alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24203]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 76


Radio Broadcast Services and Multichannel Video and Cable 
Television Service; Clarification Regarding Information Collection 
Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; clarification.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission has published a number 
of requirements related to Radio Broadcast Services and Multichannel 
Video and Cable Television Service, which were determined to contain 
information collection requirements that were subject to OMB review. 
After further review, we have found OMB approval is not required. This 
document intends to provide clarification that these rules are 
effective and that it has been determined that these provisions are not 
subject to OMB review.

DATES: Effective September 28, 2010, the following regulations are no 
longer pending OMB approval for the sections listed:

73.6027--69 FR 69331, November 29, 2004.
76.5(ll)--61 FR 6137, February 16, 1996.
76.913(b)(1)--62 FR 6495, February 12, 1997.
76.924(e)(1)(iii) and (e)(2)(iii)--61 FR 9367, March 8, 1996.
76.925--60 FR 52119, October 5, 1995.
76.942(f)--60 FR 52120, October 5, 1995.
76.944(c)--60 FR 52121, October 5, 1995.
76.957--60 FR 52121, October 5, 1995.
76.1504(e)--61 FR 43176, August 26, 1996.
76.1511--61 FR 43177, August 21, 1996.
76.1512--61 FR 43177, August 21, 1996.
76.1514--61 FR 43176, August 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Suggs, (202) 418-1568, Media 
Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission published several documents 
in the Federal Register identifying rules that required OMB approval. 
After further review, we have found OMB approval is not required. The 
affected CFR sections are as follows:

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority at 47 
U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 
302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 
503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 
549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, and 573 * * *, the Federal 
Communications Commission has determined that the regulations at 
Sec. Sec.  73.6027, 76.5(ll), 76.913(b)(1), 76.924(e)(1)(iii) and 
(e)(2)(iii), 76.925, 76.942(f), 76.944(c), 76.957, 76.1504(e), 76.1511, 
76.1512, and 76.1514 are effective and do not contain information 
collection requirements that are subject to OMB approval.

[FR Doc. 2010-24203 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PHYLLIS A. ACORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-3040 SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CA-94-713-5) Submitted: November 5, 1996 Decided: January 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELBelinda S. Morton, Fayetteville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charlotte Hardnett, Chief Counsel, Region III, Victor Jerry Pane, AssistantRegional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Carol A. Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Phyllis Acord appeals the district court's decision accepting the report of the magistrate judge and finding that Acord was not entitled to social security disability benefits from January 23, 1990, untilMarch 31, 1990, the date her insured status expired. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and other material before us. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision that Acord did not meet her burden of showing that her condition worsened after January 22, the date of a previous final disability adjudication adverse to Acord, to the point that she was unable to return to her past work as a police dispatcher. Further, to the extent that Acord requested reopening of the prior adjudication, the refusal to reopen that decision is not reviewable under either the Administrative Procedure Act or 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1994). Califano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99, 104-109 (1977). Additionally, the questions of reopening and the res judicata effect of the prior decision were not raised before the Appeals Council or in the district court, and we will therefore not consider them here. Pleasant Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala , 32 F.3d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1994). Finally, Acord's failure to object to the magistrate judge's refusal to consider the period through January 22, 1990, waives her right to appellate review of the matter. See Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985). We dispense with argument because our review of the material before us reveals that argument would not aid the decisional process. The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
2
## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 34 87

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* App el le e, *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

. St ep ha ni e Thi Ngu y en , *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

31 , 20 11 Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 3, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

St ep ha ni e Thi Ngu y en pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or
m or e of a m et ha m

ph et am in e m ix tu re, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 6, an d su bjec t to

se nt en ci ng un de r 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced he r to th e 1 st at ut or y m in im

um of 12 0 m on th s in pr is on an d 5 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Ngu y en ap pe al s. Her co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw an d fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 (19 67 ).

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka

.Co un se l’s ch al le ng e t o t h e se nt en ce is un av ai li ng

. The reco rd refl ect s th at

Ngu y en un de rs to od th e st at ut or y m an da to ry m in im um pe na lt ie s whe n sh e en te red he r gu il ty pl ea. The di st ric t co ur t h a d no di sc ret io n to im po se a se nt en ce be lo w th e st at ut or y m in im

um w he re th ere was ne it he r a de pa rtu re m ot io n by th e go ve rn m en t no r el ig ib il it y fo r sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f. See Uni te d St at es v. Ch aco n, 33 0 F.3 d 10 65 , 10 66 (8 th Cir . 20 03 ).

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf

riv ol ou s is su e. Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, an d we a ffi rm

th e jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### THE SANTA MADRE, her engines, boilers, boats, tackle, apparel and furniture, in rem, and St. John Shipping & Trading Corporation, Owners and/or Bareboat Charterers, in personam, Appellants, v. Demetrios DAGOUNAKIS, Appellee.

No. 8050.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 21,1960.

Decided April 25, 1960.

Walter B. Martin, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellants.

L. David Lindauer, Portsmouth, Va. (Augustus Anninos, Norfolk, Va., and Bangel, Bangel & Bangel, Portsmouth, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAMLEY* and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Sitting by designation of the Chief Justice.

PER CURIAM.

The controversy here is whether the shipowner’s attorney was authorized to settle a personal injury claim against the ship and its owner for $7,000.00 plus costs. The plaintiff, Dagounakis, is a Greek seaman who was allegedly injured on the “Santa Madre” as a result of an unseaworthy condition.

The District Judge found that the settlement was authorized, and this finding *462is amply supported in the record. We find no basis for setting aside the court’s order awarding judgment, and we affirm on the District Court’s opinion, 183 F. Supp. 54.

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TIMOTHY MARIBONA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 0582

[ March 7, 2024 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County; Jeffrey Walton Hendriks, Judge; L.T. Case No.

562022MM000177 A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano,

Senio r Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, L EVINE and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132777(49) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132777 

 COA: 262687 
 Wayne CC: 04-011594-01

WILLIE G. HEARD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 26, 

2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0521 

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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry DRAPER.

No. 2011-KK-0388.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 25, 2011.

In re Draper, Larry; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 501-525; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0255.

Writ Denied. Stay Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     balance sheet and statements of loss and accumulated deficit and is 
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10KSB for the year ended
     April 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001035039
<NAME>                        Sunburst Acquisitions I, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1      
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          1072
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1072
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           830
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     8000
<COMMON>                        2220
<OTHER-SE>                      (9738)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1312
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (5720)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (5720)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (5720)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (5720)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 12.1

                      SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
               CALCULATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                      2000      1999       1998      1997      1996
                                                                    --------  --------   --------  --------  --------
<S>                                                                 <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>
Income before extraordinary items                                   $ 86,814  $ 59,760   $ 66,475  $ 31,934  $ 21,187
Interest:
    Expense incurred                                                  38,649    37,282     32,550    20,902    16,113
    Amortization of deferred financing costs                           1,072       992        956     1,057     1,025
    Rental fixed charges                                                 280       159        133       115       124
                                                                    --------  --------   --------  --------  --------
    Total                                                           $126,815  $ 98,193   $100,114  $ 54,008  $ 38,449
                                                                    ========  ========   ========  ========  ========

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                                $ 38,649  $ 37,282    $32,550   $20,902  $ 16,113
    Interest capitalized                                              11,117     7,888      6,143     5,876     4,266
    Dividends to preferred unitholders in operating partnership       12,420     6,698          -         -         -
    Rental fixed charges                                                 280       159        133       115       124
    Amortization of deferred financing costs                           1,072       992        956     1,057     1,025
                                                                    --------  --------   --------  --------  --------
      Total                                                         $ 63,538  $ 53,019   $ 39,782  $ 27,950  $ 21,528
                                                                    ========  ========   ========  ========  ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                      1.99      1.85       2.52      1.93      1.79
                                                                    ========  ========   ========  ========  ========
</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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30778

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIKE JAMES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CV-5970

USDC No. 2:05-CR-59-2

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mike James, federal prisoner # 29268-034, moves this court for a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which challenged his conviction for conspiracy to possess

cocaine hydrochloride with intent to distribute and possession of 500 grams or

more of cocaine hydrochloride with intentto distribute. James contends that his

indictment and judgment are flawed and that his Fourth Amendment rights

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30778

2

were violated. He also argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

failing to file pretrial motions, by failing to investigate, and by failing to pursue

a direct appeal. He contends that the district court erred by denying his § 2255

motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing. James also moves this

court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. James’s

motion to proceed IFP on appeal is granted.

James has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right regarding his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice

of appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); United States v. Tapp, 491 F.3d 263, 266

(5th Cir. 2007). The record does not conclusively indicate whether James asked

counsel to file a notice of appeal, making an evidentiary hearing on that issue

necessary. See Tapp, 491 F.3d at 266. A COA is granted solely on the issue

whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. The district

court’s judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in

relation to that claim.

James has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional rightin relation to his remaining issues. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Consequently, COA is denied as to those issues. See

id. 

COA GRANTED IN PART; COA DENIED IN PART; IFP GRANTED;

VACATED AND REMANDED.
#### J. P. & F. L. Wright v. Bennett, Miller & Knox.

(No. 1610, Op. Book No. *2,*p. 337.)

Appeal from Bexar County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1078. *New trial; motion for, on ground of newly discovered evidence.*Applications for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will be scrutinized with much strictness. They are addressed much to the discretion of the court, and where the court has refused such an application, the appellate court will not reverse, unless it shall appear that the court has not exercised its discretion according to the established rules of law and the principles of adjudged cases. [Mitchell v. Bass, 26 Tex. 372.] If the evidence has been discovered since the trial under circumstances which would excuse tlie party for not having offered it on the trial, his application for *609*&*rehearing- would be entertained, and the court would exercise a sound discretion, according to all the facts and circumstances, in granting- or refusing it. To state in the application that the applicant “ could not possibly know of or obtain the testimony,” cannot be accepted as •a substitute for that full and satisfactory showing of the circumstances and reasons which thus rendered it impossible to obtain the testimony at the trial, which is of the very essence of this ground for relief. The facts must be stated from which the court, rather than the party, may exercise its judgment to determine whether the diligence required to obtain the testimony was employed; and if none was used, then the facts and circumstances which existed, rendering the attempt unnecessary.

June 22, 1881.

Affirmed.
# F ourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 7, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00587

- CV

IN RE Arlette Dominguez Gallegos BELVER and Fav Swimmers II, LLC,

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI20964

The Honorable Monique Diaz , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On March 22, 2022

, Relators Arlette Belver and FAV Swimmers II, LLC , filed a m otion

to w ithdraw Austin Reyna as an attorney of record . The motion substantially complies with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5.

T he motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on April 7, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED T O :

________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
KINGS ROAD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kings Road Entertainment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Geraldine Blecker, Chief Executive Officer, and I, H. Martin
DeFrank, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 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.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed from within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kings Road
Entertainment, Inc., and will be retained by Kings Road Entertainment, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





                                               /s/ Geraldine Blecker
Dated:  July 15, 2004                          _________________________________
                                               By:  Geraldine Blecker
                                               Its:  Chief Executive Officer



                                               /s/ H. Martin DeFrank
Dated:  July 15, 2004                          _________________________________
                                               By:  H. Martin DeFrank
                                               Its:  Chief Financial Officer
627 A.2d 1131

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM H. SMITH.

January 28, 1993.

Petition for certification is granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is summarily affirmed insofar as it remands the matter to the Law Division, the remand proceedings to be in accordance with *State v. Shaw,*131 *N.J.*1, 618 A.2d 294 (1993). The remainder of that portion of the judgment that is before the Court on the petition for certification is summarily reversed.
856 A.2d 36

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. George Guyer YOUNG, III, Respondent.

No. 936 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 8, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2004, there having been filed with this Court by George Guyer Young, III, his verified Statement of Resignation dated April 29, 2004, stating that he *393desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of George Guyer Young, III, be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.