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.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Salary Council will meet on November 19, 2010, at the time and location shown below. The Council is an advisory body composed of representatives of Federal employee organizations and experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy. The Council makes recommendations to the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management) about the locality pay program for General Schedule employees under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code. The Council's recommendations cover the establishment or modification of locality pay areas, the coverage of salary surveys, the process of comparing Federal and non-Federal rates of pay, and the level of comparability payments that should be paid.

The November meeting will be devoted to reviewing the results of pay comparisons and formulating its recommendations to the President's Pay Agent on pay comparison methods, locality pay rates, and locality pay areas and boundaries for 2012. The meeting is open to the public. Please contact the Office of Personnel Management at the address shown below if you wish to submit testimony or present material to the Council at the meeting.

# DATES:

November 19, 2010, at 10 a.m.

# Location:

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 5H17, Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Charles D. Grimes, III, Deputy Associate Director, Employee Services, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200. Phone (202) 606-2838; FAX (202) 606-4264; or e-mail at                         *pay-performance-policy@opm.gov*.                    

For the President's Pay Agent.

John Berry,

Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-27835 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
### i i i i i i



# MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No. 04-10-00654- CV IN RE KILLAM R

ANCH P ROP ERTIES , LTD. Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 

## PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: September 22, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On September 13, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of injunction and a petition f or writ of mandamus. The cour

t has consider ed re lator’s pe titions and is of the opini on that relator is not entitled to the relief soug ht. Acc ording ly , the petition for writ of injunction and the petition for writ of mandamus are D ENI ED. See T E X 

## . R. A P P 

## . P. 52.8(a). PER C URI AM

1 ... T h i s p r o c e e d i n g a r i s e s o u t o f C a u s e N o . 2 0 0 7

- C V Q

- 0 0 1 6 8 0

- D 3 , K i l l a m R a n c h P r o p e r t i e s , L t d

. v . W

e b b C o u n t y , T e x a s , i n t h e 3 4 1 s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , W e b b C o u n t y , T e x a s , t h e H o n o r a b l e M i c h a e l P e d e n , v i s i t i n g j u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
#### The State, on the Relation of Pierson, *v.*Gooding.—On appeal.

THE executor of *A.*gave bond with surety conditioned for the performance of his duty. In 1846, and after the execu*r J*tor’s death, the administratrix of the surety was sued, on said bond, for a *devastavit*committed by the executor. The suit was brought in the name of the state, on the relation of the administrator *de bonis non*of *A.*Held, that the suit would not lie on the relation of the administrator *de bonis non. Anthony*v. *M‘Call,*3 Blackf. 86.— *Young*v. *Kimball*(ante, 167). — R. S. 1843, p. 544 (1).

1

(1) But see the statute of 1849 respecting the authority of administrators *de bonis non*as to such bonds as that mentioned in the text. Acts of 1849, p. 53.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1771

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit States to obtain 

reimbursement under the medicaid program for care or services required 

under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that 

are provided in a nonpublicly owned or operated institution for mental 

diseases. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2003

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. CONRAD) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit 

States to obtain reimbursement under the medicaid program for care or services required under the Emergency 

Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that are provided in a nonpublicly owned or operated institution for 

mental diseases.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicaid Psychiatric 

5 Hospital Fairness Act of 2003’’. 
2

•S 1771 IS 

1 SEC. 2. MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT FOR CARE OR SERV2 ICES REQUIRED UNDER EMTALA THAT ARE 

3 PROVIDED IN A NONPUBLICLY OWNED OR 

4 OPERATED INSTITUTION FOR MENTAL DIS5 EASES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905 of the Social Secu7 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended—

8 (1) in subsection (a), in the subdivision (B) fol9 lowing paragraph (27), by inserting ‘‘subject to sub10 section (x),’’ after ‘‘(B)’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(x)(1) In the case of an institution for mental dis13 eases that is not publicly owned or operated and that is 

14 subject to the requirements of section 1867, the limitation 

15 of subdivision (B) following paragraph (27) in subsection 

16 (a) (relating to limitations on payments for care or serv17 ices for individuals under 65 years of age who are patients 

18 in an institution for mental diseases) shall not apply to 

19 the provision of care or services required to stabilize an 

20 emergency medical condition, the treatment for which is 

21 within the range of services that such institution typically 

22 provides, of an individual who has attained age 21 but 

23 who has not attained age 65 and who came or was trans24 ferred to the institution, if—

25 ‘‘(A) the institution determines that the indi26 vidual has such an emergency medical condition; and 
3

•S 1771 IS 

1 ‘‘(B) the institution provides such care or serv2 ices. 

3 ‘‘(2) In this subsection—

4 ‘‘(A) the term ‘stabilize’ has the meaning given 

5 that term in section 1867(e)(3)(A); and 

6 ‘‘(B) the term ‘emergency medical condition’ 

7 has the meaning given that term in section 

8 1867(e)(1).’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsection (a) apply to care and services furnished on or 

11 after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 8, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DUSTIN LYNN MANTOOTH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICK ABBOTT, Sergeant in his

individual and official capacity, 

 Defendant - Appellant,

and

CLEVELAND COUNTY, a political

subdivision sued in the name of the Board

of Commissioners, for Cleveland County,

State of Oklahoma; JOE LESTER,

Cleveland County Sheriff in his official

capacity, 

 Defendants. 

No. 10-6026

(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-00159-HE) 

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this matter is granted. 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(9).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court. 

Appellate Case: 10-6026 Document: 01018398828 Date Filed: 04/08/2010 Page: 1 
2

Appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-6026 Document: 01018398828 Date Filed: 04/08/2010 Page: 2
# Creamer and Skvortsov await STS-132 Hatch Opening

ISS023-E-047254 (16 May 2010) --- NASA astronaut T.J. Creamer (left) and Russian cosmonaut Alexander Skvortsov, both Expedition 23 flight engineers, are pictured in the Harmony node of the International Space Station after space shuttle Atlantis (STS-132) docked to the station.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-iss023e047254/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenMay 16, 2010ProducerJSCSize1314x1920pxPIA Numberiss023e047254The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 20, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1647

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for direct access 

to audiologists for medicare beneficiaries, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for direct access to audiologists for medicare beneficiaries, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hearing Health Acces5 sibility Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DIRECT ACCESS TO QUALIFIED AUDIOLOGISTS FOR 

7 MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES. 

8 Section 1861(ll)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 1395x(ll)(2)) is amended by inserting before the 

10 period at the end the following: ‘‘, without regard to any 
2

•S 1647 IS 

1 requirement that the individual receiving the audiology 

2 services be under the care of (or referred by) a physician 

3 or other health care practitioner or that such services are 

4 provided under the supervision of a physician or other 

5 health care practitioner’’. 

6 SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES AS A PART B 

7 MEDICAL SERVICE; PAYMENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social 

9 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended—

10 (1) in subparagraph (U), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

11 after the semicolon at the end; 

12 (2) in subparagraph (V)(iii), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

13 after the semicolon at the end; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub15 paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(W) audiology services (as defined in sub17 section (ll)(2));’’. 

18 (b) PAYMENT UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHED19 ULE.—Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–

20 4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(2)(W),’’ after 

21 ‘‘(2)(S),’’. 

22 SEC. 4. CONSTRUCTION; EFFECTIVE DATE. 

23 (a) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be 

24 construed to expand the scope of audiology services for 
3

•S 1647 IS 

1 which payment may be made under title XVIII of the So2 cial Security Act as of December 31, 2003. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this Act shall take effect with respect to services furnished 

5 on or after January 1, 2004.

Æ
#### In re W. Roy KNOWLES, M.D., Petitioner.

No. MISC 738.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 1, 2003.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Before RADER, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

RADER, Circuit Judge.

W. Roy Knowles, M.D. petitions for a writ of mandamus to (1) direct the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to forward his appeal of the examiner’s actions to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or mandate that the Director issue a notice of allowance or (2) have this court adjudicate the substantive merits of his application.

Knowles states that the examiner has issued six office actions, but refuses to “allow the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences to review her work.” Knowles petitioned the Director to have his application forwarded to the Board. In a well-explained decision, the Director informed Knowles of the steps that he must take in order to ready his application for Board review. Knowles was informed that he had to reply to the last office action by either filing an amendment or filing an appeal brief that responded to that office action or stated that he was of the opinion that all issues which should be considered by the Board had been fully developed. We note that Knowles, just days before filing this petition, did file such an appeal brief.

The traditional use of the writ of mandamus in aid of appellate jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), has been to confine a trial tribunal to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. *Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n,*319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943). A party who seeks a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other *44means of attaining the relief desired, *Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa,*490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” *Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Even assuming that we have mandamus jurisdiction over this matter,* we decline to grant Knowles’ petition. Knowles’ complaints of impropriety are without basis. The Director informed Knowles of the steps he must take to obtain Board review and, indeed, he has taken a first step. Further, Knowles’ request to have this court review the merits of his application is wholly inappropriate. Knowles’ petition fails to meet either prong of the test for mandamus, i.e., he fails to show that his right to a writ is clear and indisputable and he fails to show that he has no other means to attain the relief desired.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

(2) Any appeal filed by Knowles is dismissed.

*

*See In re Makari,*708 F.2d 709 (Fed.Cir.1983).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel LOPEZ-AYALA, aka Miguel Angel Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10059.

D.C. No. CR-01-00765-RCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

*833Julia Soto, USTU-Ofñce of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Enrique R. Gonzales, Nogales, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Lopez-Ayala appeals his conviction and 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lopez-Ayala's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no issues warranting review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 87-6488.

#### Hill *v.*Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 08, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A0057. CHARLES EMORY COUNTS, JR. v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration 

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals 

Rule 13.

On August 21, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and 

a brief no later than August 31, 2017. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 08, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dean L. Cash, Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of ATEL
Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 7, 2007



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                        
|Dean L. Cash                                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer of General Partner

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2085

To modify the requirements of the land conveyance to the University of 

Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2004

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL

To modify the requirements of the land conveyance to the 

University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘University of Nevada 

5 at Las Vegas Research Foundation Reinvestment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA AT 

7 LAS VEGAS RESEARCH FOUNDATION. 

8 Section 702(b)(2) of Public Law 107–282 (116 Stat. 

9 2013) is amended by striking ‘‘that if the land’’ and all 

10 that follows through ‘‘conveyed by the Foundation.’’ and 
2

•S 2085 IS 

1 inserting the following: ‘‘that provides that (except in a 

2 case in which the gross proceeds of a sale, lease, or convey3 ance are provided to the Foundation to carry out the pur4 poses for which the Foundation was established), if the 

5 land described in paragraph (3) is sold, leased, or other6 wise conveyed by the Foundation—’’.

Æ
#### ANN ZAYKA v. SYNCRO MACHINE COMPANY.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Ronald
      W. Pickett, Chief Executive Officer of Telkonet, Inc. (the “Company”), certify
      that:





(1)  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,
      2006
      which this certification accompanies 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.











/s/
      Ronald W. Pickett


Ronald
      W.
      Pickett


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      16,
      2007