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.                  

###### Tennessee Valley Authority

          - [Meeting No. 14-05]

                    The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on December 30, 2014, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time via Webcast. In order to join the Webcast, participants may log in as early as 9:50 a.m. ET. You can access the Webcast by going to:                     *http://services.choruscall.com/​links/​tva141230.html*                     (this link is also on the Board of Directors' page on TVA's Web site—                    *www.tva.gov*). Closed Captioning will be available for viewing.                

Participants who are unable to view the Webcast, may dial into the call at 1-877-270-2148 or 412-902-6510 and ask for the TVA Board Meeting Call.

The Webcast will be available to view after the event occurs, and can be accessed on the Board of Directors' page on TVA's Web site.

*Status:*                     Open.                

## Agenda

Chair's Welcome

### New Business

1. Report of the Finance, Rates, and Portfolio Committee

A. Generation Fleet Planning—Shawnee Fossil Plant Units 1 and 4

2. Committee Assignments

For more information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

Dated: December 23, 2014.

Ralph E. Rodgers,

General Counsel and Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-30652 Filed 12-24-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juan DeJESUS-ABAD, also known as “Nine-Two,” also known as “Code Nine-Two,” Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1596.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 31, 2001.

Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.

Paul B. Radvany, Assistant United States Attorney; Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William B. Silverman and Christine H. Chung, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief, New York, NY, for appellee.

Present WALKER, Chief Judge, JACOBS, Circuit Judge, and LARIMER,* Chief District Judge.

*

 The Honorable David G. Larimer of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Defendant-appellant Juan DeJesus-Abad appeals from a July 18, 2000 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts, *J.)*convicting him, after a guilty plea, of conspiring to distribute heroin in *30violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and sentencing him to, *inter alia,*70 months’ incarceration. DeJesus-Abad appealed, attacking the validity of his guilty plea.

Although the government does not press the argument on appeal, it is clear that DeJesus-Abad’s appeal was untimely. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1)(A) requires that a notice of appeal in a criminal case be filed within ten days of the judgment. The judgment in this case was filed on July 18, 2000. DeJesus-Abad’s notice of appeal was filed on August 15, 2000, well outside the ten-day window established by Rule 4(b). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal. *See United States v. Ferraro,*992 F.2d 10, 11 (2d Cir.1993) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2074 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office 

of the President, Unanticipated Needs 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 Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office of the President, Unanticipated Needs for 

fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, UN5 ANTICIPATED NEEDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:37 Apr 17, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2074.IH H2074

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2074 IH

1 able for Executive Office of the President, Unanticipated 

2 Needs for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78911-78912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30415]


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

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

U.S. Copyright Office

[Docket No. 2014-5]


The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Register of Copyrights releases the Compendium of U.S. 
Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office (the ``Office'') is announcing the 
release of its administrative manual, the Compendium of U.S. Copyright 
Office Practices, Third Edition (the ``Third Edition''). It is 
available on the Office's Web site and is effective as of December 22, 
2014.

DATES: The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition 
is available on the Office's Web site as of December 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Kasunic, Associate Register and 
Director of Registration Policy and Practice, U.S. Copyright Office, 
P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Telephone (202) 707-8040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 
Practices is the administrative manual of the Register of Copyrights 
concerning the mandate and statutory duties of the Copyright Office 
under title 17 of the United States Code. It serves as both a technical 
manual for the Office's staff, as well as a guidebook for authors, 
copyright licensees, practitioners,

[[Page 78912]]

scholars, the courts, and members of the general public.
    On August 20, 2014 the Office released a public draft of this 
manual titled, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third 
Edition. 79 FR 49343. The first major revision in more than two 
decades, the Third Edition is a comprehensive overhaul that makes the 
practices and standards of the Office more accessible and transparent 
to the public and sets the stage for a number of long-term improvements 
in registration and recordation policy.
    The Office is now announcing the release of the official version of 
the Third Edition. It is available on the Office's Web site at http://copyright.gov/comp3/. The Third Edition is effective as of December 22, 
2014 and is the governing administrative manual for registrations and 
recordations issued by the Office on or after that date.

    Dated: December 19, 2014.
Robert Kasunic,
Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of the Office of 
Registration Policy and Practice.
[FR Doc. 2014-30415 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

The undersigned,Alexander Lidow, the Chief Executive Officer of International RectifierCorporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifiesthat, to his knowledge:

 

(i)            the quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005(the “Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for theperiods presented in the Report.

 

Dated: May 17, 2006

 
|   | /s/  Alexander Lidow                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Alexander  Lidow                      |
|   | Director and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to International Rectifier Corporation and will be furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00255-CV

Andres BUENO,

Appellant

v.

Melissa HERNANDEZ,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-03-52114-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 29, 2014, this court issued its opinion and judgment. On October 2, 2014, 

Appellee Melissa Hernandez filed a motion for en banc reconsideration. The Court requests that 

the Appellant Andres Bueno file a response on or before October 30, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P.

49.2.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Alexandria S., an Infant. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alexander S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Dylan S., an Infant. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Alexander S., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[962 NYS2d 675]

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Currier-Woods, J.), entered May 16, 2011, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that he neglected Alexandria S. and Dylan S.

*857Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court’s finding of neglect is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [a] [iii]; [b] [i]; *Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl HJ,*81 AD3d 647 [2011]; *Matter of Arthur S. [Rose S.],*68 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2009]). The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to show that the father neglected the subject children by engaging in certain acts of domestic violence against the mother in their presence that impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, emotional, or mental conditions *(see Matter of Arietta S. [Krystal C.],*89 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2011]; *Matter of Kiara C. [David C.],*85 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2011]; *Matter of Jordan E.,*57 AD3d 539, 540 [2008]). Additional evidence established that the father had engaged in a pattern of intimidation against the mother *(see Matter of Kiara C. [David C.],*85 AD3d at 1026).

In addition, by submitting proof of the father’s repeated use of cocaine, the petitioner established a prima facie case of neglect pursuant to Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (iii) *(see Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.],*81 AD3d at 647; *Matter of Arthur S. [Rose S.],*68 AD3d at 1123; *Matter of Keira O.,*44 AD3d 668, 670 [2007]). In this regard, “ ‘neither actual impairment [of the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition] nor specific risk of impairment need be established’ ” *(Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.],*81 AD3d at 647, quoting *Matter of Paolo W.,*56 AD3d 966, 967 [2008]). The father, who did not testify, did not rebut this presumption. Notably, such a presumption “is not rebutted by a showing that ‘the children were never in danger and were always well kept, clean, well fed and not at risk’ ” *(Matter of Arthur S. [Rose S.],*68 AD3d at 1124, quoting *Matter of Paolo W.,*56 AD3d at 967 [some internal quotation marks omitted]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Rowe *v.*Arnold.

*Parties.—Adults.—Presumption of*Law.—The law presumes that all parties to a suit are adults, unless the contrary is made to appear.

Next Friend.—Consent.—Where a complaint filed before a justice of the peace is signed by one as next friend of the plaintiff, it is a sufficient consent in writing under section n, 2 *G.*& H. 42.

APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Common Pleas.

Pettit, J.

This suit was brought before a justice of the peace by the appellee against the appellant, on the following cause of action: “John Rowe in account with George Arnold, debtor for labor done by plaintiff for defendant from March nth, 1870, until May 20th, 1870, at sixteen dollars per month—thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents. George Arnold by Ezra Huffman, his next friend.”

*25*W. D. Lee*and *P. H. Lee,*for appellant.

The transcript of the justice says that the defendant moved to dismiss the cause, for the' reason that the suit is in the name of George Arnold by Ezra Huffman, his next friend, and the summons has not the name of Ezra Huffman in it. The motion was overruled. The summons is not in the transcript, and we cannot say that it did not contain the name of the next friend, even if it were necessary that it should, which we do not decide. On appeal to the common pleas, the clerk’s entry says, “ The defendant moves the court to dismiss the cause herein for want of next friend.” The motion was overruled, and exception taken.

The correctness of this ruling is the only question in the case. The record nowhere shows that George Arnold was a minor, and the name of the next friend might have been treated as surplusage, and the cause prosecuted in the name of Arnold; for the law presumes that all parties to suits are adults, unless the contrary is made to appear. *Hanly*v. *Levin,*5 Ohio, 228. But the complaint is signed by Huffman as the next friend, and is a sufficient consent in writing under sec. 11, 2 G. & H. 42. We may add that the transcript shows that the next friend also appeared as attorney for the plaintiff and tried the cause before the justice.

The court committed no error in overruling the motion to dismiss.

The judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages, at the costs of the appellant.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

The Board of Directors 

XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos. 333-47570, 333-93529, 333-89132 and 333-85804 on FormsS-3 and Nos. 333-92049, 333-65022, 333-65020 and 333-97611 on Form S-8 of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 27, 2003 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and related schedule, which reportsappear in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries. Those reports contain an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 142, “*Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*.” 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

McLean, VA 

March 28, 2003
#### John H. HARDING; Lisa A. Tomlinson, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Paul D. HAHN, Sr.; Doreen Hyatt, Personal representatives of the Estate of Nancy L. Schamel a/k/a Nancy L. Harding, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-2531.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 17, 2001.

Decided May 23, 2001.

John H. Harding, Lisa A. Tomlinson, pro se. Julie Hunt Blair, Sauser & Blair, Jefferson, MD, for appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John H. Harding and Lisa A. Tomlinson appeal the district court’s orders dismissing them complaint for want of jurisdiction and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. The *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine provides that a United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings. *Brown & Root, Inc. v. Breckenridge,*211 F.3d 194, 198 (4th Cir.2000) *(quoting District of Columbia Ct.App. v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983)). Accordingly, we af*154firm. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-50962 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

 

Denzell Rodgers, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:14-CR-290-1 

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Denzell Rodgers has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Rodgers has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 18, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-50962 Document: 00516397292 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
No. 21-50962 

2 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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. 

Case: 21-50962 Document: 00516397292 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                 CLX ENERGY, INC.
                    Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)



                                          Nine Months          Three Months
                                         Ended June 30         Ended June 30,
                                    ----------------------  ---------------------
                                       2002        2001        2002       2001
                                    -----------  ---------  ----------  ---------
<S>                                 <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>
Net income (loss)                   $ (103,419)    220,502  $    6,739     45,824
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                 2,631,936   2,634,850   2,631,936  2,631,984

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options                                    -     129,630           -    129,630
                                    -----------  ---------  ----------  ---------

                                     2,631,936   2,764,480   2,631,936  2,761,614
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========

 Net income (loss) per share:
    Basic                           $    ( .04)        .08  $     0.00       0.02
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========

    Diluted                         $    ( .04)        .08  $     0.00       0.02
                                    ===========  =========  ==========  =========
</TABLE>

Stock  options  are  not  considered  in  the  diluted EPS calculation for those
periods  with  net losses, as the impact of the potential common shares (250,000
shares  at  June  30,  2002)  would  be  to  decrease  loss  per  share.


<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00306-B

 )

GREG KENNEDY BUILDER, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion 

to Dismiss or For Stay Action (Doc. 14) and Defendant’s Motion 

to Amend Deadlines Set in Order (Doc. 17). In the original 

complaint, Plaintiff requested a declaration that it owes no 

duty to indemnify Defendants for any damages that may be awarded 

against Defendants in an underlying state court action. (Doc. 

1). After Defendants filed a motion seeking the dismissal of 

Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint 

seeking a declaration that it owes no duty to either defend 

Defendants in the underlying civil action, nor indemnify 

Defendants for any damages that may be awarded in the underlying 

action. (Docs. 14, 16).

Because Plaintiff's amended complaint is now the operative 

pleading in this action; Defendants’ motion to dismiss is moot. 

Pintando v. Miami-Dade Housing Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (llth 

Case 1:15-cv-00306-WS-B Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Cir. 2007). (“As a general matter, an amended pleading 

supersedes the former pleading; the original pleading is 

abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the 

pleader's averments against his adversary.")(quoting Dresdner 

Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 

F. 3d 1210, 1215 (llth Cir. 2006))(internal quotation marks 

omitted); see De Sisto College, Inc. v. Line, 888 F.2d 755, 757-

58 (llth Cir. 1989) (acknowledging that the defendant's motion 

to dismiss the first amended complaint was moot because the 

plaintiff filed a second amended complaint); Meterlogic, Inc. v. 

Copier Solutions, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1292, 1297 n.4 (S.D. 

Fla. 2002) (noting that the plaintiff's filing of an amended 

complaint "rendered moot the parties' previous pleadings and the 

defendants' summary judgment and Daubert motions").

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’

motions are denied as moot. 

DONE this 20th day of August, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00306-WS-B Document 18 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2