alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives 
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following 
meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Southern 
Company Services, Inc.

The Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning (SERTP) Process 4th 
Quarter Meeting

December 18, 2014, 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (EST)
    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: www.southeasternrtp.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters 
at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket Nos. ER13-83, ER13-1928, Duke Energy Carolinas/Carolina Power & 
Light
Docket Nos. ER13-908, ER13-1941, Alabama Power Company et al.
Docket Nos. ER13-913, ER13-1940, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Docket Nos. ER13-897, ER13-1930, Louisville Gas and Electric Company 
and Kentucky Utilities Company
Docket Nos. ER13-107, ER13-1935, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket Nos. ER13-80, ER13-1932, Tampa Electric Company
Docket No. ER13-86, Florida Power Corporation
Docket Nos. ER13-104, ER13-1929, Florida Power & Light Company
Docket No. ER13-1922, Duke Energy Florida (Progress Energy Florida)
Docket Nos. ER13-195, ER13-198, ER13-1927, ER13-1936, PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy 
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6139 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7721161b12051e12593a1605031e19371112051459101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adfbccc1c8dfc4c883e0ccdfd9c4c3edcbc8dfce83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30206 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar HERNANDEZ-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41252.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

*416PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Hernandez-Flores (Hernandez) on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hernandez has not responded to counsel’s motion.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit 11.1
                              CORCOM, INC.
              COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED)
                     (In Thousands, except Share Data)


                              Thirteen Weeks Ended    Thirty-nine Weeks Ended
                              --------------------    -----------------------
                               Sept 27,    Sept 28,    Sept 27,       Sept 28, 
                                 1997        1996        1997           1996
                              ---------   ---------   ---------     ----------
Net earnings per common and
common equivalent share:

Average shares outstanding        3,817       3,795       3,822         3,778

Additional shares assuming 
exercise of dilutive stock 
options based on the treasury 
stock method using average 
market price                        143         190         135           191


AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND 
COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES          3,960       3,985       3,957         3,969

Net earnings                      $ 726     $ 1,034     $ 2,457       $ 3,601

Net earnings per common and
common equivalent share:          $ .18       $ .26       $ .62         $ .91



Net earnings per common and
common equivalent share - 
assuming full dilution:

Average shares outstanding        3,817       3,795       3,822         3,778

Additional shares assuming 
exercise of dilutive stock 
options based on the treasury 
stock method using the period 
end price if higher than the 
average market price.               147         197         147          196


FULLY DILUTED AVERAGE NUMBER 
OF COMMON AND COMMON 
EQUIVALENT SHARES                 3,964       3,992       3,969        3,974

Net earnings                      $ 726     $ 1,034     $ 2,457      $ 3,601

Net earnings per common and 
common equivalent shares          $ .18       $ .26       $ .62        $ .91
<PAGE>
II 

Calendar No. 535 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1823 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JUSTIN DEAN COLEMAN MEMO4 RIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in 

7 Brooksville, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1823 RS

1 ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean 

7 Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 535 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1823 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostDean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. in Brooksville, Florida, as the ‘‘Specialist Justin al Service located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Schulte et al., Appellants, *v.*Flick, Aud., et al., Appellees.

*253(No. 7353

Decided January 22, 1951.)

*Mr. Byram E. Moore,*for appellants.

*Mr. Henry M'. Bruestle,*city solicitor, and Mr. *Wallace M. Power,*for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal on questions of law in an action instituted under favor of Section 3553, General Code, to enjoin the annexation of certain contiguous territory to the city of Cincinnati. The trial court refused the injunction.

By Section 3548, General Code, it is required that the petition for annexation must be signed by a majority of the adult freeholders residing in the territory sought to be annexed.

In this case, it is not disputed that, at the time the amended petition was filed, the signers thereto constituted such majority.

Subsequent to the filing of the amended petition and prior to the hearing before the county commissioners, those opposed to the annexation and constituting a minority of the adult freeholders shifted their titles to the real estate so that at the time of the hearing they had become the majority of the adult resident freeholders.

*254The qualification of the petitioners has not changed.

The sole substantial question presented by this appeal is whether the shifting of the titles of those opposed to the annexation, during the pendency of the proceeding, required a denial of the petition by the county commissioners. >

By Section 3549, General Code, it is provided that the duties of the county commissioners, so far as applicable, shall be the same as are required in the case of an application to be incorporated as a village.

Turning then to Section' 3522, General Code, which defines the duties of county commissioners on the hearing of an application to incorporate as a village, we find that, so far as the petitioners are concerned, the only finding required for incorporation is “that the persons whose names are subscribed to the petition are electors residing in the territory.”

Under this provision, the most that is required on a petition for annexation is a finding that the petition was signed by the requisite number, that is, a majority. The majority at the time was subscribed as required to initiate the proceeding. Any subsequent change would be important only in the determination of the county commissioners as to whether it would be “right that the prayer of the petition be granted.”

For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Ross, P. J., Hildebrant and Matthews, JJ., .concur.
#### Carmen Britt, Individually and as Executor of Lula Baity, Deceased, Appellant, v Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[971 NYS2d 912]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J), entered December 8, 2011. The order, among other things, granted the cross motions of defendants to amend their answers to assert affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988, 988 [1988]; *Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts,*63 AD2d 566, 567 [1978]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6536

DONALD E. ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CALVIN ANTHONY, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-945-HMH) Submitted: August 31, 2005 Decided: September 9, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald E. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Donald E. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Moreover, as to the portions of the magistrate judge’s report to which Robinson failed to object after being warned of the consequences of such a failure, appellate review is waived. See United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### John M. Conway, relator v. Ionia Circuit Judge.

*Garnishment*— Defective *affidavit*— Dismissal *of proceeding.*

Where proceedings in garnishment are based upon an affidavit that is jurisdictionally defective, but the garnishee appears and discloses assigned claims in which he has no personal interest, it is within the court’s discretion to dismiss the proceedings on motion made by the garnishee; before judgment is entered in the principal case, especially if the affidavit is not amended after notice to dismiss, and the garnishee’s conduct has not caused prejudice.

An affidavit for a writ of garnishment is fatally defective if it does not show the nature of the contract by which the principal defendant is bound or identify it with the cause of action in suit.

A garnishee who has only disclosed claims of creditors held under assignment wherein he has no personal interest, can be held only upon the trial of an issue, which is not ripe for trial before judgment in the principal case.

Mandamus.

Submitted April 6.

Denied April 13.

*Donald McPherson*and *Samuel Clute*for relator.

*Dlamchard, Bell & Oagwin*for respondent.

Affidavits in garnishment are bad if they do not connect the indebtedness with the action or with a contract: Act 256 of 1879; *Weimeister v. Manville*44 Mich. 408.

Campbell, J.

A *ma/ndamus*is asked to rescind an order -dismissing garnishee proceedings as founded on a defective affidavit. The affidavit does not conform to the amended garnishee law of 1879 inasmuch as it fails to show the nature of the contract of the principal defendants, or to identify it with the cause of action in suit. As we have repeatedly held the defects fatal we need not discuss it.

But it is claimed the garnishee waived the jurisdictional defect by appearing and disclosing. He expressly denied having any property of the principal debtors, and his disclosure showed claims of creditors under an assignment, in-*29which he had no personal interest, and in which other persons had. The motion to quash was entered before any judgment had been rendered against the principal defendants..

Without considering under what circumstances, if at all,, a waiver will preclude the garnishee from raising such objections, we do not think: it was any abuse of discretion in the circuit court to reheve the garnishee from further responsibility. There seems to have been no difficulty in the-way of making a valid affidavit when the motion was noticed,, and whatever may have been the case on this point, the garnishee should not be deprived of his jurisdictional defence, and be made to bear the annoyance of a litigation in which he has no interest, unless his conduct has been such as to work serious prejudice. In the present case if the principal defendants had not withdrawn their defence the judgment: against them must have been still further delayed, and, as-already stated, the garnishee had made no admissions whatever of liability. He could only have been held upon the-trial of an issue, which was not ripe for trial before judgment, in the principal case.

The *mandamus*must be denied with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

Dated: March 14, 2011

| |     |                                                            
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Elazar
Rabbani, Ph.D.                                  
| |     |                                                            
| |     | Elazar Rabbani,
Ph.D.                                      
| |     | Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1880 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1880

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
    Representatives, Allowance for Compensation of Interns in House 
         Appropriations Committee Offices for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
    Representatives, Allowance for Compensation of Interns in House 
         Appropriations Committee Offices for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, ALLOWANCE FOR COMPENSATION OF INTERNS IN 
              HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE OFFICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Allowance for Compensation of Interns in House Appropriations Committee 
Offices for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $345,584.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

Dec em ber 1 1 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk Dec em ber 10 , 2018

15 8 81 8 ( 9 )

DARRYL MCGORE

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 15 8 818

v C O A: 34 5498

Baraga CC: 18

- 006846

- CZ

BARAGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN

, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable

for filing fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to

continue, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this order

and refile the copy of the pleadings returned wi th this order as acknowledgement of his

responsibility to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to do so shall result in the appeal being

administratively dismissed

. If appellant timely complies with this order , monthly payments shall be made to the

Departme nt of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. Th at amount shall then be

remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8), appellant shall not file a new ci vil action or appeal

in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return

a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
EXHIBIT 4.2

 

BUSCAR COMPANY

A NEVADA CORPORATION

500,000,000 SHARES COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE

 

This certifies that _____________________________________________ is hereby issued ________________________________________________ fully paid and non-assessable Shares of Common Stock of Buscar Company, transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

 

In Witness Whereof, Buscar Company has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed as of this ______ day of __________ 20_____.

 

 

__________________________________

President Secretary