alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11123-11124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4955]



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

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY


National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board, National 
Institute for Literacy.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a 
forthcoming meeting of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory 
Board (Board). This notice also describes the function of the Board. 
Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify the 
general public of their opportunity to attend the meeting.

DATE AND TIME: March 14, 1995, 10:00 am to 4:00 pm.

ADDRESSES: National Institute for Literacy, 800 Connecticut Avenue NW., 
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharyn M. Abbott, Acting Executive Officer, National Institute for 
Literacy, 800 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 2006. 
Telephone (202) 632-1500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is established under Section 384 
of the Adult Education Act, as amended by Title I of Pub. L. 102-73, 
the National Literacy Act of 1991. The Board consists of ten 
individuals appointed by the President with the advice and consent of 
the Senate. The Board is established to advise and make recommendations 
to the Interagency Group, composed of the Secretaries of Education, 
Labor, and Health and Human Services, which administers the National 
Institute for Literacy (Institute). The Interagency Group considers the 
Board's recommendations in planning the goals of the Institute and in 
the implementation of any programs to achieve the goals of the 
Institute. Specifically, the Board performs the following functions: 
(a) makes recommendations concerning the appointment of the Director 
and the staff of the Institute; (b) provides independent advice on 
operation of the Institute; and (c) receives reports from 
[[Page 11124]] the Interagency Group and the Director of the Institute. 
In addition, the Institute consults with the Board on the award of 
fellowships.
    The Board will meet in Washington, DC on March 14, 1995 from 10 am 
to 4 pm. The meeting of the Board is open to the public. The agenda 
includes a review of 1994 activities, preliminary discussions of 
potential 1995-1996 NIFL activities, and a discussion on the status of 
the reauthorization.
    Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for 
public inspection at the National Institute for Literacy, 800 
Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 from 8:30 a.m. 
to 5:00 pm.
Andrew J. Hartman,
Executive Director, National Institute for Literacy.
[FR Doc. 95-4955 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6055-01-M
Order entered May 28, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01017-CV

IN THE MATTER OF CYNTHIA HOUSTON AND CHARLES ANTHONY ALLEN SR.,

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV99-01573-V

ORDER

We DENY appellant’s May 22, 2014 motion to transfer records from his appeal to the 

Texas Supreme Court. This Court will transfer records only at the request of the Texas Supreme 

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 54.2(a).

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3804 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Technical Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 7), 2022 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Technical Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL SERGEANT MARSHAL ROBERTS 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1233 North Cedar Street in 

7 Owasso, Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3804 IS

1 ‘‘Technical Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Technical Sergeant 

7 Marshal Roberts Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED 
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      13,168,496
<SECURITIES>                                 6,842,963
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,223,753
<PP&E>                                       4,878,617
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,420,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,683,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,725,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,815
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,345,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,683,319
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,006,280
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,216,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,210,607)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,210,607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,210,607)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.07)
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 18 - 00067 - CR
LEXINGTON LAINE MCFA RLAND , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No
. 2 McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 20170032CR2

ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant, Lexington Laine McFarland, was convicted of driving while
intoxicated. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 49.04 (West 2011). The Clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed. It reflects that appellant was represented by counsel at trial but that trial counsel was permitted to withdraw from representing McFarland. We do not
know whether new coun sel has been appointed or retained to represent McFarland on appeal.M cFarland v. State Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is abated to the trial court to determine whether: 1) McFarland is indigent; 2) the court will appoint new counsel for McFarland; or 3)
McFarland will hire new c ounsel or represent himself on appeal. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . arts. 1.051, 26.04 (West 2005 & 2009). If necessary, a hearing to make these
determinations should be held within 14 days from the date of this order. The Clerk’s and Reporter’s Recor ds containing the trial court’s written or oral findings and rulings, if any, are ordered to be filed within 28 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal abated Order issued and filed March 2 8 , 2018
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and GraphsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Trust Fund Investment in Equities | Description of Proposed Provision:      Invest 40 percent of the Trust Funds in equities (phased in 2006-2020), assuming an ultimate 6.5 percent real rate of return on equities |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2005 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 376 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study 

on motor vehicle recalls, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. MARKEY, and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States 

to conduct a study on motor vehicle recalls, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Safe Recall Informa5 tion Distributed Equitably Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘Safe 

6 RIDE Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 376 IS

1 SEC. 2. STUDY ON OPEN RECALLS. 

2 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

4 shall— 

5 (1) conduct a study to determine— 

6 (A) the number of passenger motor vehi7 cles in each State that— 

8 (i) are used— 

9 (I) as taxicabs; or 

10 (II) by transportation network 

11 companies for similar for-hire pur12 poses; and 

13 (ii) have 1 or more open recalls; and 

14 (B) the reasons why vehicle owners do not 

15 have repairs performed for vehicles subject to 

16 open recalls; and 

17 (2) submit to Congress a report on the results 

18 of the study under paragraph (1), including any rec19 ommendations for increasing the rate of repair for 

20 vehicles subject to open recalls. 

21 SEC. 3. STUDY ON RECALL NOTICES. 

22 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

23 of this Act, the Administrator of the National Highway 

24 Traffic Safety Administration shall— 

25 (1) conduct a study to determine the ways in 

26 which vehicle recall notices could— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 376 IS

1 (A) more effectively reach vehicle owners; 

2 (B) be made easier for all consumers to 

3 understand; and 

4 (C) incentivize vehicle owners to complete 

5 the repairs described in the recall notices; and 

6 (2) submit to Congress a report on the results 

7 of the study under paragraph (1). 

8 SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

9 Nothing in this Act may be construed to restrict the 

10 authority of the Secretary, including under section 30111 

11 of title 49, United States Code, or to meet the require12 ments enacted in Public Law 112–141 and Public Law 

13 114–94. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7285
DOUGLAS E. BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN J. MCDADE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carol ina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-856-5-BR) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 14, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Kieran Maher, RUDOLF & MAHER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Black v. McDade , No. CA-96-856-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 1997). 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
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. IC16-4-000]

                    On December 14, 2015, the Commission published a “60-day Public Notice” in the above-captioned proceeding,                     *Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-500, FERC-542); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension.*                     [1] 

This errata notice serves to correct the section and associated table for the FERC-542 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Tracking, OMB Control No. 1902-0070).

The Abstract should indicate that the FERC-542 also includes the reporting requirements in 18 CFR 154.401 (research, development, and demonstration [RD&D] expenditures) and 18 CFR 154.403 (Periodic rate adjustments). In the table for FERC-542, the correct number of respondents is 87, with an average of 2.13 responses per respondent and a total of 185 responses.

With the updates stated above, the correct total annual burden hours is 370, and the correct total annual cost is $26,640.

Dated: February 3, 2016.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             80 FR 79322, December 21, 2015.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2016-02508 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3924]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Role of Federally Funded 
Research & Development Centers (FFRDC's) in DoD Mission

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Role of Federally 
Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDC's) in DoD Mission will 
meet in open session on February 18, 1995 at Strategic Analysis, Inc., 
4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 175, Arlington, Virginia.
    This meeting is scheduled on short notice because of unforeseen 
circumstances that require this Task Force to research large volumes of 
information within a very short timeframe in order to meet a 
Congressional mandated suspense.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition on 
Scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of 
the Department of Defense.
    Persons interested in further information should call Mr. Robert 
Nemetz at (703) 756-2096.

    Dated: February 13, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-3924 Filed 2-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Trust Fund Investment in Equities

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						G7: Invest 25 percent of the OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves in equities (phased in 2026-2035), assuming an ultimate 2.3 percent annual real rate of return on equities. Thus, the ultimate rate of return on equities is the same as that assumed for Trust Fund bonds.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001058870
<NAME> THE RESORT AT SUMMERLIN, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      69,074,653
<SECURITIES>                                41,966,144
<RECEIVABLES>                                  267,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           111,448,376
<PP&E>                                     103,646,922
<DEPRECIATION>                                 319,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             248,036,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,140,068
<BONDS>                                    160,265,028
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    65,805,283
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,016,760)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               248,036,962
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,079,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,729,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,318,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,318,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,318,014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

p0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137266

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137266 COA: 285537 Genesee CC: 84-034395-FC ANNE MARIE BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 5, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6622

BENJAMIN DAVIS, III, a/k/a BJ, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus RODERICK R. SOWERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-03748-WDQ) Submitted: June 1, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Benjamin Davis, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Davis’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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