alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9690-9691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4091]



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

HARRY S TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION


Harry S Truman Scholarship 1995 Supplemental Competition

AGENCY: Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of closing date for Supplemental Nominations from 
Eligible Institutions of Higher Education.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in the Harry S Truman Memorial Scholarship Act, Public Law 
93-642 (20 U.S.C. 2001), nominations are being accepted from eligible 
institutions of higher education for 1995 Truman Scholarships. 
Procedures are prescribed in 45 CFR 1801 (August 22, 1994; vol. 59, no. 
161 sec. 13).
    In order to be assured consideration, all documentation in support 
of nominations for the supplemental competition must be received by the 
Truman Scholarship Review Committee, 2255 N. Dubuque Road, P.O. Box 
168, Iowa City, IA 52243 no later than March 31, 1995, from 
participating two- and four-year institutions.

    [[Page 9691]] Dated: February 10, 1995.
Louis H. Blair,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4091 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE BOAC-95001-M
Order entered January 3, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00362 - CV NINA D. WHITE, Appellant

V. GUADALUPE PADILLA, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judici al District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 14 - 08917



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 30, 2016 motion to extend time to file her amended brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s brief shall be filed by January 2 5, 2017.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID BRICKER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 5 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Memorandum and

Order of the Superior Court at No. 849
WDA 2015 entered on December 29,
2015, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Fayette County Court of

Common Pleas at No. CP

- 26

- CR

0000835

- 2014 entered on May 13, 2015

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the

remaining issue. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the sentencing court impose a harsh, severe, and manifestly unreasonable and excessive sentence in light of the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident?

The judgment of sentence is VACATED , and the matter is REMANDED to the

Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Muniz , 164 A.3d 1189

(Pa. 2017)

.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4678]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AK-962-1410-00-P and AA-8096-03]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision to issue a reserved minerals conveyance 
under the provisions of Sec. 14(e) of the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(e), will be 
issued to Chugach Alaska Corporation for 919.79 acres. The lands 
involved are in the vicinity of Icy Bay, Alaska.

U.S. Survey No. 8967, Alaska;
U.S. Survey No. 8966, Alaska.

    A notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four 
(4) consecutive weeks, in the Anchorage Daily News. Copies of the 
decision may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the 
Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, 
Alaska 99513-7599 ((907) 271-5960).
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional 
corporation, shall have until March 29, 1995 to file an appeal. 
However, parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days 
from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in 
the Bureau of Land Management at the address identified above, where 
the requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do 
not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 
4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Terry R. Hassett,
Chief, Branch of Gulf Rim Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 95-4678 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1493

___________

Cecil James Roth, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 30, 2012

Filed: August 2, 2012

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cecil Roth appeals the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint 1

against the United States of America. He also requests oral argument. Upon careful

de novo review, see Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2008), we

agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see FDIC v.

Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature;

absent waiver, sovereign immunity shields Federal Government and its agenciesfrom

suit); V S Ltd. P’ship v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir.

The HonorableCharlesR. Wolle, United StatesDistrictJudge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa.
2000) (to sue United States, plaintiff must show both waiver of sovereign immunity

and grant of subject matter jurisdiction), but we clarify that the judgment is without

prejudice, see Cnty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464 (8th Cir. 2004)

(district court is generally barred from dismissing case with prejudice if it concludes

subject matter jurisdiction is absent); Murray v. United States, 686 F.2d 1320, 1327

& n.14 (8th Cir. 1982) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where dismissal was

granted on grounds of sovereign immunity).

We affirm the judgment as clarified, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Roth’s

request for oral argument, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 8th Cir. R. 34A.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                                  UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from CMP
Group, Inc. Consolidated  Statement of Earnings,  Consolidated Balance
Sheet and Consolidated  Statement of Cash Flows and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1
<CURRENCY>                            U.S. Dollars

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            2
<BOOK-VALUE>                          Per-Book
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    $810,987
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                   $58,209
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       $474,078
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     $898,551
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                $15,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $2,257,590
<COMMON>                                     $161,226
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    $286,035
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                           $94,217
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               $541,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         $18,910
<PREFERRED>                                   $35,528
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                          $92,298
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 $0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                          $0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                     $0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                $109,628
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      $9,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                   $31,907
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               $1,716
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             $1,417,125
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              $2,257,590
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    $501,801
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                          $29,008
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   $420,592
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   $420,592
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                       $81,209
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            $18,183
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                $70,384
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      $31,248
<NET-INCOME>                                  $39,136
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    $1,838
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                 $37,298
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      $14,609
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      $3,079
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        $55,671
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.14


</TABLE>
SCWC-22-0000466 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

MARQUIS GREEN, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-22-0000466; CASE NO. 1CPC-21-0000292) 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.) 

 Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 

on May 2, 2024 is hereby rejected. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 12, 2024. 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Sabrina S. Mckenna 

 /s/ Todd W. Eddins 

 /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza 

 /s/ Vladimir P. Devens 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-22-0000466

12-JUN-2024

12:04 PM

Dkt. 5 ODAC
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. IS16-61-000]

Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Wednesday, March 9, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), in Hearing Room 1 at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

                    At the technical conference, the Commission Staff and the parties to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues set for technical conference as established in the December 3, 2015 Order (                    *Colonial Pipeline Company,*                     153 FERC ¶ 61,270 (2015)).                

                    All interested persons are permitted to attend. Advanced registration is required for all attendees. Attendees may register in advance at the following Web page:                     *https://www.ferc.gov/​whats-new/​registration/​03-09-16-form.asp.*                     Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site,                     *www.ferc.gov,*                     prior to the event.                

                    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.                

                    For more information about this technical conference, please contact Adrianne Cook, 202-502-8849,                     *adrianne.cook@ferc.gov*                     or David Faerberg, 202-502-8275,                     *david.faerberg@ferc.gov.*

Dated: February 9, 2016.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-03019 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### J. REGGIE GREER, Administrator of W. T. GREER, Deceased, and ALICE GREER, v. THE BANK OF DAMASCUS and W. R. BAUGUESS, Trustee.

(Filed 27 January, 1932.)

Trial A lb — Order continuing action upon defendant’s paying into court , sum in excess of that demanded in the action held erroneous.

Upon the exercise of the trial judge of his discretionary power of withdrawing a juror and continuing the case, his order that the defendant pay into court an amount in excess of the plaintiff’s demand affects a substantial right and is erroneous, and in this case the judgment is modified and affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from *Oglesby, J.,*at July Term, 1931, of Ashe.

Modified and affirmed.

This is a civil action brought by plaintiffs against defendant. “Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray judgment against the Bank of Damascus for the sum of $3,000 and interest on it from 20 September, 1927, until paid, together with the cost of this action.”

The defendants denied plaintiffs’ right to recover and set up new matter and counterclaim.

The judgment' of the court below was as follows: “This cause coming on to be heard before his Honor, John M. Oglesby, judge presiding, and a jury, the court, in its discretion, withdrew a juror and continued this cause, and ordered that defendant, the Bank of Damascus, pay into this *221court before the next term thereof the sum of $7,000, to be disbursed according to law, it appearing to the court, by admission of the Bank of Damascus, that the purchase price bid by said bank had not been paid.”

*T. C. Bowie for plaintiffs.*

*W. R. Bauguess and U. S.*Or. *Bauguess for defendants.*

Pee Cueiam.

This controversy was here *before*— In *re Bauguess,*196 N. C., 278. The plaintiffs only contend that they can recover $3,000 and interest. Why, therefore, compel defendants to pay $7,000 into court? We think in the interest of justice the court should not have ordered more than $3,000 and interest, the amount plaintiffs sue for, to be paid into court. It was discretionary for the court below to withdraw a juror. *Wolf v. Goldstein,*192 N. C., 818; *S. v. Guice,*201 N. C., 761. The ordering of $7,000 to be paid into court affected a substantial right.

In modifying and affirming this judgment, we do not desire it to be understood that the other questions appearing of record were considered, that arose on the trial in the court below. They are not passed on or decided on this appeal. The judgment is

Modified and affirmed.
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                           -------------------------------






Board of Directors
Nittany Financial Corp.

We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet  of  Nittany
Financial  Corp.  (the  "Company")  and subsidiary as of March 31, 2003, and the
related  consolidated  statements  of income for the  three-month  periods ended
March  31,  2003 and  2002,  and the  consolidated  statements  of cash flow and
changes in stockholders' equity for the three month period ended March 31, 2003.
These consolidated  financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America,  the
objective  of which is the  expression  of an opinion  regarding  the  financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance with auditing  standards  generally
accepted in the United States of America,  the consolidated  balance sheet as of
December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for the year then  ended  (not  presented
herein);  and in our report dated January 31, 2003, we expressed an  unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
May 9, 2003
null

3.3424482
#### LILLIE T. OETTINGER et al. v. CITY OF KINSTON.

(Filed 12 October, 1932.)

Appeal by defendant from *Sinclair, J.,*at February Term, 1932, of LeNOIE.

Civil action tried upon the following issues:

“1. "Was the injury and damage to plaintiffs’ property caused by the unlawful acts or omissions of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.

2. What damage, if any, have the plaintiffs sustained by reason of such unlawful acts or omissions? Answer: $2,000.”

From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Wallace & White and Dawson & Jones for plaintiffs.*

*Sutton ■<& Greene for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the ease has been tried in substantial conformity to the decisions apposite, and that no reversible error has been made to appear.

The law on the subject has been settled in a number of cases, notably *Gore v. Wilmington,*194 N. C., 450, 140 S. E., 71, and *Yowmans v. Hendersonville,*175 N. C., 574, 96 S. E., 45.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11116-11117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5011]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-30,550]


Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    Grace Energy Corporation, Dallas, TX and Grace Petroleum 
Corporation Operating at the Following Locations: TA-W-30,550A 
Oklahoma, TA-W-30,550B Texas, TA-W-30,550C Alabama, TA-W-30,550D 
Colorado, [[Page 11117]] TA-W-30,550E Michigan, TA-W-30,550F Montana, 
TA-W-30,550G Mississippi, TA-W-30,550H New Mexico, TA-W-30,550I Wyoming 
and TA-W-30,550J Grace Drilling Company, Dallas, TX.
    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 27, 1995, applicable 
to all workers of Grace Energy Corporation, Dallas, Texas, and Grace 
Petroleum Corporation operating in various locations in the United 
States. The notice was published in the Federal Register on February 
14, 1995 (60 FR 8415).
    At the request of the workers, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of Grace Energy Corporation and Grace 
Petroleum Corporation. The investigation findings show that workers of 
Grace Drilling Company, Dallas, Texas, a subsidiary of Grace Energy 
Corporation, were inadvertently excluded from the certification.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Grace Energy Corporation, Grace Petroleum, and Grace 
Drilling Company adversely affected by imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,550 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Grace Petroleum Corporation operating in the 
States of Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, 
Mississippi, New Mexico and Wyoming who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after August 21, 1994; for workers 
of Grace Energy Corporation, Dallas, Texas who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after December 18, 1994; 
and for workers of Grace Drilling Company, Dallas, Texas who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 
12, 1994 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of February 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-5011 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 22.10



                              LINCARE HOLDINGS INC.
                      ACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES AND PARTNERSHIPS



DELAWARE CORPORATIONS:

1)       Lincare Holdings Inc.
2)       Lincare Inc.
3)       Lincare Procurement Inc.
4)       Lincare Travel Inc.
5)       Lincare Licensing Inc.
6)       Lincare Pharmacy Services Inc.
7)       Med 4 Home Inc.
8)       Alpha Respiratory Inc.

INDIANA CORPORATION:

1) ConvaCare Services Inc.

NEW YORK CORPORATION:

1) Lincare of New York Inc.

NEVADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:

1) Lincare Asset Management

SOUTH CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:

1) Lincare of Columbia
**EXHIBIT 32.02****CERTIFICATION****Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350**     The undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 ofFisher Scientific International Inc. (the “Company”)filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Kevin P. Clark           Kevin P. Clark     Chief Financial OfficerMarch 16, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Fisher ScientificInternational Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.     This certification accompanies this Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of theSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.