alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a 

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

Date: November 15, 2022

Re: Discussion with Arizona Tribal Gaming Regulatory Alliance on 

MICS Guidance and KE/PMO Terms

The NIGC Region Director for the Phoenix Region, Francisco Olea, 

and I had the opportunity to meet with the Arizona Tribal Gaming 

Regulator Alliance. Our in-person discussion was a welcome postpandemic return to the vibrant network of tribal regulators 

across Arizona.

We discussed process-related considerations that would be 

relevant to a potential update to the NIGC’s model guidance for 

Class III minimum internal control standards. I believe that the 

process should:

• Build on past Agency lessons learned when consulting on 

Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS) including 

adequate roles for NIGC consultation with tribal leaders 

and insights from subject matter experts who are tribal 

representatives.

• Consider at its outset the scope for new topics not 

currently addressed by the guidance, but that tribes may 

already be addressing in a tribal ordinance or state 

compact.

• Consider industry trends in both Indian gaming and the 

commercial gaming industry.

• Contemplate how future training and technical assistance in 

NIGC’s statutory mandate will enhance tribal regulatory 

bodies’ capacity to meet any potential new guidance.

• Promote opportunities for tribal leadership to articulate 

local tribal-level policy goals and objectives around those 

topics covered in the MICS guidance. 

We also discussed ongoing efforts to update existing NIGC 

regulations on tribes’ background and licensing practices for

Key Employee (KE) and Primary Management Officials (PMO).

Attached is a post-meeting summary of highlights from the NIGC 

portion of our discussion on this topic.
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a 

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

Thank you to the Arizona gaming regulators’ engagement on these 

important topics. It was great to see everyone in person and I 

look forward to additional conversations.

###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elijah James GADDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7097.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.

Elijah James Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani Murray Ford, Office of The United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Elijah James Gaddy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 *&*Supp.2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Gaddy,*No. 3:03-cr-00109-2 (W.D.N.C. May 25, 2006). We dispense *246with 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.*
DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

97-517.

#### George v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

Montgomery App. No. 16081.

Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT
12
 
 
 **APPALACHIAN
POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES**
 **Computation
of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges**
 **(in
thousands except ratio data)**
 
 **Year
      Ended December 31,****2000**
    
    **2001**
    
    **2002**
    
    **2003**
    
    **2004****FIXED
      CHARGES**Interest
      on First Mortgage Bonds
    
    $
    56,003
    
    $
    48,441
    
    $
    43,743
    
    $
    30,746
    
    $
    21,885Interest
      on Other Long-term Debt
    
    
    59,559
    
    
    61,045
    
    
    67,212
    
    
    81,452
    
    
    74,426Interest
      on Short-term Debt
    
    
    8,847
    
    
    10,722
    
    
    4,890
    
    
    590
    
    
    1,820Miscellaneous
      Interest Charges
    
    
    26,284
    
    
    4,285
    
    
    6,453
    
    
    7,732
    
    
    8,916Estimated
      Interest Element in Lease Rentals
    
    
    6,300
    
    
    5,800
    
    
    4,500
    
    
    3,200
    
    
    3,500**Total
      Fixed Charges**
    
    $
    156,993
    
    $
    130,293
    
    $
    126,798
    
    $
    123,720
    
    $
    110,547**EARNINGS**Income
      Before Extraordinary Item and Cumulative Effect of
      Accounting
      Change
    
    $
    64,906
    
    $
    161,818
    
    $
    205,492
    
    $
    202,783
    
    $
    153,115Plus
      Federal Income Taxes
    
    
    117,872
    
    
    81,934
    
    
    100,974
    
    
    103,492
    
    
    74,912Plus
      State Income Taxes
    
    
    15,307
    
    
    14,789
    
    
    9,952
    
    
    1,728
    
    
    10,198Plus
      Fixed Charges (as above)
    
    
    156,993
    
    
    130,293
    
    
    126,798
    
    
    123,720
    
    
    110,547**Total
      Earnings**
    
    $
    355,078
    
    $
    388,834
    
    $
    443,216
    
    $
    431,723
    
    $
    348,772**Ratio
      of Earnings to Fixed Charges**
    
    
    2.26
    
    
    2.98
    
    
    3.49
    
    
    3.48
    
    
    3.15
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this Form 10-Q,  into NiSource Inc.'s  (formerly known
as NIPSCO Industries, Inc.) previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement No.
33-30619;  Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-30621;  Forms S-8 Registration
Statement No. 333-08263; Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-19981; Form S-8
Registration  Statement  No.  333-19983;  Form S-8  Registration  Statement  No.
333-19985;  Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-26847; Form S-8 Registration
Statement No. 333-59151; Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-59153; Form S-3
Registration  Statement  No.  333-69279;  Form S-8  Registration  Statement  No.
333-72367;  Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-72401; Form S-3 Registration
Statement No. 333-76645 and Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-76909.


                                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois

May 13, 1999
THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 

OF THE FLATHEAD NATION 

PO. BOX 278 

Pao, Montana 59855 

(406) 275-2700 

FAX (406) 275-2806 

ww.cskt.org 

A Cu~~Ctderation of the %Iish, 

Pcnd d' Orcillrs 

3rd Iio~lctlai Tribcs 

CSKT Tribal Gaming Commission 

August 7,2013 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100 

Washington, DC 20005 

TRIBAL CQUNCIL MEMBERS: 

Joe Duglo - Chairman 

Cmk Word - Vice Chair 

Reuben A. Mathias - Secretvry $ Ron Tmhm - Treasurer fi7 

Leonard W. Gray - IL1 

Lloyd D. Wie 3 - 

Skve Lotar a 

Jim hhlatare 

James Bing Mart 

Terry Pitts 

Dear Ms. Tmie L. Stevens, 

In response to NIGC seeking comments on a proposed reinterpretation of an agency 

decision regarding the decision to classification of server based electronic bingo system 

games that can be played utilizing only one touch of a button ("one touch bingo")). 

So in support of the Commission reinterpretation of "one touch bigo' the CSKT Tribal 

Gaming Commission is in favor of your efforts to once again uphold IGRA and support 

Indian Tribes and Class U gaming. Class II gaming requires elecbonic, computer or 

other technologic aid to play the game of bingo, electronic linked to a bingo system. One 

touch bingo games pIayed meets the required elements of Class II bingo games as more 

than one player plays the ,me of bingo, player cover drawn number, game won by the 

first person to do so, but also allows multiple winners on a particular pattern, numbers 

selected by a random number generated selection. The electronic linked bingo system 

assist the player(s) by automatically covers pre-designated number and winning patterns. 

CSKT Tribal Gaming Commission thanks NIGC for its consideration to embrace rather 

than stifle technological advancements in gaming and affirm Man Gaming Regulatory 

Act that it "intends that tribes be given the opportunity to take advantage of modern 

methods of conducting Class II games and the langage regardmg technology is designed 

to provide maximurn flexibility." 

Sincerely, I--- 

, ) 1.1 

E.T. Bud Moran, Chairman 

CSKT Tribal Gaming Commission
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13068]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-831]


Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Extension of 
Time Limit for the Final Results of New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

DATES: Effective Date: June 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050.

Background

    On April 27, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
issued the preliminary results of several new shipper reviews of fresh 
garlic from the People's Republic of China, covering the periods of 
review of November 1, 2007 through April 30, 2008 for three companies, 
and November 1, 2007 through June 9, 2008, for three companies. See 
Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 20452 (May 4, 2009).

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), provides that the Department will issue the preliminary results 
of a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days 
after the day on which the review was initiated, and final results of 
review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results 
were issued (19 CFR 351.214(i)(1)). However, if the Secretary concludes 
that a new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated, the Secretary 
may extend the 180-day period to 300 days, and may extend the 90-day 
period to 150 days. See 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).

Extension of Time Limit for Final Results

    The Department determines that these new shipper reviews involve 
extraordinarily complicated methodological issues, including the 
continued evaluation of the bona fideU nature of each company's sales. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for 
these final results which is 150 days from the date on which the 
preliminary results were issued, until September 24, 2009.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 29, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-13068 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Bert John HANSEN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Benjamin ELLIS, PA-C; Vincent Gore, M.D.; Katie Hamlin, R.N.; Paul Kolland, VCE Shop Manager; Joyce Cotton, VCE Shop Supervisor; James Malone, VCE Shop Supervisor; George Hinkle, Chief Warden of GRCC; Marie Vargo, S-2 Warden; Clyde Alderman, Administrative Staff *220Specialist Senior; Tyrone Sloan, Lieutenant, HU4-S2 Building Supervisor; Kevin Bonner, Lieutenant, Yard Crew Supervisor; Scotty, Sergeant, Complex Crew Supervisor; James Thomas; McGrue Booker, Job Coordinator, Counselor; Sharon Johnson, VCE Manager; John Ausbon, Education & Vocation Principal (DCE), Defendants-Appellees, and Nurses, Greenville Correctional Center; Sergeant Miller, HU4-S2 Building Supervisor; Principal Osborne, a/k/a Osgood, Principal of Schools/Vocational; Correctional Officer Everson; Mrs. Woodson, Grievance Office; Mrs. Kinsley, Grievance Office, Defendants.

No. 06-6929.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

Bert John Hansen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward Joseph McNelis III, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, John David MeChesney, Rawls *&*McNelis, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Banci Enga Tewolde, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Bert John Hansen, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying several motions in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hansen seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hansen’s motions for appointment of counsel and to compel the district court to enforce a June 22, 2006 order. 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.*
#### Robin HALNAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RR DONNELLEY & SONS, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-16808.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*587Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 25, 2006.

Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Esq., Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Suellen Fulstone, Esq., Woodburn and Wedge Sierra Plaza, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: WALLACE and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and D. PREGERSON,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, of the District Court for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Hainan argues that the district court erred by entering summary judgment with respect to her claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C). We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. *See Hervey v. Estes,*65 F.3d 784, 788 (9th Cir.1995) (as amended).

Liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) arises not only when a covered entity discriminates or retaliates against a person suffering from *“a*physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more ... major life activities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), but also where the covered entity discriminates against a person who it “regard[s] as having such an impairment,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C).

Hainan asserts that her assignment to a position as a security guard/reeeptionist evidences that Donnelley regarded her as disabled. This evidence, however, is subject to the bar of *Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.,*261 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir.2001), which provides that when an employer that is also a covered entity “takes steps to accommodate an employee’s restrictions, it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ADA or that it regards the employee as disabled.”

Hainan has failed to produce any other evidence from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that Donnelley regarded her as disabled. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### State v. Diaz

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 238

No. 620P06

Def-Appellant’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1557)

Denied 01/25/07

Hudson, J., Recused
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3253 

AN ACT 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 3253 ES

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSI4 NESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

6 Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small 

7 Business Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 

8 (Public Law 109–316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently 

9 amended by section 1 of Public Law 111–136 (124 Stat. 

10 6), is amended by striking ‘‘April 30, 2010’’ each place 

11 it appears and inserting ‘‘July 31, 2010’’. 

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

13 subsection (a) shall take effect on April 29, 2010. 

Passed the Senate April 22, 2010. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3253 

AN ACT 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of 

other purposes. Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for programs under the Small Business Act and the
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ramiz Berisha, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted March 19, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew Scalo, Respondent, v C.D. Perry & Sons, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 771]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 17, 2012, which denied the request of the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier for reconsideration and/or full Board review.

Claimant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based upon a back injury he sustained while working for the employer in July 2010. The employer controverted the claim asserting that claimant’s injury was not the result of a work-related accident and that any such injury would be subject to apportionment. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that claimant was disabled due to a work-related injury and awarded benefits without apportionment. On administrative appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The subsequent application by the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied and this appeal ensued.

Applications for Board review are to be considered by a panel of at least three members and may not be decided by the chair, or any other single member of the Board, alone *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 23, 142 [2]; *Matter of Drummond v Desmond,*295 AD2d 711, 713 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 615 [2002]; *Matter of Greene v Sproat,*18 AD2d 420, 421-422 [1963], *lv denied*13 NY2d 596 [1963]). The record before us provides no indication that the application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was considered by a three-member panel. Rather, the decision appears to have been made solely by the chair “on behalf of the Board.” Accordingly, this matter must be remitted to the Board for proper consideration of the application by a panel of the Board consisting of not less than three members.

Peters, PJ., Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
WAIVER

     Pursuant to the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Shares among Medicore,
Inc., Techdyne, Inc., and Simclar International Limited, dated April 6, 2001,
which provides for the sale of 71.3% interest in Techdyne to Simclar by
Medicore, which may be deemed a sale of substantially all of Medicore's
assets which triggers certain rights for the undersigned pursuant to the
Employment Agreement between Medicore and the undersigned, dated September 1,
1998 ("Employment Agreement"), with respect to which the undersigned hereby
specifically waives the right to receive a lump sum payment equal to salary,
including expenses and benefits, for three years from termination, or in the
alternative, at undersigned's option, 400,000 shares of Medicore common stock,
pursuant to Section 9 of the Employment Agreement.

     This waiver relates solely to the proposed sale of Techdyne to Simclar
and to no other transaction.

                                       /s/ Thomas K. Langbein
                                       ---------------------------
                                           Thomas K. Langbein

Dated: May 17, 2001