alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NIGC Announces March 

Consultation Schedule Changes 

For Immediate Release Contact: Paxton Myers 

(202) 632-7003 

Washington, DC, March 2, 2012 - The National Indian Gaming Commission 

(NIGC/Commission) announced today an amendment of its Regulatory Review 

Consultation Schedule. The consultation scheduled for Tuesday, March 27, 

2012 in Mount Pleasant, Michigan at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Hotel 

conflicts with the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes (MAST) legislative 

summit. The Commission has rescheduled this consultation for Thursday, April 

5th, 2012 at the San Diego Convention Center immediately following the National 

Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) annual convention and trade show. 

For more information regarding the NIGC’s Regulatory Review, please visit 

www.nigc.gov. For questions regarding this announcement, please contact 

Paxton Myers at (202) 632-7003. 

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior pursuant 

to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.

###
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2019-04-16 17:26:00","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"}],"value":"2019"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["8"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["9"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["7"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2019","quarter":"Q2"}
#### Ronald HUTCHINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kevin MILYARD, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-1329.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 27, 2009.

Ronald Hutchinson, Sterling, CO, pro se.

Susan Friedman, Matthew S. Holman, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Department of Law, Denver, CO, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

DAVID M. EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Colorado state prisoner Ronald Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”) appeals, pro se, from the district court’s order dismissing his *675amended application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court concluded that the application was barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Thus, the district court did not reach the merits of Hutchinson’s § 2254 application, which asserts that his August 22, 2005, sentences in Colorado cases 02CR1131 and 03CR2432 violated *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

We granted Hutchinson a certificate of appealability, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), on the issue of whether his habeas application challenging the sentences imposed upon resentencing was timely under AEDPA, and requested briefing from the State of Colorado on this issue.1 In its brief, Colorado argued that Hutchinson’s application was not timely under § 2244(d)(1)(A). (Resp’t Br. at 4-14.) However, the State conceded that the application *was*timely under § 2244(d)(1)(D), because the claims in the application did not arise until Hutchinson’s August 22, 2005, resentencing became final, on October 7, 2005. The State therefore requested that we “vacate the order of dismissal and remand for consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s claims.” *(Id.*at 16.)

We agree with the State’s concession under § 2244(d)(1)(D). Therefore, we need not decide whether Hutchinson’s application for habeas relief was also timely under subsection (d)(1)(A).

The district court’s order dismissing the application as untimely is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for a consideration of the merits of Hutchinson’s habeas claims challenging his sentences of August 22, 2005. Hutchinson’s motion to proceed *in forma pau-peris*on this appeal is GRANTED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. We GRANT Hutchinson’s motion to allow late filing of his Reply to the State's Answer Brief.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11750 and # 11751] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated 05/15/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.                     

*Incident Period:*                         05/03/2009 and continuing.                     

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/27/2009.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/14/2009.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/15/2010.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia, dated 05/15/2009 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                    Mcdowell; Raleigh.                 

*Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

West Virginia: Fayette; Kanawha; Summers. 

Virginia: Tazewell.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13029 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Caroline Commisso, Appellant, v Steven G. Orshan et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 5, 2012;

decided May 8, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 18 NY3d 876 (2012)].
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Roberts, Interim President and 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, based on my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 9, 2007



/s/ John S. RobertsJohn S. RobertsInterim President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Mikia H. and Another. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Monique K., Appellant. In the Matter of Noreon K. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Monique K., Appellant.

Submitted December 13, 2010;

decided February 15, 2011

*761Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that affirmed the Family Court order denying a motion to vacate, dismissed upon the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PAUL ANTHONY CATALDO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1446

[November 28, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CF006127AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. 

Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

Paul Anthony Cataldo appeals his conviction for battery on a person 65 

years of age or older. We affirm without comment with one exception. 

Cataldo argues, and the State concedes, that the circuit court erred in 

denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to 

correct sentencing error. 

Specifically, Cataldo argues there are three errors in the written order 

of probation:

1.) The order of probation incorrectly states that Cataldo

entered a guilty plea when, in fact, he was convicted by 

jury;

2.) The order of probation refers to Cataldo’s conviction on 

count one as “EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE WHILE 

COMMITTING BATTERY ON PERSON 65 YEARS OF AGE 
2

OR OLDER” when, in fact, the jury did not find evidence of 

prejudice; and 

3.) The order of probation indicates a probationary period of 

“3 YEARS, CONCURRENT WITH COUNTS 1,2 – FIRST 6 

MONTHS OF PROBATION TO BE SERVED ON 

COMMUNITY CONTROL II WITH A MONITOR” when, in 

fact, the court ordered one year of probation for count two.

The State concedes that these three errors should be corrected. Thus, 

we affirm Cataldo’s conviction and sentence but remand for the court to 

correct the three errors in the order of probation. Cataldo need not be 

present for the court’s entry of the corrected order of probation. See Sirota 

v. State, 977 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Affirmed and remanded for correction of order of probation.

TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2018

No. 04-18-00220-CR

Gilbert TELLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CRN000013-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Cynthia Perez Lenz’s notification of late record is hereby MOOT. The appellant’s brief is 

due on November 13, 2018.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,815
<INVENTORY>                                     19,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,603
<PP&E>                                          66,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,642
<BONDS>                                        313,885
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           149
<OTHER-SE>                                   (117,785)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,517
<SALES>                                        153,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               442,162
<CGS>                                           96,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  266,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (66,045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (71,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,223
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (210)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,992)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.78)


</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 22, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00744

- CR

Arturo NORIEGA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR4087

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

Appellant ’ s brief is due June 20, 2014. No further extensions of time will be granted.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of May, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Cause No. 01-14-0703-CV; Christoph Henkel, Appellant v. Emjo Investments, Ltd. and H.J. von 

der Goltz, Appellees

Date motion filed: October 13, 2015

Type of motion: Motion for rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

The Court requests a response to the motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2. The 

response, if any, should be filed by November 6, 2015.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Jane Bland

Justice, acting individually

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

Date: October 15, 2015
de

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the
National Indian Gaming Commission has assessed the environmental
impacts of the following project:

Proposed Development
of the
Ak-Chin Casino Project
by the Ak-Chin Indian Community
Pinal County, Arizona

The purpose of this project is the development of a 72,000 square
foot Class II and III gaming facility with parking and
landscaping on a 40 acre tract of agricultural trust land on the
southwest corner of Maricopa Road and Farrell Road in Pinal
County, Arizona. The purpose of the Environmental Assessment is
to discuss the impacts of the proposed project.

This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the following
factors: the project will not result in any significant impacts
to water or land. resources, to any properties listed on or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places, to any threatened or endangered species, or to any other
resource, and will benefit the socioeconomic resources of the Ak-
Chin Community.

The environmental assessment process indicates the proposed
project will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be prepared.

Sew, Ned Oph 24, a4

Anthony J. Hope, Chairman Date
National Indian Gaming Commission

1850 M SIRI TN W_ SUITE 250 WASHINGTON.OC 20036 TEL 202-632-7003 FAX 2U2 G37 UK
4\° mat 'No,
e
=

a
¥.

“On 3s

1 7)
“eG comm”

March 8, 2011
Re: Draft NIGC Consultation Policy

Dear Tribal Leader:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), we invite you to review
and submit comments to the attached draft NIGC Consultation Policy. We know that the
best results can be achieved after meaningful consultation with Indian tribes and we look
forward to your participation.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-
to-government relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments.
Accordingly, the NIGC committed to implementing the President’s November 5, 2009
Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order
13,175 and began a review of its 2004 Consultation Policy. The changes to the draft
Consultation Policy are based largely on comments received from Tribal leaders at
consultations conducted by the NIGC from June through September of 2010, as well as
on written comments submitted by Tribal leaders to the NIGC. We greatly appreciate the
tribal participation during the summer consultations and the many thoughtful suggestions
and insights received.

We invite all Tribal leaders to share their views on the draft Consultation Policy in person
at a consultation scheduled for Thursday, April 7, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona, from 9 a.m.
to 12 p.m., at the following location:

Wyndham Phoenix Hotel
50 East Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona

Chairwoman Tracie Stevens, Vice-Chairwoman Steffani Cochran and Associate
Commissioner Dan Little will be present. For those Tribal leaders unable to attend, we
invite you to submit written comments by e-mail to consultation.policy@nigc.gov, or by
U.S. mail to Kathy Zebell at 1441 L Street, NW. Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005.
Comments must be received by May 31, 2011.

All comments received and a transcript of the April 7, 2011 consultation, will be posted
on the NIGC website under the heading “Tribal Consultation,” on the left-hand side of
the NIGC home page, www.nige.gov.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1447 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 + WWW.NIGC.Gov

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK


For planning purposes, and to accommodate all who want to attend the April 7, 2011
consultation, please RSVP to Rita Homa, Executive Secretary, at (202) 418-9807 or by e-
mail at consultation.rsvp@nige.gov. Information regarding the time and location of this
consultation will be posted on our website, as will the draft policy.

It is critically important that we work together in a mutually cooperative and respectful
government-to-government relationship to maximize the intended benefit of this
Consultation Policy. We look forward to meeting with you should your schedule allow.

Thank you for your interest, participation and continuing support of our efforts.

Sincerely,
; Vi, 1Sw . a Q
SIOLML Sfp oO
Tracie L. Stevens Steffani A. Cochran Daniel J. Little
Chairwoman Vice-Chairwoman Associate Commissioner

Enclosure
Document

Exhibit 4.18


AMENDMENT NUMBER TWELVE
TO THE
TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
TAX-DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN
WHEREAS, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and maintains for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and certain subsidiaries of the Company the “Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Tax-Deferred Savings Plan” (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently amended and restated, effective as of January 1, 2014;
WHEREAS, the Company desires to update the membership of its Investment Management Committee, which committee oversees the investment of the Plan’s assets and has certain other responsibilities with respect to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 14.1 of the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2022, the definition of “Committee” set forth in Section 2(10) of the Plan hereby is amended to read as follows:
    (10)  Committee.  The Investment Management Committee of the Company, consisting of the Chief Executive Officer; Chief Financial Officer; Vice President Human Resources; and Treasurer of the Company, or any successors thereto.  Effective February 24, 2022, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, or any successor thereto, also shall be a member of the Investment Management Committee.  References herein to the Committee also shall include any person or entity to whom the Committee has delegated any of its authority pursuant to Section 10.3 to the extent of the delegation.
*     *     *     *     *









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment Number Twelve to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 16th day of February, 2022.
						
	TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	/s/ Daniel J. DeWitt
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources
		
	By:	/s/ LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr.
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources