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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

                    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a day long briefing meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 9 a.m. on Thursday, October 16, 2008, at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street,  NW.,                           ( print page 57591)                        Conference Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to review education issues the District of Columbia.                 

                    Members of the public are invited to offer comments—written comments must be received in the Eastern Regional Office by Monday, November 17, 2008. The address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street,  NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202-376-7533, or by e-mail:                     *agreene@usccr.gov.*

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

                    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *http://www.usccr.gov,*                     or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.                 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. 

Dated in Washington, DC, September 30, 2008. 

Christopher Byrnes, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. E8-23435 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01953-BNB

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,

Applicant,

v.

STEVE HARTLY, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER

Following review of Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court has found a

discrepancy in Respondents citations to both Exhibit A and Exhibit B. In more than one 

instance, Respondents refer to pages five and eight in Exhibit B. There are only three

pages included in Exhibit B. Also, Respondents assert that Exhibit B includes

information regarding 1996 decisions by the Colorado Court of Appeals and the

Colorado Supreme Court. The information included in Exhibit B only appears to 

address filings before these courts in 2005. 

Respondents are directed to review all citations, make the necessary corrections,

and provide additional documentation as needed. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within twenty-one days from the date of this Order

Respondents shall supplement the Motion to Dismiss as directed above. It is

Case 1:11-cv-01953-BNB Document 19 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant shall have twenty-one days from the date

Respondents file a Supplement to file a Supplemental Reply.

DATED January 25, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01953-BNB Document 19 Filed 01/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 6Federal Reserve Bank of: AtlantaFilings received during the week ending October 23, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFLORIDA BANK                                                                                                            * 18C
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132061 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132061 

 COA: 267744 
 Wayne CC: 82-008479-01

LONNER MELTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1120 

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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-24-0000066

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
D.R., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T.R., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 3FDV-22-0000801)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.) Upon review of the record, we conclude that the courtlacks appellate jurisdiction over self-represented PlaintiffAppellant D.R.'s appeal from the Family Court of the Third Circuit's November 22, 2023 "Order from November 16, 2023," as it is not a final, appealable decree, order, or judgment. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 571-54 (2018); Hall v. Hall, 96 Hawai i 105, 111 n.4, 26 P.3d 594, 600 n.4 (App. 2001) (holding that a post-judgment order is an appealable final order if it finally determines the post-judgment proceeding), aff'd in part, and vacated in part on other grounds, 95 Hawai i 318, 22 P.3d 965 (2001). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-24-0000066 07-FEB-2024 07:56 AM Dkt. 8 ODSLJNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, February 7, 2024. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN $
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.7301
<CASH>                                          55,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,455
<PP&E>                                         149,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,935
<BONDS>                                          7,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,605
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,298
<SALES>                                         67,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,180
<CGS>                                           57,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                       588
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
*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.

1IT IS ORDERED that the motions of the appellee to correct

brief with corrected standard of review, for leave to supplement

the record, and to strike portions of the appellant’s reply brief

are DENIED as MOOT.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-60746

_____________________

EDWARD B. STEWART, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Secretary of

the Air Force,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

1:95-CV-436)

_________________________________________________________________

November 12, 1997

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See 47.6.

A F F I R M E D.1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3390

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jose Clemente Melchor-Rueda, also known as Francisco Ferniza-Rueda

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

 Submitted: May 17, 2013

Filed: May 29, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Melchor-Rueda directlyappeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the

district court imposed after he pled guilty to an illegal re-entry offense, in violation

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas.
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is

substantively unreasonable. 

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not impose

a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,

460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing

decisions). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 989 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 25, 2008.
    Resolved, That the election contest relating to the office of Representative 
from the Thirteenth Congressional District of Florida is dismissed.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### John WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS OF ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 11925.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 30, 1932.

St. John Perret, of New Orleans, for appellants.

James Wilkinson, N. H. Polmer, and George Piazza, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, J.

In this suit, which is one of a number of similar- suits pending in this court, plaintiff sues the levee board for damages alleged to have been caused by the cutting of the Caer-narvon Levee on the 29th of April, 1927. *872Plaintiff claims that the encroachment of the waters from the Caernarvon cut caused his employer, the Orange Grove Refining Company, to close its plant with the result that plaintiff was out of employment for a period of time during which his wages would have amounted to the sum of $340, for which sum this suit is brought.

Learned counsel for plaintiff have frankly admitted that this court in Acosta v. Board of Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 12 La. App. 488, 126 So. 463, and the Supreme Court in Foret v. Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 169 La. 427, 125 So. 437, and Oliver & Co. v. Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 169 La. 438, 125 So. 441, and Fabre v. Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 170 La. 210, 127 So. 603, have determined adversely to their contention the same questions of law upon which this case depends; but they announce their intention to seek a revision of those cases. Were the question, which it is sought to be reopened, one which had been determined by this court alone, we would feel free to reconsider our former opinion in the light of the able argument which counsel have made before us; but since there are three decisions of our Supreme Court to the same effect as our own, we do not feet at liberty to indulge any further discussion of the questions of law there determined. As an intermediate appellate court, our only proper attitude is one of respectful submission to and acquiescence in the views of our court of last resort especially when reiterated.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment ap- . pealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kenneth Botehlo,

Petitioner

v. Civil No. 08-cv-66-SM

United States of America,

Respondent

O R D E R

Petitioner seeks relief from his conviction and sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The grounds upon which the petition rests are unclear — but

petitioner seems to vaguely challenge the determination at

sentencing that he qualified as a career offender under the

federal sentencing guidelines, and he suggests that, in some

undescribed way, his legal counsel provided ineffective

assistance in failing to successfully challenge that result. 

Petitioner had two prior qualifying predicate felony drug

convictions, so was properly determined to be a career offender

under the guidelines (indeed he was facing state sentencing on

yet another drug conviction).

Case 1:08-cv-00066-SM Document 4 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Counsel did not provide ineffective assistance because

defendant plainly did qualify as a career offender and nothing

counsel could have plausibly argued would have changed that

result.

The petition, and the files and records of the case

conclusively show that petitioner is not entitled to relief. The

sentence imposed was authorized by law and there has been no

denial or infringement of petitioner’s constitutional rights.

Conclusion

The petition is denied. The clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

March 4, 2008

cc: Kenneth Botelho, pro se

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, AUSA

Case 1:08-cv-00066-SM Document 4 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                   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

In connection with the Annual Report of TBC Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence C. Day,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

        (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.




March 15, 2004                         By   /s/ Lawrence C. Day
--------------                              -------------------------------
                                            Lawrence C. Day
                                            President and Chief Executive
                                            Officer
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 10Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas CityFilings received during the week ending August 15, 2009FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBERN BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                   * 3A3Bern Bancshares, Inc., Bern, Kansas, to acquire up to an additional 1.57 percent of the voting shares of UBT Bancshares, Inc., parent of United Bank & Trust, both in Marysville, Kansas, resulting in a total ownership of up to 6.48 percent.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK   Document 161-24   filed 10/17/12   USDC Colorado   pg 1 of 2

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK   Document 161-24   filed 10/17/12   USDC Colorado   pg 2 of 2
#### Hedwig WEINKAUF and Irwin A. Weinkauf, her Husband, Appellants, v. HAWLEY RUSSELL REALTY, Inc., as Managing Agent, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

March 2, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

[KPMG LOGO]

        KPMG LLP
        Chartered Accountants                           Telephone (416) 777-8500
        Commerce Court West                             Telefax   (416) 777-8816
        P0 BOX 31 Stn Commerce Court                    www.kpmg.ca
        Suite 3300
        Toronto ON M5L 1B2


The Board of Directors
Campbell Resources Inc.



                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Campbell
Resources Inc. (the "Corporation") for the year ended December 31, 2001 of our
report dated April 3, 2001, relating to the Consolidated Financial Statements of
the Corporation as at and for the two years ended December 31, 2000, prior to
restatements described in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for
the year ended December 31, 2001, which appears under Item 17 of the
aforementioned Annual Report on Form 20-F.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (registration Nos. 33-28296, 33-91824,
333-93063, and 333-6236) pertaining to the Corporations Employee Incentive Plan
and Directors Stock Option Plan.




KPMG LLP

/s/ KPMG LLP

TORONTO, CANADA
MAY 13, 2002
Exhibit 15.4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-180880) and Form S-8 (No. 333-161683, 333-161684 and 333-167643) of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of our report dated June 27, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2012 of ST-Ericsson SA, which appears under Exhibit 15.2 in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers SA



|                    |  |  |  |                |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------- |  | 
|/s/ Travis Randolph |  |  |  | /s/ Felix Roth |  | 
|Travis Randolph     |  |  |  | Felix Roth     |  | 

Geneva, Switzerland

June 27, 2013
**Exhibit 99.5**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ON RECONCILIATION OF CANADIAN GAAP TO UNITED STATES GAAP**

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of BCE Inc. 

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of BCE Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as at December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008, and the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, and have issued our reports thereon dated March 11, 2009; such consolidated financial statements and reports are included in the BCE Inc. 2008 Annual Report to Shareholders listed as Exhibit99.2 on Form 40-F. Our audits also included the reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP of the Company listed as Exhibit 99.4 on Form 40-F. This reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP is the responsibility of theCompany’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statementstaken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

As disclosed in note (h) to the reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP, the Company changed its method of accounting for income taxes in 2007.

*(signed) Deloitte & Touche LLP**1***Independent Registered Chartered Accountants 

Montréal, Canada March 11, 2009 

_______________________________________________________1 Chartered accountant auditor permit no 13633