alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 24686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office 
Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

    <bullet> Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda.
    <bullet> Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments.
    <bullet> Federal Coordinator's Comments.
    <bullet> Liaisons' Comments.
    <bullet> Subcommittee Chairs' Comments.
    <bullet> Presentations.
    <bullet> Administrative Issues.
    <bullet> Public Comments.
    <bullet> Final Comments.
    <bullet> Adjourn.
    Breaks Taken as Appropriate.
    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Paducah, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Reinhard Knerr at least seven days in advance of the 
meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Reinhard Knerr at the address or telephone number listed above. 
Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum 
of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Reinhard 
Knerr at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also 
be available at the following Web site: http://www.pgdpcab.org/meetings.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on April 29, 2010.
Carol A. Matthews,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-10518 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors and Shareholder 

Nationwide Financial Services, Inc: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-132910) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-110628) on Form S-8 of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. of our reports dated March 2, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of (loss) income, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of theyears in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and all related financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in theDecember 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. Our report with respect to the financial statements refers to the Company’s adoption of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’Statement of Position 05-1, *Accounting by Insurance Enterprises for Deferred Acquisition Costs in Connection with Modifications or Exchanges of Insurance Contracts,* in 2007. 

 

 

March 2, 2009
J-A02028-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

D.D.

 v.

C.T. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1250 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Dated July 14, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): 

FD13-004954-009

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 18, 2018

Appellant, C.T. (Mother), appeals from the July 14, 2017 order that 

denied Mother’s relocation to North Carolina with the five-year-old daughter 

she parents with D.D. (Father). After careful review, we are constrained to 

dismiss this appeal.

Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of 

Appellant Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may ... dismiss an 

appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 

1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 

2011). Our rules require that the statement of questions involved “must 

state concisely the issues to resolved” and the argument section of an 

appellant’s brief shall include “such discussion and citation of authorities as 

are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), 2119(a).
J-A02028-18

- 2 -

In this case, Mother appears to allege that the trial court erred in 

treating this matter as a relocation case and, furthermore, incorrectly 

determined that Father possessed custody rights with respect to the couple’s 

child. See Mother’s Brief at 1, 5. However, Mother’s statement of questions 

involved is incoherent and her one-page argument contains nothing more 

than conclusory assertions, without any development or explanation as to 

why or how the trial court erred. It is axiomatic that this Court will not 

consider issues where the appellant has not developed her contentions in 

any meaningful way. In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. 

Super. 2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 303 (Pa. 2013). Furthermore, “[t]his 

Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an 

appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).

Based on the foregoing, we are compelled to conclude that the defects 

in Mother’s brief are substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any 

meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion 

pursuant to Rule 2101 and dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
J-A02028-18

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/18/2018
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

SEC Tracking Number: SEC00195 

Ms. Rachel Leiton, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

 Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room C-3321 

Washington, District of Columbia 20210 

Dear Ms. Leiton:

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

Phone: 513-533-6825

Fax: 513-533-6826

January 7, 2013 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required 

by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a 

class of employees from the Nuclear Metals, Inc. facility in West Concord, Massachusetts, as an 

addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. On December 7, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 

§7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the 

SEC:

All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the facility owned by Nuclear Metals, Inc. 

(or a subsequent owner) in West Concord, Massachusetts, during the period from October 29, 

1958, through December 31, 1979, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work 

days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within 

the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort. 

This designation became effective on January 6, 2013, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 

§7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on January 6, 2013, members of this class of employees, defined as 

reported in this notice, became members of the SEC. 

Sincerely, 

[Signature on File] 

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 30, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00799

- CV

IN RE Abelardo G. GONZALEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

On October 24 , 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes a

ser ious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest may file a response to the

petition in this court no later than November 15, 2018

. Any such response must conform to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on October 30, 2018

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises o ut of Cause No. 2017 FLI 001815 C3 , styled In the Interest of M.A.G. and Z.A.G.,

Children , pending in the County Court at Law No 2

, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2
                         CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT



      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

      (1)   the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
            31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      (2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Dated: February 27, 2008

                                    /s/ Mary T. Minch
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Mary T. Minch
                                    Title: Senior Vice President-Finance,
                                    Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY
FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22

- 0162

_________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. JOHN CHRISTOPHER RYAN,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant John Christopher Ryan appeals from the December 20 , 2021 Judgment and Sentence of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Ryan argues the District Court imposed an illegal sentence by ordering that his sentence run consecutive to a sentence in another case in Idaho that had not yet been imposed. The State has filed a Notice of C oncession that this matter should be remanded to the District C ourt for the purpose of striking the court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence because a sentencing court cannot order a defendant to serve a term of incarceration consecutive to a sentence that has not yet been imposed

. State v. McGuire , 260 Mont. 386, 388, 860 P.2d 148, 150 (1993). Based on Ryan’s opening brief and the State’s concession, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, with instructions for the District Court to strike from the December 20, 2021 Judgment and Sentence the phrase “to run consecutive to the pending Idaho matter

. ” The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to presiding judge Honorable Heidi J. Ulbricht

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2023

11/15/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0162
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc., Form 10-Q, March 25, 2000 and is qualified in it
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>           0000202932
<NAME>          Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>    1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-27-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                             8,452
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    115,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      387,645
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 564,586
<PP&E>                                           459,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                   107,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,288,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            319,993
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                261
<PREFERRED>                                      107,085
<COMMON>                                          10,684
<OTHER-SE>                                        43,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,228,017
<SALES>                                          977,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 977,613
<CGS>                                            674,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    674,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 216,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                64,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   22,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                       6,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               15,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      15,808
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0



</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00063
- CR

The State of Texas , Appellant

v. Tristan Graham Stecker , Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 3 OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 19
- 6431CR
- 3 , THE HONORABLE MILLIE THOMPSON , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

The State o f Texas has filed a notice of appeal from the trial court ’ s order granting Tristan Graham Stecker ’ s motion to suppress evidence. Before filing its notice of appeal, the Stat e filed a request for the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of
law. No findings or conclusions were made before the clerk ’ s record and the reporter ’ s record
were filed with this Court. The State has now filed a motion to abate and rema n d the cause to
the trial court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the tria l court shall state its essential findi n gs,” which the court defined as “findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis upon which to review the trial court ’ s application of the law to the facts.” State v.2

Culle n , 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App

. 2006)

. When the trial court fails to make such findings and conclusions, we are required to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of its “essential findings.” State v. Elias , 339 S.W.3d 6 67, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ; see a lso Green v. State , 906 S.W.2d 937, 939

– 40 & n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that when trial record has been filed with appellate court, “the trial court no longer has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case” and that “ [t]he proper way to revive the trial court ’ s authority to take action is by abatement”).

Accordingly, we grant the State ’ s motion. We abate the appeal and remand the
cause to the trial court for entry of its findings of fact and conclusio ns of law. A supplemental
clerk ’ s record containing t he findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed with this Court
no later than April 3 0, 202 1

. This appea l will be reinstated once the supplemental clerk ’ s record
is filed.
It is so ordered March 30, 202 1

.

B efore Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly
A bated and remanded
Filed: March 30, 2021
Do Not Pub lish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2062
TED SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cv-00577-NCT) Submitted: July 30, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ted Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Kavonne L. Mayeski, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts; John W. Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ted Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Social Security Admin. , No. 1:05- cv-00577-NCT (M.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 2007). 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
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 13-969 C

Filed: November 19, 2014

***************************************

*

*

SRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

*

***************************************

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On September 15, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued 

an opinion vacating the Order on jurisdiction in the above-captioned case and remanding for 

dismissal. See SRA Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(“Accordingly, we vacate the order on jurisdiction and remand with instructions to dismiss the 

case for lack of jurisdiction.”).

On November 13, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued 

a Mandate instructing this court to dismiss the case.

Pursuant to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s November 13, 

2014 Mandate, the court’s February 3, 2014 Order is vacated. The Clerk of Court is directed to 

dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden

SUSAN G. BRADEN

Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,108
<SECURITIES>                                    18,149
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                       380
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,139
<PP&E>                                           7,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,879
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,823
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,018)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,910
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,780
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,780
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


          CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the annual report of ARC Energy Trust ("ARC") on Form 40-F
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven W. Sinclair,
Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of ARC, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ARC.



Steven W. Sinclair
------------------------
Name:  Steven W. Sinclair
Title:  Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

March 22, 2005