alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31594]








NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

DATE: Weeks of January 1, 8, 15, and 22, 1996.

PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of January 1

Friday, January 5

10:00 a.m.
    Briefing by NRC Staff on Industry Restructuring and Deregulation 
        (Public Meeting) (Contact: Scott Newberry, 301-415-1183)

Week of January 8--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 8.

Week of January 15--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 15.

Week of January 22--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 22.

    Note: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is operating under a 
delegation of authority to Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson, because 
with three vacancies on the Commission, it is temporarily without a 
quorum. As a legal matter, therefore, the Sunshine Act does not 
apply; but in the interests of openness and public accountability, 
the Commission will conduct business as though the Sunshine Act were 
applicable.

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (Recording)--(301) 415-
1292.

CONTRACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bill Hill (301) 415-1661.

* * * * *

    This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; 
if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to it, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations Branch, 
Washington, D.C. 20555 (301-415-1963).
    In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the internet 
system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#34555856745a46571a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8b8688aa849889c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a> or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e7808c93a7899584c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1c6cad5e1cfd3c28fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.

* * * * *

    Dated: December 29, 1995.
William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-31594 Filed 12-29-95; 2:12 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001058549
<NAME> MEDITECNIC, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         868,757
<SECURITIES>                                   749,210
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,628,466
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,899,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       7,528
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,889,699)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,899,899
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  37,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (36,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (36,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (36,701)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3186]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-150-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; Noticed of Tariff Filing

February 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 31, 1995, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (TGPL), tendered for filing certain revised tariff 
sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 2, which tariff 
sheets are enumerated in the appendix attached to the filing. Such 
tariff sheets are proposed to be effective February 1, 1995.
    TGPL states that the purpose of the instant filing is to revise 
certain tariff sheets to eliminate expired producer settlement payment 
recovery provisions.
    TGPL states that copies of the instant filing are being mailed to 
customers, State Commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before February 10, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3186 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3826 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3826

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1304 4th Avenue in Canyon, Texas, as the ``Gary James Fletcher Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. GARY JAMES FLETCHER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1304 4th Avenue in Canyon, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Gary James Fletcher Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Gary James 
Fletcher Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate May 25, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3826

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1304 4th Avenue in Canyon, Texas, as the ``Gary James Fletcher Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
#### LEONARD A. TEEL and Wife, MABEL L. TEEL, v. C. I. JOHNSON and MRS. C. I. JOHNSON, His Wife.

(Filed 5 November, 1947.)

1. Ejectment § 15—

Answer in a possessory action denying plaintiffs’ title imposes the burden of proof on plaintiffs of showing title in themselves.

2. Ejectment § 17—

In an action for possession of real property, plaintiffs’ evidence of deed to themselves and *mesne*conveyances covering a period of 12 years, without evidence of title by adverse possession, or a common source of title, is insufficient to overrule defendants’ motion to nonsuit.

*156Appeal by defendants from *Allay, J.,*at March Term, 1947, of BaNdolph.

Reversed.

This was a suit for tbe possession of a bouse and lot in Asbeboro on allegations of title and wrongful witbbolding by tbe defendants. Tbe defendants denied plaintiffs’ title and denied that defendants were in tbe wrongful possession of tbe property. Defense bond under G. S., 1-111, was given.

On issues submitted to tbe jury there was verdict that plaintiffs were owners and entitled to tbe possession of tbe described property, that defendants were in tbe wrongful possession, and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover of defendants damages therefor. From judgment on tbe verdict defendants appealed.

*Smith •& Walker for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*J. G. Prevette for defendants, appellants.*

Devin, J.

Tbe defendants’ denial in their answer of plaintiffs’ title to tbe property described in tbe complaint was sufficient to raise an issue, and to impose upon tbe plaintiffs tbe burden of showing title in themselves, in order to maintain their action. On this issue in support of .their allegations tbe plaintiffs offered deed to themselves from Mattie L. Auman, dated 14 January, 1946; deed to Mattie L. Auman from Howard S. Auman and others, heirs of Frank Auman, dated June, 1943; deed to Frank Auman from *~W.*M. Green and wife, dated 1 August, 1938; deed to *W.*M. Green from Geo. *W.*Ehvett and wife, dated 12 March, 1934. Tbe plaintiff Leonard A. Teel testified that when be and bis wife purchased tbe bouse and lot in 1946 it was occupied by tbe defendant Mrs. O. I. Johnson; that be demanded possession and gave her and her bus-band written notice to vacate. This they refused to do.

There was no evidence of adverse possession of tbe property on tbe part of tbe plaintiffs or those under whom they claim, nor any evidence of title other than tbe introduction of tbe deeds mentioned. It is apparent that plaintiffs have failed to offer sufficient evidence to carry tbe case to tbe jury on this primary issue, and that defendants’ motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed. *Graybeal v. Davis,*95 N. C., 508; *Motley v. Griffin,*104 N. C., 112, 10 S. E., 142; *Prevatt v. Harrelson,*132 N. C., 250, 43 S. E., 800; *Moore v. Miller,*179 N. C., 396, 102 S. E., 627; *Smith v. Benson,*227 N. C., 56, 40 S. E. (2d), 451. Tbe denial of defendant’s motion for judgment of nonsuit on tbe evidence offered must be held for error, and tbe judgment

Reversed.
1 The HONORABLE GEORGE HOWARD, JR., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1362

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Sherri M. Sotherland, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 3, 2003 Filed: June 9, 2003

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sherri M. Sotherland pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court 1 sentenced her to 10 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, and to pay restitution of $21,467.94. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the following issues: whether she was afforded her right of allocution,-2- whether the restitution order was proper, and whether the district court should have departed downward. These issues lack merit. The sentencing transcript shows that Sotherland was afforded her right of allocution, see United States v. Kaniss , 150 F.3d 967, 969 (8th Cir. 1998); the district court properly established a payment schedule for the ordered restitution, cf. United States v. McGlothlin , 249 F.3d 783, 784-85 (8th Cir. 2001) (remanding restitution order where sentencing court failed to establish schedule of restitution payments); and we do not review the district court’s decision not to depart because there is no indication that it was unaware of its authority to do so, seeUnited States v. Koons , 300 F.3d 985, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2002). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN FREDERICK WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-786, CA-98-1620-7-20) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Frederick Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Frederick Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams , Nos. CR-96-786; CA-98-1620-7-20 (D.S.C. June 30, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
sample1
sample2
sample3
sample4
sample5
sample6
sample7
sample8
sample9
sample10
sample11
sample12
sample13
sample14
sample15
sample16
sample17
sample18
sample19
sample20
sample21
sample22
sample23
sample24
sample25
sample26
sample27
sample28
sample29
EXHIBIT 32.1

     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 quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Biomoda,  Inc.,
("the  Company")  for the  quarter  ended  September  30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  ("the  Report"),  I, John
Cousins,  Chief  Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company hereby 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 Section 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 the
Company.

                               BY:/s/John J. Cousins
                                  ----------------------------------------
                               John J. Cousins
                               Executive Vice President
                               (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
                               November 15, 2004

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by section 906, or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written statement  required by section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### Proposed Provision: F1. Starting in 2024, cover newly hired State and local government employees.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.12% 0.17% -1.89% -4.17%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Family Members

Proposed Provision: The current spouse benefit is based on 50 percent of the PIA of the other spouse. 

Reduce this percent each year by 1 percentage point beginning with newly eligible spouses in 2010, until 

the percent reaches 33. Thus, the spouse benefit would be based on 33 percent of PIA for newly eligible 

spouses in 2026 and later.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

November 4, 2009

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 24, 2012

s1017 

# Order

October 24, 2012

145152

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145152

COA: 303824

Kalamazoo CC: 2010

- 001366

- FC

TOMMY JOHNNY EMORY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### ISLA E. HILL, Administratix, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.

(Filed 27 November, 1940.)

Master and Servant § 37 — Evidence held insufficient to show that experienced switchman’s fall from train was caused by negligence on part of railroad.

Plaintiff alleged that her intestate, who was an experienced switchman in defendant’s employ, fell or was thrown from the rear of a freight train while it was engaged in switching operations over a bridge. Plaintiff’s nonexpert witness testified that the train stopped suddenly when it got over the bridge and that he then heard a splash in the water. Two members of the train crew, as witnesses for plaintiff, testified that there was no sudden or unusual movement of the train. *Held:*Taking plaintiff’s evidence in its entirety, it is insufficient to make out a case of actionable negligence against the defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Frizzelle, J.,*at February Term, 1940, of New HaNOvee.

Civil action to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant.

*564Plaintiff’s intestate had been in the employ of the defendant for ■twenty-seven years. He was an experienced switchman. It is alleged that he fell, or was thrown, from the rear of a freight train while engaged in a switching operation near Wilmington when the train he was on passed over the bridge at Smith Creek.

A 1'7-year-old Negro boy who was fishing in the creek at the time testified for the plaintiff as follows: “When the engine got over the bridge it stopped all of a sudden. They stopped it is all I know. After the engine got over the bridge the ears stopped all of a sudden, and then I heard a splash in the water.”

The body of the deceased was later found in Smith Creek about fifteen feet west of the bridge.

Two members of the train crew were called as witnesses for the plaintiff. They testified as follows:

E. F. Pittman: “There was nothing unusual in the movement of the train that day, no jerking or sudden stopping.”

E. L. Allen: “There was no sudden stop or jerk of the train that day to throw an experienced man off the train.”

From a judgment of nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, she .appeals, assigning error.

*Bullard & Bullard and Rodgers & Rodgers for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Poisson & Campbell and Alan A. Marshall for defendant, appellee.*

Pbb Curiam:.

Taking the plaintiff’s evidence in its entirety, we agree with the trial court that it is wanting in sufficiency to make out a case •of actionable negligence against the defendant. *Usury v. Watkins,*152 N. C., 760, 67 S. E., 926. *Cf. Smith v. Bus Co.,*216 N. C., 22, 3 S. E. (2d), 362.

Affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 591 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3773 

[Report No. 117–233] 

To authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for the 

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8 (legislative day, MARCH 7), 2022 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

DECEMBER 6, 2022 

Reported by Mr. SCHATZ, without amendment 

A BILL 

To authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in 

trust for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS 

4 RESERVATION LEASING AUTHORITY. 

5 Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of Au6 gust 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 539, chapter 615; 25 U.S.C. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3773 RS

1 415(a)), is amended, in the second sentence, by inserting 

2 ‘‘, land held in trust for the Confederated Tribes of the 

3 Chehalis Reservation’’ after ‘‘Crow Tribe of Montana’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 591 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3773 

[Report No. 117–233] 

A BILL 

To authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held 

halis Reservation. in trust for the Confederated Tribes of the CheDECEMBER 6, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB