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

          - [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0253]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Postmarketing Adverse Drug Experience Reporting” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,                         *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 1, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Postmarketing Adverse Drug Experience Reporting” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0230. The approval expires on December 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: January 27, 2016.

Leslie Kux,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2016-01884 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### STATE ex Rel. BEATRICE PARKS, v. A. G. SEAGRAVES.

(Filed 7 December, 1932.)

Appeal and Error E a — Judgment is necessary part of record proper.

It is tbe duty of the appellant to see that the record is properly made up and transmitted, and it is required that the pleadings, the issues and the judgment be a part of the transcript in all cases, and where the record does not contain these necessary parts the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal by defendant from *Moore, J.,*at May Term, 1932, of Wilkies.

Proceeding in bastardy (civil action, *S. v. Liles,*134 N. C., 735, 47 S. E., 750).

From “judgment signed,” the defendant appeals.

*F. J. McDuffie and Trivette & Holshouser for plaintiff.*

*J. H. Whicker for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The record recites “judgment signed,” but we are not advised as to its contents. The proceeding was denominated a criminal action in the justice’s court, and a civil action in the Superior Court. In the absence of the judgment, we cannot know whether it purports to be one rendered in a civil action or in a criminal prosecution.

Rule 19, sec. 1, provides that “the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” The judgment of the Superior Court is not in the record. *Everett v. Fair Association,*202 N. C., 838, 162 S. E., 896. It is the uniform practice to dismiss the appeal for failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper. *Riggan v. Harrison, ante,*191; *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126. It is the duty of appellant to see that the record is properly made up and transmitted. *S. v. Frizell,*111 N. C., 722, 16 S. E., 409.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Charles C. P. Clark, Respondent, v. Nelson Robinson and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Boardman, J.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00219-CR

JARROD MICHAEL TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017F00163

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After a jury convicted Jarrod Michael Taylor of online solicitation of a minor under 

fourteen years old, the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment, and Taylor appealed. 

Taylor also appeals from his convictions for (1) sexual assault of a child in companion case number 

06-17-00215-CR, (2) five additional counts of online solicitation of a minor in companion cause 

numbers 06-17-00216-CR through 06-17-00218-CR, 06-17-00220-CR, and 06-17-00221, and 

(3) two counts of indecency with a child by contact in companion cause numbers 06-17-00222-

CR and 06-17-00223-CR. Taylor has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all 

of his appeals. 

Specifically, Taylor argues, in a conclusory manner, that the evidence is legally insufficient 

to support the jury’s verdict of guilt. He also argues that the trial court erred in failing to excuse a 

juror who knew the victim and in denying his request for an instruction on the affirmative defense 

of insanity. We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Taylor’s appeal in 

cause number 06-17-00215-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that Taylor 

failed to adequately brief his first point of error, cannot demonstrate error in the trial court’s 

decision to retain the juror, and raised no evidence entitling him to an instruction on the defense 

of insanity. 
3

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: July 23, 2018

Date Decided: July 31, 2018

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the annual report of Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.



| |  |                         |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
| |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | Date: September 2, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mike F. Chang                    
| |  |                         |  |  |  |     |  | Mike F. Chang Chief
Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01798]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP16-302-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Initiation of Section 
5 Proceeding

    On January 21, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
RP16-302-000, pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 
717d (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and 
reasonableness of Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC's (Columbia Gulf) 
currently effective tariff rates. The Commission's order directs 
Columbia Gulf to file a full cost and revenue study within 75 days of 
the issuance of the order. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 154 FERC ] 
61,027 (2016).

    Dated: January 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01798 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
- Side by side-01
- Side by side-02
- Side by side-03
- Side by side-04
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7880

JOHNIE NORMAN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-00131-LO-IDD)

Submitted: October 12, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnie Norman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Johnie Norman, Jr. seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Norman has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We also deny Norman’s motions to appoint counsel, 

to schedule oral argument, and to conduct en banc argument. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MICHAEL LEE BOURGEOIS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 333 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Memorandum and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 1248 

MDA 2014 exited March 31, 2015, 

affirming the Judgment of Sentence of 

the Lancaster County Court of Common 

Pleas at Nos. CP-36-CR-0004224-2001 

and CP-36-CR-0004975-2001 exited 

July 7, 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates the prohibition 

against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme 

Court of the United States in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). 

As a result of the recent holding by that Court that Miller must be applied retroactively 

by the States, see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the 

Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further 

proceedings consistent with Montgomery. 

To the extent necessary, leave is to be granted to amend the post-conviction 

petition to assert the jurisdictional provision of the Post Conviction Relief Act extending 

to the recognition of constitutional rights by the Supreme Court of the United States 

which it deems to be retroactive. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). 

DECIDED: February 24, 2016
[333 MAL 2015] - 2 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31078]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development
[Docket No. FR-3778-N-67]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized,underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Johnston, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7256, 
451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1226; 
TDD number for the hearing-and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these 
telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V 
information line at 1-800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: December 15, 1995.
Jacquie M. Lawing,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development.
[FR Doc. 95-31078 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
#### M. F. WESTBROOK v. THOMAS WILLIAMS et al.

(Filed 20 March, 1935.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Barnhill, J.,*at September Term, 1934, of JohNstoN.

Affirmed.

Tbis is an action to recover possession of a black mare mule, about ten years old, and for other relief.

It is alleged in tbe complaint tbat tbe plaintiff is tbe owner of tbe mule described in tbe complaint and tbat said mule is now in tbe wrongful and unlawful possession of tbe defendant Henry Brady. Tbis allegation is denied in tbe answer.

At tbe close of tbe evidence for tbe plaintiff, on motion of tbe defendants, tbe action was dismissed as to tbe defendant Henry Brady by judgment as of nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*L. F. Watson, Jr., for plaintiff.*

*Leon G. Stevens for defendants.*

Pee Cueiam.

There is no evidence appearing in tbe record in tbis appeal tending to show tbat tbe mule described in tbe complaint is now or was at tbe commencement of tbis action in tbe possession of tbe defendant Henry Brady, as alleged in tbe complaint. For tbat reason, tbe plaintiff is not entitled to recover in tbis action of tbe defendant Henry Brady.

There is no error in tbe judgment dismissing tbe action as to tbe defendant Henry Brady. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROSE MARIE DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-10171 

D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00272-JADCWH-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Rose Marie Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

her guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 34-month sentence for mail theft, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708; using or trafficking in an unauthorized access 

device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), (c)(1)(A)(i); and aggravated identity 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-10171 

theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Davis’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no 

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have 

provided Davis the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se 

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Davis waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence. Our 

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United 

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss 

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
#### STATE v. JOHNSON H. CHURCH

(Filed 26 March, 1958)

Appeal by defendant from *Nettles, J.,*December Term 1957 of Caldwell.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the Recorder’s Court of Caldwell County upon a warrant charging him with the illegal possession of twenty-six 16 oz. cans of beer and six pints of taxpaid whiskey. From the judgment imposed the defendant appealed to the Superior Court where he was tried *de novo*on the original warrant.

The State’s evidence tends to show that on 4 October 1957, two law enforcement officers, armed with a search warrant which was read to the defendant, proceeded to search a one-room cinder block building in the City of Lenoir. In the room there was a commercial type ice box and a breakfast room table and there was one plate and one fork, but no knife. There were no cooking utensils and no clothing except what he was wearing at the time. There was a TV set but it was not hooked up. There was no merchandise there for sale. There was a three-quarter bed in the place. The officers found twenty-four pints of beer on ice and six pints of whiskey in another ice box. The defendant told the officers that he was living in the room.

The State’s evidence further tends to show that over a period of several weeks while the premises were being watched by an officer, defendant had spent the first part of the night in this building but would leave and go to his home on Underdown Avenue; that he never spent a full night in this building during that period.

The defendant testified that the beer and whiskey belonged to him; that both were for his own use and that he was living there at the time the place was searched. That he and his wife were estranged at the time and he was not living with her at his home on Underdown Avenue.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment was imposed on the verdict and the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*101
      *Attorney General Patton, Ass’t. Attorney General McGalliard, for the State.*

*W. H. Strickland, for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The State’s evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to support the verdict. The determinative question to be decided by the jury was whether or not the room where the liquor was found was at the time being occupied as living quarters by the defendant. This question was fully and clearly presented to the jury in a charge free from error. It involved a question wholly within the province of the jury and the jury accepted the State’s version. Under the charge, the verdict of the jury was made to turn upon the possession of the six pints of whiskey (not the beer), and whether or not the place where it was found was the home of the defendant.

No prejudicial error in the trial below has been made to appear.

No Error.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4569 Filed: 11/04/19 Entered: 11/04/19 15:36:46 Page 1 of

1
#### The People of the State of New York *ex*xel. Abel S. Myers v. John Barnes and others.

Cause certified to Court of Appeals.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP16-301-000]

                    On January 21, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. RP16-301-000, pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717d (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP's (Iroquois) currently effective tariff rates. The Commission's order directs Iroquois to file a full cost and revenue study within 75 days of the issuance of the order.                     *Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.,*                     154 FERC ¶61,028 (2016).                

Dated: January 21, 2016.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-01797 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P