alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. EL08-85-000] 

                    On August 29, 2008, the Commission issued an order that instituted a proceeding in Docket No. EL08-85-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2005), to consider the justness and reasonableness of granting the requested waiver of the 60-day notice requirement contained in the original Participating Load Agreement between the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Department of Water Resources State Water Project.                     *California Independent System Operator Corporation*, 124 FERC ¶ 61,205 (2008).                 

                    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL08-85-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-20712 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 44

Expressing Congressional disapproval of a rule issued by the Department

of Energy with respect to clothes washers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. KNOLLENBERG introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing Congressional disapproval of a rule issued by

the Department of Energy with respect to clothes washers.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec4 retary of Energy relating to clothes washers (66 Fed. Reg.

5 3314; January 12, 2001), and such rule shall have no

6 force or effect.

Æ
#### CHESTER et al. v. DAVIS.

No. 7891.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1952.

Frederick J. Stewart, Shreveport, for appellants.

Bailey, Hammett & Adams, Shreveport, for appellee.

GLADNEY, Judge.

This suit was instituted by plaintiffs Edgar James Chester, Richard L. Bowden and Edwin Daley, for the recovery of sums alleged to be due them as wages from defendant, Don Hoyt Davis, and was accompanied by a writ of provisional seizure under which certain property, of the defendant, an oil well drilling contractor, was seized. Defendant moved to dissolve the seizure and this motion was tried and sustained by the Court, but only as to a portion of the property under seizure. It is from this interlocutory judgment that plain*244tiffs have prosecuted a devolutive appeal. The appeal has been answered by Davis, who prays that the judgment be amended by dissolving the writ of provisional seizure as to all property seized thereunder.

Our first concern is directed to our right to consider this appeal. An appeal lies to this Court from an interlocutory judgment only when such judgment may cause an irreparable injury. Article 566 of the Code of Practice.

The record gives no indication plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the judgment is permitted to remain until a final decision upon the merits of the case. Since plaintiffs have perfected a devolutive appeal only, it is impossible for this Court to restore the status quo of the property which has been released from seizure by the judgment appealed from. It is disclosed, furthermore, that property of the defendant valued at $20,000 is still held under the writ of provisional seizure for the purpose of satisfying the claims of plaintiffs, which aggregate about $2,000. At this stage of the proceedings a trial on the merits may be expected to be more conducive to the ends of justice.

It is, therefore, ordered that this case be remanded for further proceedings and trial upon the merits of the case. Appellants are taxed with the cost of this appeal.
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
BALANCE SHEET

(Dollars in Thousands)

                                             September 30   December 31
                                                 2000           1999

ASSETS
     <S>                                          <C>            <C>
     Rentals receivable under capital lease       $9,150         $9,150
     Cash                                             46             44

                                                  $9,196         $9,194


LIABILITIES and SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

     Liabilities:
          Accounts payable and
            accrued liabilities                   $   20         $   20

     Shareholder's equity:

          Shares of beneficial interest, at
            no par value, 1,510,000 shares
            issued and outstanding                 9,145          9,145
          Income retained in business                 31             26

               Total Shareholders' Equity          9,176          9,171

               Total Liabilities and
                 Shareholders' Equity             $9,196         $9,194

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6**  **933**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, a/k/a Hassan Jones, a/k/a Q Ili

- Yaas Haakee m Farrakha n - Muhammad , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. John T. Copenhaver, Jr. , District Judge. ( 2:90

- cr - 00020

- 2 )

Submitted : August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Christopher Mitchell , Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew , Assistant United States Attorney s , Candace Haley Bunn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Mitchell appeals the district court ’ s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Mitchell , No. 2:90

- cr 00020

- 2 (S.D.W. Va. May 22, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### SMITH v. JONES.

No. 2386.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 1, 1942.

Lewis & Lewis and Robt. F. Dejean, all of Opelousas, for appellant.

Harold L. Guilbeau, of Opelousas, for appellee.

LeBLANC, Judge.

On the face of the record in this case and from the extract from the minutes of the district court, it appears that the defendant was granted an appeal from a judgment on confirmation of default which revived a former judgment obtained against her by the plaintiff on December 11, 1931.

The original judgment which was revived is in, and forms part of the record, hut we fail to find the judgment of revival which is the one from which the appeal was granted and taken, nor a copy thereof, in the transcript of appeal.

The case was fully argued and submitted as though the judgment had been actually rendered and signed and we presume that it was. In its absence from the record, however, the appeal cannot be entertained at this time.

We might mention also that the only issue presented, in our opinion, is a plea of prescription but apparently no such plea was filed. It is elementary that a plea of prescription cannot be supplied by the court.

As the appeal cannot be considered in the present form of the record, we have concluded to remand the case to the district court for the purpose of having the same completed. See Wren v. Brock, 198 La. 1026, 5 So.2d 323.

For the reason stated it is therefore ordered that this case be and the same is hereby remanded to the Twenty-seventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry for -the purpose of having such documents as are missing from the record therein supplied and otherwise completing the same.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JORDAN ELIAS KORN, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 443 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    Title: BEES Please.
    OMB Control Number: 0693-0036.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 1,875.
    Number of Respondents: 30.
    Average Hours Per Response: 62 hours and 30 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: The Building for Environmental and Economic 
Sustainability (BEES) Please is a voluntary program to collect data 
from product manufacturers to scientifically evaluate their products' 
environmental performance using the BEES software. These data include 
product-specific materials use, energy consumption, waste, and 
environmental releases. BEES evaluates these data, translates them into 
decision-enabling results, and delivers them in a visually intuitive 
graphical format.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, (202) 395-3123.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcd8f4c5d2d9d7fcd8d3df92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a7e5263747f715a7e7579347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-5806 or via 
the Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#672d06140a020213382c49383402020f150627080a054902081749000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eda78c9e80888899b2a6c3b2be8888859f8cad82808fc388829dc38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-2105 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P


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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 76 Considered and Passed House (CPH)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 76

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2001

 Mr. Young of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

                            December 5, 2001

Committee on Appropriations discharged; which was considered and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``December 15, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL JAM ES HIC KS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. LINDA NEAL, Progra

m Dire c tor; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17343 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02207-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Susa n Illston, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2014 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GOULD, a n d B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s . C a lifornia sta te prisone r M ic ha e l Ja

m e s Hic k s a

p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing tha t de fe nda nts we re de libe rate ly

indiffe re nt to his sa fe ty

and se rious m e d i c a l ne e ds. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v . 

# F IL ED OCT 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C

hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Hic ks fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts a c te d in c onsc i ous disre ga

rd of a risk to a ny se rious he a lth or sa fe ty

issue . Se eid. at 1057- 58 (a prison offic i a l a c ts with de libe rate indiffe re nc e only if she knows of a

nd disre ga rds a n e xc e ssiverisk to theprisone r’ s he a lth a nd sa fe t y ); se ealso J

ac k son v . Mc Intosh , 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th C ir. 1996) (a diffe re nc e of opinion a s to thene e d to pursueone c ourse of tre at m e nt ove r anothe r is not a c tiona ble unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e nt). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Hic ks’ s m otion for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use Hic ks fa ile d to de m o nstra te e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se eTe rre ll v . Bre w e r , 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th C ir. 1991) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla i ning “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s” re quire m e nt). W e re je c t Hic ks’ s c onte ntions tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d by de ny ing his m otions for servic e of subpoe na s a nd to a m e nd na m e d pa rtie s a nd thenature of his a c tion. Hic ks’ s re que st for judic ia l notic e , file d on June4, 2014, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 3 4 3 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code


     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and
Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report
of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.




                                     /s/ E. James Ferland
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     E. James Ferland
                                     Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     May 5, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Grady Coleman, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence is sufficient to establish defendant’s intent permanently to deprive the victim of the car and the money contained therein. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender to 15 years to life. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—robbery, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### HOOPER v. CALDARERA et al.

No. 16255.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 16, 1935.

Daniel Wendling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Jos. F. Monie, of New Orleans, for appel-lees.

JANVIER, Judge.

Charles V. Caldarera is the operator of a restaurant in this city. On the night of April S, 1935, he left his brother, Anthony, in charge of the establishment. Plaintiff, Hooper, alleges that on that night he, with a female companion, entered the place and ordered a fish sandwich and that, after waiting for 15 or 20 minutes, he concluded that his order was not being attended to with sufficient promptness and attempted to depart, but that, as he was about to make his exit, he was approached by the said Anthony Caldarera, who addressed a vile epithet to him and then struck him on the head with a pistol. He avers that he was taken to the Charity Hospital, where he remained overnight, and he seeks solidary judgment against Charles and Anthony Caldarera in the sum of $300.

Defendants deny categorically every allegation of plaintiff.

There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff has appealed.

The record shows without contradiction that Hooper was struck on the head by Anthony Caldarera. Some of the witnesses state that the blow was delivered with a pistol, and some say that it was Caldarera’s fist which •inflicted the damage. But there is no denial of the fact that the blow was struck. Defendants did not plead that there was any justification for the assault, but, in a very 'feeble way, they produced evidence in an effort to show that Hooper was intoxicated, and some of the witnesses also state that he had used abusive language; but the principal defense seems to be a reliance on the belief that the operator of such a place may violently attack a customer who fails to wait for or to pay for what he has ordered.

No such right exists. If Hooper’s refusal to wait for his order was not justified, or if he declined to pay for what he had ordered, some other legal means of redress should have been adopted.

Both defendants are liable, fortunately, the damage sustained by Hooper was very slight; $75 should be ample to assuage his wounded sensibilities and to compensate him for his physical injuries.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and that there now be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Louis Hooper, and against Charles V. and Anthony Caldarera, jointly, severally, and in solido, in the full sum of $75, with legal interest from judicial demand, and for all costs.

Reversed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

p0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140566 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140566 

 COA: 293969 

Oakland CC: 2008-222269-FH 

DONALD DARON MABIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 14, 2009 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Michael C. JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56486.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Dec. 13, 1971.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Court En Banc Denied Jan. 10, 1972.

Harold C. Ackert and Herbert Wolko-witz, St. Louis, for appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Gene E. Voigts, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PRITCHARD, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of burglary and stealing and was sentenced respectively to eight and four years imprisonment; to run concurrently. The convictions were affirmed, State v. Johnson, Mo., 454 S.W.2d 27.

The only point presented on this appeal from an order overruling appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside his sentence under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., is that the court erred in denying his motion for leave to amend his Rule 27.26 motion. The proffered amendment alleges only that appellant was not arraigned in open court, nor was the information read to him, nor was he called upon to plead thereto.

*102It is obvious that appellant was entitled to no relief under his requested amendment as the trial court found. Rule 25.04 provides in part: “ * * * If a defendant is tried as if he had been arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty, the failure of the record to show arraignment and the entry of such plea shall not constitute reversible error.” The rule has been followed in these cases: State v. Fenner, Mo., 358 S.W.2d 867; State v. Davenport, Mo., 360 S.W.2d 710; and State v. Miles, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 532, 9 A.L.R.3rd 1266. The court, therefore, did not err in denying leave to amend the motion on the asserted ground.

BARRETT and STOCKARD, CC, concur.

PER CURIAM:

The foregoing opinion by PRITCHARD, C., is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

All of the Judges concur.