alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23391]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittee on Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR); 
Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on the ESBWR will hold a meeting on October 
21-22, 2008, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception 
of a portion that may be closed to protect information that is 
proprietary to General Electric-Hitachi (GEH) Nuclear Energy and its 
contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Tuesday, October 21, 2008,--8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008,--8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review Chapters 7 and 14 of the Safety 
Evaluation Report with Open Items associated with the ESBWR Design 
Certification Application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by 
and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, GEH, and 
other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will 
gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate 
proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the 
full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Dr. 
Harold J. Vandermolen, (Telephone: 301-415-6236) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted. Detailed procedures for the 
conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the 
Federal Register on September 26, 2007, (72 FR 54695).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: September 23, 2008.
Cayetano Santos,
Branch Chief.
[FR Doc. E8-23391 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 21

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction

do not apply if the conviction occurred before the prohibitions became

law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. BARR of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that

the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if

the conviction occurred before the prohibitions became

law.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 21 IH

1 SECTION 1. FIREARMS PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE BY

2 REASON OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MIS3 DEMEANOR CONVICTION NOT TO APPLY TO

4 CONVICTIONS OBTAINED BEFORE THE PRO5 HIBITIONS BECAME LAW.

6 Subsections (d)(9), (g)(9), and (s)(3)(B)(i) of section

7 922 of title 18, United States Code, are each amended

8 by inserting ‘‘, on or after September 28, 1996,’’ before

9 ‘‘of a misdemeanor’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                      SCHEDULE TO FORM OF LICENSE AGREEMENT
        FILED PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTION 2 TO ITEM 601(a) OF REGULATION S-K



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        NUMBER    NUMBER   NUMBER                                                                                     CERTIFICATE OF
PROTO-  OF        OF       OF                        HEALTH CARE        TOTAL           TOTAL MONTHLY  MONTHLY        OCCUPANCY
TYPE    STORIES   UNITS    BEDS      PROJECT         AGENCY             COMPENSATION    COMPENSATION   INSTALLMENTS   COMPENSATION 
<S>     <C>       <C>      <C>       <C>             <C>                <C>             <C>            <C>            <C>
C       1         78       84        BLACKSBURG,     Virginia           $400,000        $150,000       $12,500        $150,000
                                     VIRGINIA        Department of
                                                     Social Services

A       1         104      113       CHARLESTON,     West Virginia      $450,000        $175,000       $14,583.33     $175,000
                                     WEST VIRGINIA   Department of
                                                     Health and
                                                     Human Services

C       1         78       84        CHESAPEAKE,     Virginia           $400,000        $150,000       $12,500        $150,000
                                     VIRGINIA        Department of
                                                     Social Services


A-2     2         103      106       JACKSONVILLE,   Florida Agency     $450,000        $175,000       $14,583.33     $175,000
                                     FLORIDA         for Health Care
                                                     Administration


B       1         75       77        MANASSAS,       Virginia           $450,000        $175,000       $14,583.33     $175,000
                                     VIRGINIA        Department of
                                                     Social Services


C       1         78       84        SUFFOLK,        Virginia           $400,000        $150,000       $12,500        $150,000
                                     VIRGINIA        Department of
                                                     Social Services


A       1         81       85        WILLIAMSBURG,   Virginia           $400,000        $150,000       $12,500        $150,000
                                     VIRGINIA        Department of
                                                     Social Services
                                                                        
</TABLE>
#### Meyer Abrams, Plaintiff, *v.*Herman Nowick, Defendant.

City Court *of the*City *of New*York, Special Term, Bronx County,

January 31, 1957.

*Michaels & Michaels*for plaintiff.

*Rothfeld & Sutter*for defendant.

Nathan A. Lashin, J.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in action on an agreement. Both plaintiff and defendant herein became accommodation indorsers on a certain note. Subsequently there was a default by the maker, a corporation, following which an agreement was executed between the parties herein whereby the plaintiff was to liquidate the balance due on the note conditioned upon the officer’s of the corporation individually executing and delivering to the plaintiff a bond and mortgage for the said balance. Defendant agreed to pay *427half of the balance due in the event there was a default by the primary obligees. The defendant, in opposing this motion, contends that the plaintiff’s performance in liquidating the balance due on the note was an act which he was legally obliged to do by virtue of his status as an accommodation indorser, and therefore there was no adequate consideration for the agreement.

I concur with the plaintiff that there was no triable issue of fact raised by the papers and therefore this motion can be decided in such a manner as to summarily dispose of this action. It is true that a surety is under a legal duty to pay the creditor. However, the cosurety, the defendant herein, in effect asked the surety to pay and his promise of reimbursement is sufficiently supported by his own legal duty to contribute or indemnify.

The original corporate obligation in which the parties herein were accommodation indorsers was in default and a new agreement, a personal obligation, was executed in the form of a bond and mortgage in which payment of the balance was to be made to the plaintiff who undertook to liquidate the corporate obligation. The agreement, subject of this controversy, was to provide for the default of the personal obligation and for contribution by the defendant in the event of said default. Now this mortgage arrangement was a *de novo*agreement which operated to secure an additional source of payment by the individuals and also deferred the obligation of the defendant to make indemnification or contribution at that time. The plaintiff relied on the promise of the defendant for contribution in the event of a default in the *de novo*agreement. Further, even if there were no consideration, the agreement purports to be a modification of an obligation between the parties so as to bring it within the purview of subdivision 2 of section 33 of the Personal Property Law wherein an agreement of this type is stated not to be invalid despite the lack of consideration.

There being no substantial triable issues of fact, the answer of the defendant is stricken and judgment is awarded to plaintiff in an amount to be determined upon inquest and assessment of damages at Trial Term, Part I on February 28,1957, upon payment of the required calendar fee.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02360–RPM–KMT

ANTOINETTE SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. 

THOMAS, THOMAS, WICHTERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

This matter is before the court on “Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff’s Counsel” (#35,

filed July 3, 2012). Being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion (#35)

is GRANTED. Attorney Lark H. Fogel is relieved of any further representation of Plaintiff in

the above-captioned matter. The Clerk of Court is instructed to remove Ms. Fogel from the

electronic certificate of mailing.

Dated: July 6, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02360-RPM-KMT Document 39 Filed 07/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
Case 1:11-cr-00292-WJM Document 24 Filed 12/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

The City of Cisco, * From the 91st District

 Court of Eastland County,

 Trial Court No. CV-1042068.

Vs. No. 11-13-00181-CV * July 11, 2013

Cove Mini Storage, Inc. et al., * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

 This court has considered the City of Cisco's motion to dismiss this appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court=s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal 

are taxed against the City of Cisco.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                                                                |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/              DAVID R.              JAFFE                                        |   |   |   |
| David              R. Jaffe                                                         |   |   |        |
| President                and Chief Executive OfficerOctober                10, 2007 |   |   |   |

 

----
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 JANEKA MAYER, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. NO. 35,227 4 SUSAN SMITH, 5 Defendant, 6 and 7 MARILYN JONES, GARY JONES, 8 ROBERT LONG, AND STEPHANIE LONG, 9 Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 11 Clay Campbell, District Judge 12 Alex Chisholm 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15 Ronald T. Taylor 16 Albuquerque, NM 172 for Appellees 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 WECHSLER, Judge. 3 {1} Plaintiff Janeka Mayer appeals from the district court’s amended judgment and 4 order, entered on October 22, 2015. This Court issued a notice of proposed 5 disposition, proposing to dismiss the appeal fo r lack of a final order. Plaintiff filed a 6 response, stating that she “accepts the reasoning of the Court in its proposed summary 7 disposition.” Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed 8 disposition, we dismiss for lack of a final order. 9 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

__________________ ______________ 11 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

________________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15

________________________________ 16 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 17
#### John CENTINEO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Michael BADALEMENTI, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 14435.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 24, 1933.

Waverly A. Henning, of New Orleans, for appellant.

D. H. Perez, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materise, for the reason that, under section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1921 of this state, the Supreme Court of Louisiana alone has appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving homestead exemptions concerning immovable property.

In response to the motion to dismiss, appellant admits that the case involves a question of homestead exemption, and our independent examination of the record convinces us of that fact. We are asked to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court, and, acting upon the authority conferred upon us by Act •No. 19 of 1912,

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this appeal be and it is transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana to he disposed of according to. law; the transfer to 'be made within 60 days after this judgment becomes final, and, if not so made, then the appeal to be deemed dismissed; defendant apd appellant to pay the costs of appeal in this court, the remaining costs to await final determination of the matter.

Appeal transferred to Supreme Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,822
<PP&E>                                          11,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,280
<BONDS>                                          4,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        134
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,085
<SALES>                                          5,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,595
<CGS>                                            8,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (249)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (335)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (137)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (198)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (198)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.83)
        


</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cr-00363-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00363-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00363-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00363-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00363-WYD Document 1 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2874] 

Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by October 10, 2008. See section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to oppositions must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired. 

*Subject:*                     In the Matter of Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets (WT Docket No. 99-217).                 

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     2.                 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-22600 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 11-cv-2283-AP

LORRAINE B. MALDONADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

KANE, J. ORDERS

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s filing, dated January 18, 2012, but not filed with the court

until March 7, 2012. This filing, actually entitled “Why I Disagree with Disabilities’ Decision” is

construed as Plaintiff’s Opening Brief. The Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. The defendant

has already filed a response brief, which leaves only plaintiff’s reply brief to be filed. The due date

for that reply brief is March 22, 2012. If plaintiff wants to file a reply brief, she should do so no

later than March 22, 2012. Whether or not a reply brief is filed is entirely up to the plaintiff. As is

the normal procedure in administrative appeals, this case will be randomly assigned to a judge for

consideration of the merits at the close of briefing.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 8th day of March, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/John L. Kane 

JOHN L. KANE, SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:11-cv-02283-RBJ Document 20 Filed 03/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#206) on January 29, 2013, by Defendant John Phillip Gallegos. The Court construes this

Notice as a motion to change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’

plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for February 11, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. and a

Sentencing hearing is set for May 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 207 filed 01/29/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for March 14, 2013, and the March 18,

2013, trial date are VACATED.

DATED this 29th day of January, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 207 filed 01/29/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2