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. CP08-46-000] 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will conduct a public scoping meeting and site visit for the Whitetail Natural Gas Storage Project involving construction and operation of natural gas storage, pipeline, and compressor station facilities by Tarpon Whitetail Gas Storage, LLC (Whitetail) in Monroe County, Mississippi. 

                    We invite you to attend the public scoping meeting beginning at 7 p.m. (CST) on Thursday evening, February 14, 2008, to provide environmental comments on the proposed project. Your input will help us determine the issues that need to be evaluated in the environmental assessment. The public scoping meeting will be held at:  Monroe County Court House, 201 W. Commerce, Aberdeen, Mississippi 39730,                     *Phone:*                     662-369-8143.                 

                    The Commission staff will also conduct a site visit of the location of the proposed facilities. The site visit will begin at approximately 1 p.m. (CST) on February 14, 2008. Anyone interested in participating in the site visit may attend; however, they must provide their own transportation. The Commission staff, company representatives, and interested participants will meet in the parking lot at the following location:  Shelaines Restaurant, 202 Hwy 145 North, Aberdeen, Mississippi 39730,                     *Phone:*                     662-369-3352.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-2118 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 17, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 06-16173

Non-Argument Calendar

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

D.C. Docket Nos. 

05-00145-CV-CB

02-00086-CR-CB

TRUMAN RODNEY DANIEL,

 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA,

 Respondent-Appellee. 

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

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

(August 17, 2007)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Truman Rodney Daniel, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the

denial of his motion to reopen the time for filing a notice of appeal of his

previously denied 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. No reversible

error has been shown; we affirm.

Here, the district court concluded that, pursuant to the requirements of

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), it could not reopen the time to appeal

in this case. “A district court’s interpretation of federal procedural rules is subject

to de novo review.” Vencor Hosps., Inc. v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

279 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2002). 

A district court may reopen the time to file an appeal only if certain

conditions are satisfied, including that “the motion [to reopen] is filed within 180

days after the judgment or order is entered or within 7 days after the moving party

receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry,

whichever is earlier.” Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6)(B) (emphasis added); see also Vencor

Hosps., 279 F.3d at 1310 (“Under the plain meaning of Rule 4(a)(6), district courts

are authorized to reopen the time for filing an appeal based on lack of notice solely

within 180 days of the judgment or order.”).

In this case, the judgment denying Daniel’s section 2255 motion was

entered on 9 January 2006. Daniel asserts that he received notice of the district
3

court’s judgment on 29 August 2006 and that he submitted his motion to reopen

within seven days of that date. But because Daniel did not file his motion to

reopen by 10 July 2006 -- which was 180 days after entry of the 9 January 2006

judgment and was the earlier of the limits provided in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6)(B) --

the district court properly denied his motion to reopen. See Fed.R.App.P.

4(a)(6)(B); Fed.R.App.P. 26(a)(3) (explaining date calculation when last day of

period falls on a weekend).

We affirm the district court’s denial of Daniel’s motion to reopen the time

for filing an appeal.

AFFIRMED.
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 4 Filed 09/02/04 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1161 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1161

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Government of the Czech Republic to establish a 
    memorial to honor Tomas G. Masaryk in the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--The Government of the Czech Republic is authorized 
to establish a memorial to honor Tomas G. Masaryk on the Federal land 
in the District of Columbia.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance with the 
Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), except that sections 
2(c), 6(b), 8(b), and 10(c) of that Act shall not apply with respect to 
the memorial.
    (c) Limitation on Payment of Expenses.--The United States 
Government shall not pay any expense for the establishment of the 
memorial or its maintenance.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 02-14-00386-CR 

### OFFENSE: 49.04 Miguel Ramirezv. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Denton 

# 7J/-/5"

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIALCOURT: County Criminal Court No. 2 DATE: 04/30/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR-2013-01449-B



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Miguel Ramirez v.The Stat STYLE: Texas e of Petition 

# CCA#: l+/m/5^ AP/>£LLAVT\<=> CCA Disposition:. FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

## R&Fc/lirV JUDGE: 

### DATE: /D/MlX'Oir 

# JUDGE: f?MUmAjL4^~ SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
SCWC-21-0000364

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

TROY D. BORGE, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-21-0000364; CR. NO. 2CPC-20-0000288)

SECOND ORDER OF CORRECTION

(By: McKenna, J.)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court,

filed March 15, 2023, is corrected as follows: 

On page 17, in the second line of the first full 

footnote, the word “testimony” shall be inserted between the 

word “Clifton’s” and the word “cured.”

On page 18, the first instance of the word “only” 

shall be deleted in the heading for section IV.B.1.

On page 24, the word “now” shall be replaced with the 

word “not” in the heading for section IV.B.2.c.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all 

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of this 

change. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 11, 2023. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

Associate Justice

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-21-0000364

11-MAY-2023

09:14 AM

Dkt. 31 OCOR
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10556 c/w 13-10562

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME FRAIRE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-23-1

USDC No. 6:13-CR-1-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jamie Fraire pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced Fraire within the 

guidelines range to 16 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years 

of supervised release. The court also revoked Fraire’s supervised release on a 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10556 Document: 00512556027 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2014
No. 13-10556 c/w 13-10562

prior conviction and imposed a consecutive sentence of 10 months of 

imprisonment. Fraire now appeals.

For the first time on appeal, Fraire argues that the district court erred 

in imposing a term of supervised release in a case involving a deportable alien 

without providing fact-specific reasons for its decision to deviate from U.S.S.G. 

§ 5D1.1(c)’s recommendation that supervised release not be imposed in such 

circumstances. We review this argument for plain error. See United States v. 

Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012). The district court 

retains the discretion to impose supervised release in “uncommon cases 

[involving a deportable alien] where added deterrence and protection are 

needed.” Id. at 329. 

In sentencing Fraire, the district court specifically stated that supervised 

release was imposed as an additional potential sanction should Fraire attempt 

to return illegally. Consequently, Fraire has shown no plain error on the part 

of the district court in imposing a term of supervised release. See id. at 329-

30; see also United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 349-51 (5th Cir. 2013)

(finding no error in imposition of supervised release where district court noted

that the sentence adequately addressed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors).

Fraire raises no claims of error with respect to the revocation proceeding 

or the revocation sentence. Thus, he has abandoned any issues on appeal 

regarding the revocation judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 

(5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-10556 Document: 00512556027 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Consolidated  Financial  Statements  as of  April  30,  1998  and  is
qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such   consolidated   financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                           AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                             APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                                        97,000
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              5,854,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 603,000
<INVENTORY>                                                6,410,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          13,049,000
<PP&E>                                                       245,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            20,716,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      6,854,000
<BONDS>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                  17,591,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              13,862,000
<SALES>                                                   11,704,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          11,704,000
<CGS>                                                      5,901,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              5,901,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           119,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              563,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          563,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 563,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.16
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21268]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11309]


Missouri Disaster Number MO-00029

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 4.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri 
(FEMA-1773-DR), dated 06/25/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 06/01/2008 through 08/13/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/03/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/25/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Missouri, dated 06/25/2008, is hereby amended to re-establish the 
incident period for this disaster as beginning 06/01/2008 and 
continuing through 08/13/2008.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21268 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
|    |                                                                                   |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Public Service Company of Colorado; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/ TERESA S. MADDEN |
|   | Teresa S. Madden |
|   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

61 

CAF 11-00222 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JUANITA AIKENS, 

PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KENNETH MARK NELL, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

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

ANGELA S., APPELLANT.

KIMBERLY WHITE WEISBECK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROCHESTER, FOR

APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Ontario County

(Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), entered January 4, 2011 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied the petition

seeking a determination that respondent is the father of appellant and

an award of child support. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: As we noted when this case was before us on a prior

appeal (Matter of Aikens v Nell, 63 AD3d 1662, revd 15 NY3d 1),

petitioner mother commenced this proceeding seeking both a

determination that respondent is the father of her then-12-year-old

child and an award of child support. We had previously affirmed an

order denying respondent’s objections to the order of the Support

Magistrate, directing him to pay child support following the entry of

an order of filiation. The issue before the Court of Appeals on the

prior appeal to that Court in Aikens was “whether a biological father

may assert an equitable estoppel defense in paternity and child

support proceedings,” and the Court held that, “[u]nder the

circumstances of this case, where another father figure is present in

the child’s life, [the biological father] may assert such a claim”

(id. at 3). The Court of Appeals thus remitted the matter to Family

Court to conduct a hearing on the merits of respondent biological

father’s claim of equitable estoppel and to determine the best

interests of the subject child (id. at 6). The Attorney for the Child

now contends on appeal that Family Court erred in refusing to

determine that respondent is the father of the subject child. We

affirm.

The Attorney for the Child waived her contention that the court

erred in conducting a Lincoln hearing and in relying upon the
-2- 61 

CAF 11-00222 

statements of the subject child adduced at that hearing, inasmuch as

the record establishes that the hearing was conducted at her request

(see generally Matter of Clime v Clime, 85 AD3d 1671, 1672; Delong v

County of Chautauqua [appeal No. 2], 71 AD3d 1580, 1580-1581; Matter

of James Jerome C. v Mary Elizabeth J., 31 AD3d 1184, 1184-1185). In

any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in

conducting a Lincoln hearing (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d

270, 272-274; Matter of Farnham v Farnham, 252 AD2d 675, 677; cf.

Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625), or in considering the

child’s statements at the Lincoln hearing in determining her best

interests (see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173; Fox v

Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210; see also Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d

1197, 1199).

Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-11361

Conference Calendar

 

EDDIE GILMER HAYSLETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. LUNA, Police Officer; L. GIOENI, 

Police Officer; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER,

Carrollton,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:99-CV-1278-G

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

October 17, 2000 

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Gilmer Hayslett, Texas prisoner # 799149, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1). The district court did not err in

dismissing Hayslett's false-arrest claim as barred by the twoyear statute of limitations because the cause of action accrued

in May 1994. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir.

1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 2405 (1999); Ruiz v. United

States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998); Burrell v. Newsome,
No. 99-11361

-2-

883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court did not

err in dismissing Hayslett's malicious-prosecution claim as

lacking an arguable basis in fact because neither Hayslett's

complaint nor his supplemental questionnaire alleged facts

sufficient to establish the elements of a malicious-prosecution

claim. See Martin, 156 F.3d at 580; Taylor v. Gregg, 36 F.3d

453, 455 (5th Cir. 1994).

Because Hayslett's appeal is without arguable merit and is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal and the district court's

dismissal of this lawsuit as frivolous count as two strikes for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103

F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Hayslett previously had at least

one other strike under § 1915(g) because of the dismissal of

Hayslett v. Fawns, No. 3:93-CV-1820-T (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 1993),

which he did not appeal. See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 388. 

Hayslett has now accumulated at least three strikes, and

therefore while he is a prisoner he is barred from proceeding in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal brought in a United

States court unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; § 1915(g) SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
#### Jack Daniel WEBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Feb. 16, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.