alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29290]


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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, December 18, 2014, 9:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. EST.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, 
DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent 
agenda consisting of the minutes of its October 30, 2014 meeting, a 
resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of Voice of America's 
Ukrainian Service, and a resolution honoring the fifth anniversary of 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Radio Mashaal. The Board will receive 
a presentation providing an overview of the International Broadcasting 
Bureau.
    This meeting will also be available for public observation via 
streamed Webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web 
site at www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this meeting, including any 
updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the 
agency's public Web site.
    The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address 
listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking 
to attend the meeting in person must register at http://bbgboardmeetingdecember2014.eventbrite.com by 12:00 p.m. (EST) on 
December 17. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at 
(202) 203-4400 or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed9d988f8c8b8bad8f8f8ac38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80f0f5e2e1e6e6c0e2e2e7aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,
Director of Board Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-29290 Filed 12-10-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 No. 05-14-01342-CV

________________________ ______________________ ____________________

I N THE F IFTH D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS OF T EXAS
AT D ALLAS

________________________ ______________________ ____________________
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY ME DICAL CENTER,

A PPELLANT , v.

MARY GREESON,

A PPELLEE

________________________ ______________________ ____________________

F ROM THE 44 TH J UDICIAL D ISTRICT C OURT
OF D ALLAS C OUNTY , T EXAS

________________________ ______________________ ____________________
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

________________________ ______________________ ____________________

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Jason P. Steed of Bell Nunnally & Martin

LLP, whose information appears below, en ters his appearance in this matter as

additional counsel of record for Appella nt Baylor University Medical Center. ACCEPTED 05-14-01342-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 1/27/2015 2:04:43 PM

LISA MATZ CLERK2 Jason P. Steed Texas Bar No. 24070671 jsteed@bellnunnally.com Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 740-1400 – Telephone (214) 740-1499 – Facsimile

Respectfully submitted,

B ELL N UNNALLY & M ARTIN LLP

By: /s/ Jason P. Steed Jay M. Wallace Texas Bar No. 20769200 jwallace@bellnunnally.com Heather B. New Texas Bar No. 24007642 hnew@bellnunnally.com Alana K. Ackels Texas Bar No. 24066760 aackels@bellnunnally.com Jason P. Steed Texas Bar No. 24070671 jsteed@bellnunnally.com

3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75204-2429 Telephone: (214) 740-1400 Telecopy: (214) 740-1499

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing pleading was served upon the persons listed below in the manner

indicated on the date indicated.

William J. Dunleavy Law Offices of William J. Dunleavy, P.C. 825 Market Street Building M, Suite 250 Allen, Texas 75013 Via Efile.txcourts.gov & Facsimile # 972-996-4501

DATED this the 27 th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Jason P. Steed Jason P. Steed

2007861_1.DOCX / 8245.3
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in each of the following Registration Statements of Gaiam, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Gaiam, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.



|     |  |                        |  |                                                                                   
|---- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Form |  | Registration Statement |  | Description                                                                       
|S-3  |  | 333-170681             |  | Registration Statement                                                            
|     |  |                       
|S-8  |  | 333-37700              |  | Gaiam, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
|     |  |                       
|S-8  |  | 333-89726              |  | Gaiam, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan                                              
|     |  |                       
|S-8  |  | 333-161450             |  | Gaiam, Inc. 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan.                                        



/s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC


March 11, 2011

Denver, Colorado
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL )

ASSOCIATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0354-CG-B

)

M & V INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

 This matter is before the court on the Suggestion of Bankruptcy (Doc. 34), in which

defendant Earl B. Vick advises that he filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S.

Bankruptcy Code in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama on

February 18, 2010.

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of an

action. Accordingly, this action is STAYED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to place this

case on the court’s administrative docket.

The parties shall notify the court within thirty (30) days of the resolution of bankruptcy

proceedings or of a lift of the stay, at which time this action shall be reinstated to the court’s

active docket.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00354-CG-B Document 35 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 1
11010.

#### Starnes *v.*Bacon.

Decided May 5, 1920.

Certiorari; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. July 11, 1919.

Stephens, J.

1. A petition for certiorari must except to a final judgment, and must plainly and distinctly set forth the errors complained of.

2. An exception “ that the judgment entered on such verdict does not follow the verdict,” without alleging wherein such judgment fails to follow the verdict is not a complete and valid assignment of error. *Searcy*v. *Collins,*94 *Ga.*642 (20 S. E. 94).

3. A petition for certiorari which contained no valid assignment of error upon a final judgment and which complained only of rulings made upon the trial, was invalid, and the judge did not err in failing to sustain it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

*261
      *Columbus E. Alexander, J. P. Dukes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lee Cotton,*contra.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-41069

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEONEL GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:10-CR-1708-1

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Leonel Gonzalez pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm

and was sentenced on June 15, 2011, to an 87-month term of imprisonment and

to a three-year period of supervised release. On June 21, 2011, the district court

vacated its original sentence because it had made an error in calculating

Gonzalez’s base offense level. Gonzalez was resentenced on September 27, 2011,

to a 120-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 29, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 11-41069 Document: 00512128472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2013
No. 11-41069

release. Subsequently, judgment was entered. Gonzalez gave notice of his

appeal. 

This court must satisfy itself of the district court’s jurisdiction. United

States v. Garcia, 606 F.3d 209, 212 n.5 (5th Cir. 2010). “‘A judgment of

conviction that includes a sentence of imprisonment constitutes a final judgment

and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances.’” 

United States v. Caulfield, 634 F.3d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dillon v.

United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690 (2010); internal quotation marks and

brackets omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) & (c). 

The issue presented is whether the district court had the authority under

§ 3582(c) to modify the term of imprisonment under Rule 35(a) of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure. See § 3582(c)(1)(B). Rule 35(a) provides, “Within

14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from

arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a). 

The original sentencing occurred on June 15, 2011, when the district court

orally announced the original 87-month sentence. See RULE 35(c). Both parties

agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose the new sentence on

September 27, 2011, because the resentencing occurred after the expiration of

the 14-day period of Rule 35(a). See United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 519 &

n.8 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Judgment was not entered following imposition of the original sentence. 

Because the subsequent resentencing and entry of judgment were outside of the

14-day period of Rule 35(a), they are void. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b). Thus, there

was no judgment from which Gonzalez could appeal, and this court lacks

jurisdiction. See United States v. Jones, 2012 WL 4903683 at *1 (5th Cir. Oct.

17, 2012) (unpublished). The appeal is DISMISSED. 

2

 Case: 11-41069 Document: 00512128472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2013
#### The City of Washington *v.*Kauffman.

APPEAL from the Daviess Circuit Court.

*W. D. Bynum,*for appellant.

*y R. Mitchell,*for appellee.

Pettit, J.

This case was submitted Nov. 27th, 1871. There is no assignment, or attempted assignment, of error on the transcript, as required by sec. 568, 2 G. & H. 275, and by rule first of this court.

The appeal is dismissed, at the costs of the appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                128,831
<SECURITIES>                        1,537,475
<RECEIVABLES>                          17,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      151,636
<PP&E>                             24,881,632
<DEPRECIATION>                      7,487,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     19,117,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,563,123
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                              455,655
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                         12,070,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       19,117,595
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    3,334,944
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       1,915,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    638,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     1,419,515
<INCOME-TAX>                          516,822
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   902,693
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          902,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.97

</TABLE>
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 8, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16490 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 0 0 6 9 - C R - C MA U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A X B A C A L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 8, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ig u e l C a r id a d , ap p o in te d c o u n s e l f o rM a x B a c a l, h a s f

ile dam o tio n to2

w i thd raw on appeal supp ort ed by a bri ef prepare d p ursuantt o A nd er s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls c o u n s e ls ’ a s s e s s m e n t o f th e r e la tiv e m e r it o f

th e ap p e a l is c orr e c t . I nde pe nde nte xa m i na t i on of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s no a r guabl e i s s ue s of m eri t , th erefo re, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , an dB ac al’s conv i ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-90551) pertaining to the Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Savings Incentive
Plan, Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors, Lanier
Worldwide, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan, and Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Employee Stock
Purchase Plan of our report dated August 2, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Lanier Worldwide, Inc. and subsidiaries
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2000.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
September 15, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT JUNE 30, 1997
AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 OF NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                     47,100,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                             254,000,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (5,000,000)
<INVENTORY>                                90,400,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          403,900,000
<PP&E>                                  1,151,200,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          (649,900,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,427,400,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     304,300,000
<BONDS>                                   248,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   400,000
<COMMON>                                   15,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                658,500,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,427,400,000
<SALES>                                   689,000,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          689,000,000
<CGS>                                     297,400,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             297,400,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          278,800,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          7,400,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           119,800,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               43,900,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        75,900,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               75,900,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.97


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SANDRA CALDWELL, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0819-WS-C 

PROVIDENCE FAMILY PHYSICIAN :

(TILLMAN’S CORNER) SETON MEDICAL

MANAGEMENT, and PROVIDENCE :

HOSPITAL,

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2006.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00819-WS-C Document 10 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Schultz, Appellant, *v.*City of Upper Arlington et al., Appellees.

(No. 4370

Decided May 5, 1950.)

*Messrs. Dargusch, Garen, Greek & King, Mr. John W. King*and *Mr. John W. Christensen,*for appellant.

*Mr. Paul A. Griffith,*city attorney, and *Mr. Lawrence D. Stanley,*for appellee City of Upper Arlington.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County which overruled plaintiff’s demurrer to the answer of the defendants. The plaintiff not desiring to plead further, the cause was dismissed.

There is no dispute between the parties as, to the facts. The sole question for determination relates to the legal effect of the undisputed facts alleged in the pleadings.

The well-considered and comprehensive written opinion of the trial judge, Honorable Myron B. Gessaman, is found among the papers in the case. The trial court held that Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, confers on municipalities the “authority to exercise all powers of local self-government,” but that section XV of the charter of the city of Upper Arlington, which provides for submitting an annexa*282tion ordinance to a vote of the electors, did not fall in that category; that the constitutional provision conferring on municipalities the “powers of local self-government” contemplates and includes only such powers as are local in the sense that they relate to the municipal affairs of the particular municipality; that matters involving annexation of territory to a municipal corporation are not purely local matters and, therefore, are not proper functions of local self-government; and that such matters are of a general nature and state-wide in their scope. The trial court concluded that section XV of the charter of the city of Upper Arlington deals with a subject that is not a function of local self-government; that this section is in conflict with the general laws passed by the General Assembly under its constitutional powers and is, therefore, void and of no effect. As a consequence the commission of the city of Upper Arlington was not required to submit ordinance No. 1057 to a vote of the electors of the city. Support for this conclusion is found in the following cases which were cited: *Fitzgerald*v. *City of Cleveland,*88 Ohio St., 338, 103 N. E., 512; *City of Mansfield*v. *Endly,*38 Ohio App., 528, 535, 176 N. E., 462; *Village of Brook Park*v. *City of Cleveland,*26 Ohio Opinions, 536, 538, 12 Ohio Supp., 77.

After carefully considering all the legal questions raised by counsel in their briefs, we have arrived at the same conclusion as the trial court. We find no necessity to restate here the applicable provisions of the law so effectively stated in the excellent written opinion by the trial judge.

As we find no error in the record prejudicial to the appellant, the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Miller, P. J., Hornbeck and Wiseman, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

v. ) CRIMINAL NO.

MARGARITA VALOY, ) 12-00036-CB

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion by the Defendant (Doc. 68) requesting that 

her term of supervised release be terminated. Having considered the Defendant’s motion, it is 

hereby ORDERED that the request for early termination of Defendant’s supervised release is 

due to be and hereby is GRANTED and Defendant’s term of supervised release is due to be 

terminated immediately. 

DONE this the 6th day of June, 2016.

s/Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:12-cr-00036-CB-C Document 69 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 1
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:

President's Commission on White House Fellowships, U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The President's Commission on White House Fellowships (PCWHF) was established by an Executive Order in 1964. The PCWHF is an advisory committee composed of Special Government Employees appointed by the President. The Advisory Committee will meet in June to interview potential candidates for recommendation to become a White House Fellow.

The meeting is closed.

Name of Committee: President's Commission on White House Fellowships Mid-Year Meeting.

Date: January 26, 2015.

Time: 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

Place: TBD.

Agenda: The Commission will talk to current Fellows on how their placements are going and discuss progress on strategic goals and recruiting efforts.

Location: TBD.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Y. Kaplan, 712 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 20503, and Phone: 202-395-4522.

President's Commission on White House Fellowships.

Jennifer Y. Kaplan, 

Director.

[FR Doc. 2014-29556 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-44-P