alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2083]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[MT-921-08-1320-EL-P; NDM 97633]


Notice of Coal Lease Application--NDM 97633--BNI Coal Limited

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Notice of BNI Coal Limited Coal Lease Application NDM 
97633 for certain coal resources within the Center Mine. The land 
included in Coal Lease Application NDM 97633 is located in Oliver 
County, North Dakota, and is described as follows:

T. 142 N., R. 84 W., 5th P. M.
    Sec. 20: N\1/2\, SW\1/4\;
    Sec. 32: N\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\
    The 640.00 acre tract contains an estimated 17.1 million tons of 
recoverable coal reserves.
    The application will be processed in accordance with the provisions 
of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181, et 
seq.), and the implementing regulations at 43 CFR 3400. A decision to 
allow leasing of the coal reserves in said tract will result in a 
competitive lease sale to be held at a time and place to be announced 
through publication pursuant to 43 CFR 3422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BNI Coal Limited is the lessee and operator 
of Coal Leases NDM 043848, NDM 62073, and NDM 95104 at the Center Mine. 
The entire area included within this lease application lies within the 
Center Mine BNCR-9702 permit area.
    The area applied for would be mined as an extension of the Center 
Mine and would utilize the same methods as those currently being used. 
The lease being applied for can extend the life of the mine by about 4 
years, and enable recovery of coal that might never be mined if not 
mined as a logical extension of current pits.
    Notice of Availability: The application is available for review 
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. at the Bureau of Land 
Management, Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, 
Montana 59101, and at the Bureau of Land Management, Dakotas District 
Office, whose address is 2933 Third Avenue West, Dickinson, North 
Dakota, 58601-2619, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Spurgin, Coal Coordinator, at 
telephone 406-896-5080, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State 
Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.

    Dated: January 30, 2008.
Edward L. Hughes,
Acting Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals.
 [FR Doc. E8-2083 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7581
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-92-33-3) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying hismotion for release pending disposition of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion and pending the outcome and possible appeal of a pending and a future habeas corpus proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordi ngly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Un ited States v. Williams , No. CR-92-33-3 (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1995). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### HESTER TRUCK LINES, Inc., v. SILVER FLEET SYSTEM OF MEMPHIS, Inc., et al.

No. 1834.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 7, 1938.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for appel-lees.

OTT, Judge.

As we decided in the case of Grady Rogers against these same defendants, 180 So. 445, this day decided, that the Silver Fleet System and its insurance carrier are liable for the damage occasioned by the collision, there remains nothing to decide in this case except the amount of damage sustained by this plaintiff.

As was stated in the opinion in the other suit, plaintiff in this case is claiming the total sum of $1,628.09 damages, itemized in its petition. A careful reading of the testimony shows that the plaintiff has shown the following items of damage with legal certainty: Loss of the tractor shown to be worth $550 at the time; damage to trailer and tires, $472.67; cost of replacing tarpaulin destroyed in the wreck, $96; loss of freight on cargo, $26.28; wrecker charge and cost of removing wrecked tractor and trailer, $45; loss of use of trailer while same is repaired, estimated at 30 days at $5 per day; loss of use of tractor for five days at $10 per day. This makes a total of $1,389.95, which embraces all the items of damage claimed, except the loss of the cargo of bottles and office supplies, and it is shown that plaintiff did not pay for this cargo, but that the insurance company paid for the same. It is obvious, therefore, that plaintiff cannot recover for the loss of the cargo on the truck.

The trial judge rendered judgment for $1,375.42, but as we have not the benefit of his reasons for judgment, we do not know how he arrived at the award and cannot account for this small difference. The judgment will have to be amended to correct this small difference in the award.

For the reasons hereinabove given, and for the reasons assigned in the case of Grady Rogers against the same defendants, 180 So. 445, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by increasing the amount of damages from $1,375.42 to $1,389.95, and, as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed at the cost of appellants.
#### BAHAM v. F. W. WOOLWORTH & CO.

No. 1627.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 7, 1936.

For prior opinion, see 169 So. 798.

J. Elton Huckaby, of Baton Rouge, for appellants.

W. A. Benton, of Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the issue presented to us on this application for rehearing.

We find that the lower court together with ourselves granted the plaintiff an excessive judgment, considering the fact that she only suffered a temporary ailment of. her foot. And therefore for these reasons we have decided to amend the decree by reducing the amount allowed by the lower court by the sum of $250.

For these reasons it is now ordered that the decree heretofore rendered affirming the judgment of the lower court be now amended to read as follows:

It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be reduced to the sum of $263, with interest thereon from judicial demand until paid. Defendant to pay the cost of the lower court. Appellee to pay the cost of this court; and it is further ordered that the application for rehearing be, and the same is hereby, refused.
#### In the Matter of Ralph R. Dickinson, Petitioner. Richard E. Madill as Fire Commissioner of the Town of Watertown, Respondent.

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner Ralph Dickinson, a resident of the Town of Watertown, commenced the instant proceeding in this court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36, seeking to remove respondent from the office of Fire Commissioner of the Town of Watertown.

Respondent contends that the allegations of wrongdoing are unrelated to the performance of his duties as Fire Commissioner and do not warrant his removal. We have reviewed the papers submitted and find that summary disposition of this proceeding is not warranted. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to Supreme Court to hear and report concerning the charges against respondent *(see, Matter of Henry v Audette,*148 AD2d 452). (Original art 78 proceeding.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2021-Ohio-36.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

ERIC CHRISTOPHER WILSON, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2020-04-054 

D E C I S I O N 

 1/11/2021 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2019-11-1765 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for appellee 

Christopher Paul Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Eric Christopher Wilson, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the 

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 
Butler CA2020-04-054 

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous. 

HENDRICKSON, P.J., S. POWELL and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20640]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; AA-3 Member Conflict 
Applications.
    Date: October 15, 2008.
    Time: 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Katrina L Foster, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, National Inst on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National 
Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm. 3042, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-443-4032, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#513a302523383f30113c30383d7f3f38397f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afc4cedbddc6c1ceefc2cec6c381c1c6c781c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-20640 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamont Sanders, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree *(see,*Penal Law § 140.25) was supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). Defendant’s claim that he had a license or privilege to be in complainant’s apartment is without merit. There was no evidence that defendant had permission to be in complainant’s apartment at the time the crime was committed. Further, we find that defendant’s counsel, although inexperienced, provided meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Farrar, 52*NY2d 302). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flynn, J.— burglary, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Molecular and Integrative Signal Transduction Study Section, October 2, 2008, 8 a.m. to October 3, 2008, 5:30 p.m., Sheraton Delfina Santa Monica Hotel, 530 West Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90405 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 18, 2008, 73 FR 48219-48220.                 

The meeting will be held one day only October 2, 2008. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public. 

Dated: September 3, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20908 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,440
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                       840
<INVENTORY>                                     25,150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               223,574
<PP&E>                                         131,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,867
<BONDS>                                         52,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,558
<SALES>                                        142,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,846
<CGS>                                          122,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,711
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,297
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph G. Shapiro, Doing Business as Joli Marketing Co., Respondent, v Pitex Corporation, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Wager, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Wager, J.—stay arbitration.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6931 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6931

 To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to modify the 
boundary of, and reauthorize, the Baltimore National Heritage Area, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2022

Mr. Mfume (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Ruppersberger) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to modify the 
boundary of, and reauthorize, the Baltimore National Heritage Area, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Baltimore National Heritage Area 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF BALTIMORE NATIONAL 
              HERITAGE AREA.

    (a) Boundary Modification.--
            (1) Map.--Section 8005(a)(4) of the Omnibus Public Land 
        Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 111-
        11; 123 Stat. 1247) is amended by striking ``entitled'' and all 
        that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
        ``entitled `Baltimore National Heritage Area Proposed 
        Boundary', numbered T10/179,623, and dated February 2022.''.
            (2) Boundaries.--Section 8005(b)(2)(A) of the Omnibus 
        Public Land Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; 
        Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1247) is amended by striking 
        ``October 2001'' and all that follows through the period at the 
        end and inserting ``July 2020.''.
    (b) Reauthorization.--Section 8005(i) of the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 111-11; 123 
Stat. 1253) is amended by striking ``the date that is 15 years after 
the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``March 30, 2036''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10(i)

 
                       AMENDMENT DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1997
                                      TO
                             AMENDED AND RESTATED
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     Amendment, dated November 3, 1997, to the Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement between Computervision Corporation (the "Company") and Kathleen A.
Cote (the "Employee") dated as of September 4, 1996 (the "Original Employment
Agreement"), as amended by amendments dated September 22, 1997 and October 16,
1997 (the "Amendments"). All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Original Employment Agreement.

     WHEREAS, pursuant to the Amendment dated September 22, 1997, the Company
granted to the Employee an Earnings-Based Stock Option for the purchase of up to
a maximum of 175,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company and a Stock-Price-
Based Stock Option for the purchase of up to a maximum of 75,000 shares of
Common Stock of the Company (the "Options"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to rescind in their entirety
the Options and both of the Amendments;

     NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Employee agree as follows:

     1.   The Company and the Employee hereby agree to the rescission,
cancellation and termination (collectively, "rescission") of the Amendments and
the Options, effective immediately.

     2.   As a result of the rescission of the Amendments, the Company and the
Employee hereby agree that the terms and conditions of employment of the
Employee shall be governed solely by the terms and conditions of the Original
Employment Agreement, effective as of the date of the first of the Amendments,
to wit, September 22, 1997.

     3.   The Company hereby acknowledges receipt from the Employee of the
Options, without the payment of any consideration therefor, and the Employee
acknowledges that the Options are hereby rescinded and are of no further force
and effect.

     4.   Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Original
Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby
ratified and confirmed in all respects.
<PAGE>
 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the date first above written.

                                        COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION



                                        By:_______________________________
                                        Title


                                        KATHLEEN A. COTE


                                          
                                         _________________________________

                                       2