alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51023-51024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20117]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-305]


Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Notice of Receipt and 
Availability of Application for Renewal of Kewaunee Power Station 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-43 for an Additional 20-Year Period

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has 
received an application, dated August 12, 2008, from Dominion Energy 
Kewaunee, Inc., filed pursuant to Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act 
of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the

[[Page 51024]]

Code of Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew the 
operating license for the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS). Renewal of the 
license would authorize the applicant to operate the facility for an 
additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current 
operating license. The current operating license for KPS (DPR-43), 
expires on December 21, 2013. Kewaunee Power Station is a Pressurized-
Water Reactor designed by Westinghouse that is located near Kewaunee, 
WI. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and 
other matters including an opportunity to request a hearing, will be 
the subject of subsequent Federal Register notices.
    Copies of the application are available to the public at the 
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 or through the 
Internet from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under Accession Number 
ML082341038. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible 
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. In 
addition, the application will be available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html. Persons who do 
not have access to the internet or who encounter problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension 4737, or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#34445046745a46571a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8efeeafccee0fceda0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    A copy of the license renewal application for the Kewaunee Power 
Station is also available to local residents near the site at the 
Kewaunee Public Library, 822 Juneau St., Kewaunee, WI 54216.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Holian,
Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-20117 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


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



 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 

 
  
 February 27, 2005 
  
 Mr. Paul J. Liska 
 20 S. Wynstone Drive 
 N. Barrington, Illinois 60010 
  
 Dear Paul: 
  
 This letter confirms the agreement which we have reached regarding a transaction fee payable to you if USF Corporation (the “Company”) completes a merger
with Yellow Roadway Corporation. At the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement between the Company and Yellow Roadway Corporation, dated February 27, 2005), assuming that you have not voluntarily resigned as Executive Chairman prior to
the Effective Time, you will, in addition to other amounts that you are entitled to receive as a director and Executive Chairman of the Company, receive a payment in the amount of $2,190,000. 
  
 If the foregoing is consistent with your understanding, please countersign the enclosed copy
of this letter and return it to me. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

			
	 USF CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Steven W. Lilienthal


	 	 	 Chairman, Compensation, Committee

	
	 Accepted and agreed to

	 this 27th day of February 2005

	
	 /s/ Paul J. Liska


	 Paul J. Liska
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Julian Potter and Charles Dickson, Defendants.

County Court, Bronx County,

December 7, 1956.

*797
      *Daniel V. Sullivan, District Attorney (David S. Blatt*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*J. William Jarshower*for defendants.

Samuel J. Joseph, J.

The moving defendants have applied for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes or, alternatively, for a dismissal of the indictment herein charging a violation of subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 1751 of the Penal Law on the grounds that the presumption of a knowing possession and control of the narcotic in question, as provided for under subdivision 4 of section 1751 of the Penal Law, is inapplicable as to them. The contention is urged that since the preliminary hearing disclosed, as adduced from the testimony of the arresting officer, that the movants were seated alongside each other in the front seat of a private automobile, with the third defendant herein (Wilbur Wiggins, not a party to the instant application) seated alone in the rear seat, and that the codefendant Wiggins was observed by the officer, as he approached the ear, removing a package (of heroin) from his coat pocket and throwing it out of the car, the presumption aforesaid is not chargeable to the moving defendants who did not have physical possession of the drug. The case of *People*v. *Logan*(94 N. Y. S. 2d 681) is submitted in support of this claim. Apart from the fact that the defendants herein are accused of acting in concert with each other, defense counsel has failed to note that the cited case involved the granting of a certificate of reasonable doubt, under a conviction for possession (of a gun) under similar circumstances as the instant case and that, on appeal, such conviction was affirmed *(People*v. *Logan,*276 App. Div. 1029). The motion is in all respects denied.
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:                   February 18, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Robert C. KillRobert C. KillChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Majority Memorandum Opinion filed 

October 27, 2020

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00580-CR

THOMAS PAINE HAYES, IV, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 25th District Court

Colorado County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR17-124

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this court is the State’s motion to dismiss this appeal. The 

State argues that dismissal is warranted under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.4. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

Rule 42.4 provides that we must “dismiss an appeal on the State's motion, 

supported by affidavit, showing that the appellant has escaped from custody 

pending the appeal and that to the affiant’s knowledge, the appellant has not, 
2

within ten days after escaping, voluntarily returned to lawful custody within the 

state.” Tex. R. App. P. 42.4. In determining whether appellant has escaped for 

purposes of Rule 42.4, we do not necessarily apply the definition under the Texas 

Penal Code, but rather apply the term’s “commonly-accepted meaning.” Luciano v. 

State, 906 S.W.2d 523, 524–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Porras v. State, 966 

S.W.2d 764, 765 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, no pet.). One commonly-accepted 

meaning of escape is an unauthorized departure from custody. Luciano, 906 

S.W.2d at 524. The term “custody” includes actual physical detention or 

imprisonment, as well as the power to actually imprison or take into physical 

possession. Id. at 524–25. “Implicit within each example [of custody] is the notion

that the individual is not free to exercise his liberty or that his liberties are being 

restrained via legal process.” Porras, 966 S.W.2d at 765. When an individual is 

released on bond, his liberties are restrained. Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552, 

553–54 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982).

In the present case, appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to prison 

for four years. He was released on bond and ordered to report on July 24, 2020, to 

begin serving his sentence. Appellant failed to appear. An arrest warrant for “Bond 

Jumping Failure to Appear” issued August 7, 2020. Because apppellant was on 

bond at the time, appellant’s liberties were restrained. We therefore conclude that 

appellant escaped from custody for purposes of Rule 42.4. See Porras, 966 S.W.2d 

at 765 (appeal dismissed where affidavit stated defendant disappeared while appeal 

was pending, bond was surrendered, and warrant for arrest issued); see also Ike v. 

State, 998 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (appeal 

dismissed where affidavit stated defendant did not appear for sentencing and bond 

was forfeited).

No response to the motion to dismiss has been filed Nor has appellant 
3

otherwise opposed the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the State’s 

motion and dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot. (Bourliot, J.,

concurs without opinion.)

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19956]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-130-1020-AL; GP8-0193]


Notice of Public Meeting, Eastern Washington Resource Advisory 
Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern 
Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.

DATES: Thursday, September 18, 2008, at the Institute for Extended 
Learning, South Elm Street, Colville, WA 99114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will start at 9:30 a.m. and end 
at approximately 3:30 p.m. It will be open to the public and there will 
be an opportunity for public comments at 2:30 p.m. Discussion will 
focus on the status of projects of interest on BLM lands, and 
identification of topics of concern on the Colville National Forest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Pavey or Sandie Gourdin, BLM, 
Spokane District, 1103 N. Fancher Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99212, or 
call (509) 536-1200.

    Dated: August 22, 2008.
Sally Sovey,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. E8-19956 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,190
<SECURITIES>                                       150
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,150
<INVENTORY>                                    170,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               392,456
<PP&E>                                       3,437,766
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,485,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,411,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          337,692
<BONDS>                                        701,779
<COMMON>                                        32,722
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     892,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,411,563
<SALES>                                      1,276,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,276,052
<CGS>                                        1,087,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,087,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,548
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,968
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,580
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20216]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 2, 2008. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: U.S. Small Business Administration Advisory Committee 
Membership Nominee Information.
    Description of Respondents: To collect information for candidates 
for Advisory Council.
    Form Number: SBA Form 898.
    Annual Responses: 100.
    Annual Burden: 100.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E8-20216 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
186 La. 362

#### WHEELER v. WHEELER.

No. *34021.*

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1,1937.

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Jack & Jack, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

LAND, Justice.

Plaintiff and defendant are both residents of the city of Shreveport, La. They were married in that city on September 3, 1929, and established their matrimonial domicile there.

The present suit for separation from bed and board was filed May 17, 1935. At that date there were two children, born of the marriage, namely, Kitty Ree Wheeler, age three and one-half years, and Betty Jean Wheeler, age six months.

Plaintiff seeks a separation in this case on the ground of cruel treatment. He alleges that on May 16, 1935, he was forced to leave his wife because she had repeatedly told him that she no longer held any affection for him; that she did not love him at all; and that she intended to gain her freedom from him whenever she could.

Plaintiff prays for judgment decreeing a separation a mensa et thoro, and for the custody of his minor child Kitty Ree Wheeler, age three and one-half years; but states in his petition that because of Betty Jean Wheeler’s age of six months, petitioner does not ask for the custody of the child. Tr. p. 12.

On June 1, 1935, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, decreeing a separation a mensa et thoro, and granting to him the custody, care, and control of his minor child Kitty Ree Wheeler, of the age of three and one-half years. Tr. p. 14.

On October 23, 1935, defendant filed a rule on petitioner to show cause why she should not be granted the permanent care, custody, and control of both minor children, as well as alimony for herself and minor children, to date from decree of separation, June 1, 1935.

On May 20, 1936, judgment was rendered in favor of Mrs. Catherine Elizabeth Sledge Wheeler, plaintiff in rule, granting to her the permanent custody of her minor child Betty Jean Wheeler, but rejecting her demand for custody as to the child *421Kitty Ree Wheeler, but granting to plaintiff in rule the right to visit the child in the state of Louisiana at any reasonable hour or hours, but continuing in full force and effect the judgment of June 1, 1935, as to the custody of the child Kitty Ree Wheeler, except as modified therein, and providing that the child Kitty Ree Wheeler shall not be removed permanently from the state of Louisiana; and condemning defendant for all costs of these proceedings..

Since the date of the formal decree of separation, June 1, 1935, giving the custody of the child Kitty Ree to plaintiff, she has been with plaintiff’s mother, who is a practical nurse, and has reared four children. The welfare of the child is not shown to be in jeopardy. Plaintiff has not been proved to be a person unfit for the custody of the child, is able to support it, and testified on the trial of the case that defendant had agreed that he should have the custody of Kitty Ree, and that she would take the other child. The trial judge evidently accepted this statement as true.

We do not see any good reason for disturbing the judgment of the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.
SCWC

- 1 8

- 0000 6 5 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

JERRICO LINDSEY , Petitioner /P etitioner

- Appell ant ,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I , Respondent / Respondent

- Appell ee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 1 8

- 0000 6 5 6 ; S.P.P. NO. 17

- 1

- 0022 ; CR. NO. 1PC081000643 )

ORDER ACCEPT ING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, J J. , and
Circuit J udge Remigio , assigned by reason of vacancy )

Petitioner/ Petitioner

- Appellant ’ s Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on Ju ly 20 , 2020, is hereby accepted

. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be

held in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai ʻ i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, August 26, 2020

.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Catherine H

. Remigio Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-18-0000656
26-AUG-2020
07:56 AM
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6914 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to discriminate, directly or indirectly, 

against an individual on the basis of whether such individual has been 

vaccinated or acquired natural immunity against SARS–CoV–2, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2022 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself and Mrs. CAMMACK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to discriminate, directly 

or indirectly, against an individual on the basis of whether such individual has been vaccinated or acquired natural immunity against SARS–CoV–2, 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6914 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping Mandates 

3 And Limiting Large Government Overreach by Valuing 

4 Truth Act of 2022’’ or the ‘‘SMALL GOVT Act of 2022’’. 

5 SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF VAC6 CINATION OR NATURAL IMMUNITY AGAINST 

7 SARS–COV–2. 

8 No Federal funds may be used to discriminate 

9 against, or to induce a recipient of Federal funds or other 

10 person to discriminate against, an individual in access to 

11 or the terms and conditions of employment, education, 

12 health care, or goods or services on the basis of whether 

13 such individual has been vaccinated or acquired natural 

14 immunity against SARS–CoV–2. 

15 SEC. 3. INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED FOR VACCINATION 

16 AGAINST SARS–COV–2. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds may be used 

18 to administer a vaccine against SARS–CoV–2 without 

19 having obtained informed consent for such administration 

20 from the patient. 

21 (b) MINORS.—No Federal funds may be used to ad22 minister to a minor a vaccine against SARS–CoV–2 with23 out having obtained informed consent for such administra24 tion from the minor’s parent or guardian. 

25 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6914 IH

1 (1) The term ‘‘informed consent’’ means con2 sent that— 

3 (A) meets the requirements for informed 

4 consent applicable under State law in the juris5 diction in which the vaccine against SARS– 

6 CoV–2 is administered; and 

7 (B) is confirmed in writing signed by— 

8 (i) the individual receiving the vac9 cine; or 

10 (ii) if the individual is a minor, the 

11 minor’s parent or guardian. 

12 (2) The term ‘‘minor’’ means an individual who 

13 has not attained 18 years of age. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS