, the Company,  including all principal  thereof,
all interest  thereon and all  commitment  fees  payable  with respect  thereto,
aggregating approximately $80.0 million at September 30, 2000.

         2.  In  addition,   concurrently  therewith  and  contingent  upon  the
effectiveness of the Registration Statement,  LPCS will make a cash contribution
of $250,000 to the  Company in exchange  for (a) the  issuance by the Company to
LPCS of (i) $16.1 million principal amount of its subordinated  promissory notes
in the  form  described  in  the  Registration  Statement;  (ii)  shares  of its
preferred  stock with a  liquidation  preference  of $10.0  million and with the
additional  rights,   powers  and  preferences  described  in  the  Registration
Statement,  and (iii) a warrant to purchase  4,300,000  shares of Class A Common
Stock of the  Company  at $0.75 per share in the form filed as an exhibit to the
Registration  Statement;  and  (b)  the  issuance  by the  Company  of  warrants
providing for the issuance of certain additional  securities of the Company,  if
and when  Cascade  Investment  LLC  shall  convert  into  common  stock of Lynch
Interactive  Corporation  ("LIC")  all or a  portion  of a  certain  Convertible
Promissory  Note dated December 10, 1999 of LIC, all as more fully  described in
the Registration Statement.


Sunshine PCS Corporation            Lynch PCS Corporation A



By: ____________________            By: ___________________
    Karen E. Johnson                    Robert E. Dolan
    President                                   President
SCWC-14-0000361

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

THEODORICO ERUM, JR., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF KAUA ʻ I, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee,
and GLENN P. BELISLE, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0000361; CIVIL NO. 13-1-0216)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Erum Theodorico, Jr.’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed November 7, 2016, is hereby rejected.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, December 16, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0000361 16-DEC-2016 11:52 AM
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00087

- CV

M. NEIL CUMMINGS, Appellant

V.

CLEO PATRICIA SHELBY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13C0842

- 102

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

M. Neil Cummings

, appellant, has filed a motion seeking to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant

to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

We dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Ju stice

Date Submitted: October 8, 2013

Date Decided: October 9, 2013
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1503

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 8, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the

Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

AN ACT

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.

App.) to extend the authorization of appropriations for

the Office of Government Ethics through fiscal year

2003.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Office of Government

5 Ethics Authorization Act of 1999’’.
2

S 1503 RFH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA2 TIONS.

3 Section 405 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978

4 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ‘‘1997 thorough

5 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘2000 through 2003’’.

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

7 This Act shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1600

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prevent

the wearing away of an employee’s accrued benefit under a defined

benefit plan by the adoption of a plan amendment reducing future

accruals under the plan.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. REID, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. WELLSTONE) introduced the following bill; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974 to prevent the wearing away of an employee’s

accrued benefit under a defined benefit plan by the adoption of a plan amendment reducing future accruals under

the plan.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Older Workers Pension

5 Protection Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 1600 IS

1 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF WEARING AWAY OF EMPLOYEE’S

2 ACCRUED BENEFIT.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204(g) of the Employee

4 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.

5 1054(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following

6 new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(4)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a plan

8 amendment adopted by a large defined benefit plan shall

9 be treated as reducing accrued benefits of a participant

10 if, under the terms of the plan after the adoption of the

11 amendment, the accrued benefit of the participant may at

12 any time be less than the sum of—

13 ‘‘(i) the participant’s accrued benefit for years

14 of service before the effective date of the amend15 ment, determined under the terms of the plan as in

16 effect immediately before the effective date, plus

17 ‘‘(ii) the participant’s accrued benefit deter18 mined under the formula applicable to benefit accru19 als under the current plan as applied to years of

20 service after such effective date.

21 ‘‘(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘large

22 defined benefit plan’ means any defined benefit plan which

23 had 100 or more participants who had accrued a benefit

24 under the plan (whether or not vested) as of the last day

25 of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the plan

26 amendment becomes effective.
3

•S 1600 IS

1 ‘‘(C) For purposes of this paragraph, an accrued ben2 efit shall include any early retirement benefit or retire3 ment-type subsidy (within the meaning of paragraph

4 (2)(A)), but only with respect to a participant who satis5 fies (either before or after the effective date of the amend6 ment) the conditions for the benefit or subsidy under the

7 terms of the plan as in effect immediately before such

8 date.’’

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply to plan amendments that go into

11 effect after June 29, 1999.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANF1 LE

PR 06-0544

IN RE PETITION OF MELISSA BATES FOR

REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE

BAR OF MONTANA

JUL 2 7 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Melissa Bates has petitioned the Court for reinstatement to active status in the State

Bar of Montana. Bates was placed on inactive status on July 1, 2021, for failing to comply

with the Rules for Continuing Legal Education for the reporting year ending March 31,

2021. Attachcd to the Petition is a letter from the State Bar stating that Bates has now

completed all CLE requirements for that reporting year. The Petition states that Bates is

not currcntly subject to disciplinary proceedings and has not committed any acts or

omissions sanctionable under the Rules of Professional Conduct while on inactive status.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Melissa Bates for reinstatement to

active status in the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED. t ipon payment of any remaining

dues, fees, and the state license tax to the State Bar of Montana, Bates shall be reinstated.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State

Bar of Montana.

,n1a_

DATED this day of July, 2021.

Chief Justic

07/27/2021

Case Number: PR 06-0544
Justic (
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

WARREN DOUGLAS LOCKE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 362 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: Chris Daniel January 08, 2015

County: Harris (Criminal)

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Please acknowledge the receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return 

the original to this court.

14-11-00912-CR

14-11-00913-CR

Brandon Caines v. The State of Texas 1574700, 

1274701

State’s Exhibit 75, a DVD

Received by: ________________________________________

Received on: ________________________________________
FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

J OSE A NTONIO C ORNEJO

V ILLAGRANA
, Petitioner

,

v.

J EFFERSON B

. S ESSIONS III , Attorney General, Respondent. No. 13

- 72185

Agency No. A079

- 648

- 998

ORDER

Filed May 30, 2018

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Kim McLane Wardlaw

, Circuit Judges, and Rosanna Malouf Peterson

, *
District Judge.

ORDER

Petitioner’s petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED and the opinion filed September 14, 2017 is WITHDRAWN . The petition for rehearing en banc is denied as moot. Submission is vacated pending further order of the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

* The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-509

In Re: MITCHELL ALFONSO KEY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-93-1009-3-17AJ)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 28, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mitchell Alfonso Key, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to

have this court direct the district court to comply with this

court's instructions to conduct a de novo review of Petitioner's

objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in

Petitioner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action. In October 1995, the

district court has entered an order in compliance with this court's

order of remand. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny this mandamus petition as moot. 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.

PETITION DENIED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAVIER FLORES,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-10-00063-CR

Appeal from

 41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20090D03590)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that there is no appealable order, we dismiss

the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant, pro se, filed a handwritten notice of appeal on January 20, 2010 indicating an

intent to appeal various actions of the trial court which allegedly deprived Appellant of his

constitutional rights. Appellant’s notice of appeal also includes a statement that the trial court

refused to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus. The District Clerk has provided

information to the Court indicating that neither a judgment of conviction nor an appealable order has

been entered by the trial court. On February 16, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified Appellant of

the Court’s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Appellant filed a response

within fifteen days showing the Court has jurisdiction of the appeal. No response has been received.

Generally, we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where

there has been a final judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 343

S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 907 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). 
An appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider interlocutoryorders, unless that jurisdiction

has been expressly granted by law. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.02 (Vernon 2006);

Bridle, 16 S.W.3d at 907. The exceptions to the rule are: (1) certain appeals while on deferred

adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); (2)

appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX.R.APP.P. 31.1; McKown v. State, 915

S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.); and (3) certain appeals from the denial of

habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1998, no pet.). When

a trial judge refuses to issue a writ or denies an applicant a hearing on the merits of his or her claims,

there is no right to appeal. Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008), citing

Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

The trial court’s refusal to rule on Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus is not

appealable. Further, the notice of appeal does not reflect that the trial court entered any other

appealable order. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

April 22, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
* 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. 95-30796

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO MANUAL CABARCAS-MENDOZA, a/k/a

Cristian Raphael Rojas-Rodriguez,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-94-376-D

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Alfredo Cabarcas-Mendoza has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and we have independently reviewed counsel's brief and

the record and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1670 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1670

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 2000

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Fort 
        Matanzas National Monument'', numbered 347/80,004 and dated 
        February, 1991.
            (2) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Fort 
        Matanzas National Monument in Florida.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF BOUNDARY.

    (a) In General.--The boundary of the Monument is revised to include 
an area totaling approximately 70 acres, as generally depicted on the 
Map.
    (b) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be on file and available 
for public inspection in the office of the Director of the National 
Park Service.

SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.

    The Secretary may acquire any land, water, or interests in land 
that are located within the revised boundary of the Monument by--
            (1) donation;
            (2) purchase with donated or appropriated funds;
            (3) transfer from any other Federal agency; or
            (4) exchange.

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

    Subject to applicable laws, all land and interests in land held by 
the United States that are included in the revised boundary under 
section 2 shall be administered by the Secretary as part of the 
Monument.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
to carry out this Act.

            Passed the Senate October 5 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```