alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 24702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10517]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe8a8c9f9a9b9f909f92878d978dbe98939dd0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5a1a7b4b1b0b4bbb4b9aca6bca695b3b8b6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 011383-044.
    Title: Venezuelan Discussion Agreement.
    Parties: Hamburg-S[uuml]d; King Ocean Service de Venezuela; 
Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; Seaboard Marine Ltd., and 
SeaFreight Line, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M 
Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment deletes Compania Sud Americana de Vapores 
S.A. as a party to the agreement.

    Agreement No.: 200317-004.
    Title: Tampa Port Authority and Tampa Bay International Terminals, 
Inc. Operating Agreement.
    Parties: Tampa Bay International Terminals, Inc. and Tampa Port 
Authority.
    Filing Parties: Greg Lovelace, Director Cargo & Cruise Marketing; 
Tampa Port Authority; 1101 Channelside Drive; Tampa, FL 33602.
    Synopsis: The amendment extends the agreement through May 29, 2046.

    Agreement No.: 201206.
    Title: Port of Philadelphia Marine Terminal Association, Inc.
    Parties: Delaware River Stevedores, Inc.; The Port of Philadelphia 
& Camden; and South Jersey Port Corporation.
    Filing Party: Francis X. Scanlan, Esq.; Scanlan and Scanlan; Post 
Office Box 120; Bryn Mawr, PA 19010.
    Synopsis: The agreement updates and replaces the parties' previous 
agreement under FMC Agreement No. 008425.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
    Dated: April 30, 2010.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10517 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1655

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the criteria for

designation as a critical access hospital.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1999

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise

the criteria for designation as a critical access hospital.

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 ‘‘Rural Hospital Flexi5 bility Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. REVISION OF CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AS A

7 CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL.

8 (a) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION.—Section

9 1820(c)(2)(B)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 1395i–4(c)(2)(B)(iii)) is

10 amended—
2

•S 1655 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘to exceed 96 hours’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘to exceed, on average, 96 hours per patient’’;

3 (2) by striking ‘‘, except’’ and all that follows

4 before the semicolon.

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

6 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment

7 of this Act.

Æ
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 14 - 00103 - CR IN RE JAMES ELLIS CH ANDLER
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Ellis Chandler, a prison inmate, requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable Bob Carroll, judge of the 40th District Court in Ellis County , to amend Chandler’s judgment and sentence in trial court case number 18251CR to reflect what Chandler alleges to be the proper back time credit owed to him. We note that on the plea agreement in the underlying ca se, which was signed by Chandler, there is an area to enter the amount of credit for time served. This area is conspicuously empty. Because the agreement indicates that it contains the entirety of the plea agreement, and because the time credit blank on the trial court’s docket sheetIn re Chandler Page 2

was scratched out, it can be concluded that there was an agreement as giving no credit for time served. This makes sense because Chandler’s sentence of 25 years in trial court case number 18251 ran consecutively with trial c ourt case number 18252 in which Chandler received a life sentence. The time credit at issue may have been given to
Chandler in 18252. See In re Brown , 343 S.W.3d 803, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (“Whenever a defendant can show indisputably that he has bee n denied jail

- time credit for a period of pre

- trial incarceration for the identical "case" for which he was convicted and sentenced, he is entitled to relief from the convicting court in the form of a judgment nunc pro tunc and, failing that, by writ of ma ndamus in the court of appeals.”). Alternatively, it could mean there was no agreement regarding time served and the defendant is entitled to credit for the time served pursuant to the statute. We believe this ambiguity creates a fact question about what the agreement of the parties

was. A motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or a writ of mandamus to the appellate court if such a motion is denied will provide a remedy only if the right to pre

- trial jail

time credit is absolutely indisputable under the statut e regarding time credit. Brown , 343 S.W.3d at 804; T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 42.03, § 2(a)(1) (West Supp

. 2013 ). Mandamus relief is unavailable to compel non

- ministerial judicial acts. Id . Because there is at least a fact question about what the agreem ent of the parties was, noIn re Chandler Page 3

ministerial act is implicated. See Brown , 343 S.W.3d at 805; Collins v. State , 240 S.W.3d 925, 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Accordingly, Chandler’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Be fore Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed April 24, 2014 Do not publish [OT06]
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of G. Willi-Food International Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ety
Sabach, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     Date: June 30, 2008

                                               By: /s/ Ety Sabach
                                               ------------------
                                               Ety Sabach
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. and will be retained by G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee:
    Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member 
Conflict: Alcohol.
    Date: May 20, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Michael Selmanoff, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3134, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-1119, [email protected].
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 4, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-11064 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
Opinion issued May 11 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 22
- 00767
- CV

——————————— PATRICIA COPE , Appella nt

V. DOUG FERGUSON, BURNET COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR; JIM LUTHER, JR., BURNET COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT 1; DAMON BEIERLE, BURNET COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT 2; BILLY WALL, BURNET COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT 3; JOE DON DOCKERY, BURNET COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT 4; JAMES OAKLEY, BURNET

COUNTY JUDGE , Appell e e s
On Appeal from the 424th District Court

Burnet County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 540472 MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant , Patricia Cope, has failed to timely file a brief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case ). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            2954
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              11
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      15320
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          63014
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (1078)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   87209
<DEPOSITS>                                       75983
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1444
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             2160
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        7622
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                    9782
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2817
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  508
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    79
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3404
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1147
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2215
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      129
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    907
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       599
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.54
<LOANS-NON>                                        114
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1116
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   965
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       32
<RECOVERIES>                                        16
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1078
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           1078


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2179 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2179

To provide for the term of office of the first person appointed to the 
 position of Under Secretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of 
                                Energy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2000

  Mr. Domenici (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Kyl) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the term of office of the first person appointed to the 
 position of Under Secretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of 
                                Energy.

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

SECTION 1. TERM OF OFFICE OF PERSON FIRST APPOINTED AS UNDER SECRETARY 
              FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

    (a) Length of Term.--The term of office as Under Secretary for 
Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy of the first person 
appointed to that position shall be three years.
    (b) Exclusive Reasons for Removal.--The exclusive reasons for 
removal from office as Under Secretary for Nuclear Security of the 
person described in subsection (a) shall be inefficiency, neglect of 
duty, or malfeasance in office.
    (c) Position Described.--The position of Under Secretary for 
Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy referred to in this 
section is the position established by subsection (c) of section 202 of 
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7132), as added by 
section 3202 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (title 
XXXII of Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 954)).
                                 <all>
```
#### STEUFFEN, Respondent, *v.*JEFFERIS, Appellant.

Pbaotioe on *Appeal*— Motion *for new trial.*— An order denying a motion for a new trial will not be considered on appeal when the statement has not been certified to by the trial judge as having been allowed.

*Same*— Notice *of appeal.*— An order denying a motion for a new trial ia an appeal-able order, and will not be considered on appeal where the notice fails to designate such order as the subject of review.

*UniEtis*— Error *in judgment roll.*— When no brief is filed by appellant calling attention to any error in the judgment roll, the court will presume that there is none.

*Appeal from, First Judicial District, Lewis and Clarice County.*

The judgment was rendered by Blake, C. J.

*F. G. Davies,*for Appellant.

*George F. Shelton,*and *A. C. Botldn,*for Respondent.

Bach, J.

Judgment was rendered in the court below in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and defendant made a motion for a new trial, which motion was denied.

The order denying the motion for a new trial cannot be considered in this court, against the objection of respondent: *First,*because the so-called statement was never certified to by the judge as having been allowed by him. (See *Scherrer*v. *Hale, ante,*page 63, decided at this term of court, and cases cited.) *Second,*because the defendant has not properly appealed from the order denying a new trial.

The notice of appeal is as follows: “You, and each of you, are hereby notified that the defendant and the intervenor in the above-entitled action hereby appeal to the Supreme Court .... from the judgment, .... and all other orders of said court,” etc.

The order denying a motion for a new trial is one from which an appeal may be taken directly; but a litigant, wishing to appeal from such order, must give notice thereof, and his notice of appeal must direct the attention of the adverse party to the fact that such order will be the subject of review in the appellate court. (See *Day*v. *Callow,*39 Cal. 593; *Sperling*v. *Calfee,*7 Mont. 514.) This court will not consider the order denying the new trial.

*67The statement in the record cannot be considered as a statement on appeal, because it has neither been allowed by the court, nor does it contain any certificate of the parties or their attorneys “that it has been agreed upon by them, and is correct.” (See § 435, p. 178, Comp. Stats.; *Scherrer*v. *Hale, ante,*page 63, decided at this term. See, also, *Raymond*v. *Thexton,*7 Mont. 299, and cases cited.) Further: No brief has been filed by the appellant, calling our attention to any error contained in the judgment roll proper, and we must presume that there is none. Judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed, with costs.

Liddell, J., and De Wolfe, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,959
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,373
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   179
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     23,065
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          44,115
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            44,142
<LOANS>                                        274,559
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 364,003
<DEPOSITS>                                     320,480
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,964
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,030
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,528
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 364,003
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,733
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  936
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    53
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,722
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,918
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,998
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,724
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       28
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (3)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,476
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       883
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.45
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,443
<LOANS-PAST>                                       223
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,666
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,057
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       60
<RECOVERIES>                                        51
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,077
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,077
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>