alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13758]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; MBRS SCORE.
    Date: July 9, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 
3AN12, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference 
Call)
    Contact Person: Arthur L. Zachary, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 
Room 3AN-12, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2886, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8d2c9cbc0c9dad1c9e8c6c1cfc5db86c6c1c086cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b110a08030a19120a2b05020c061845050203450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-13758 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Manuel 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 24, 2015

No. 04-14-00785-CV

Mary Ann CASTRO,

Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-15957

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

O R DER

The Appellant’s Motion to Accept Final Closing Arguments and Motion of 

Reconsideration is DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 24th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3370 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3370

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the process by which 
  an individual files jointly for social security and dependency and 
            indemnity compensation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 2010

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the process by which 
  an individual files jointly for social security and dependency and 
            indemnity compensation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF PROCESS FOR FILING JOINTLY FOR SOCIAL 
              SECURITY AND DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

    Section 5105 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``Each such form'' and inserting 
                ``Such forms''; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``on such a form'' and 
        inserting ``on any form indicating an intent to apply for 
        survivor benefits''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6746

HAYES MALLOY, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (8:08-cv-03125-TLW)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: November 5, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hayes Malloy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hayes Malloy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Malloy has not made the requisite showing. 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
Exhibit 32(g)

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





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.



|/s/ E. Renae ConleyE. Renae Conley
Chair of the Board, President, and Chief Executive
Officer of Entergy Louisiana, LLC
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	February 28, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         123,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,233
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,906
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,497
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,842)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,842)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not presented, as all shares of common stock are held
by a sole shareholder.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3213 

To ensure that amounts credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

are used for harbor maintenance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2010 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. VITTER, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. 

SHELBY, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To ensure that amounts credited to the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund are used for harbor maintenance. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Harbor Maintenance 

5 Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS. 

7 (a) HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND GUAR8 ANTEE.— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3213 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The total budget resources 

2 made available from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

3 Fund each fiscal year pursuant to section 9505(c) of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to ex5 penditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

6 Fund) shall be equal to the level of receipts plus in7 terest credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

8 Fund for that fiscal year. Such amounts may be 

9 used only for harbor maintenance programs de10 scribed in section 9505(c) of such Code. 

11 (2) GUARANTEE.—No funds may be appro12 priated for harbor maintenance programs described 

13 in such section unless the amount described in para14 graph (1) has been provided. 

15 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi16 nitions apply: 

17 (1) TOTAL BUDGET RESOURCES.—The term 

18 ‘‘total budget resources’’ means the total amount 

19 made available by appropriations Acts from the Har20 bor Maintenance Trust Fund for a fiscal year for 

21 making expenditures under section 9505(c) of the 

22 Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

23 (2) LEVEL OF RECEIPTS PLUS INTEREST.—The 

24 term ‘‘level of receipts plus interest’’ means the level 

25 of taxes and interest credited to the Harbor MainteVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:27 Apr 16, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3213.IS S3213

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3213 IS

1 nance Trust Fund under section 9505 of the Inter2 nal Revenue Code of 1986 for a fiscal year as set 

3 forth in the President’s budget baseline projection as 

4 defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 

5 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 

6 99–177) for that fiscal year submitted pursuant to 

7 section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. 

8 (c) ENFORCEMENT OF GUARANTEES.—It shall not be 

9 in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate 

10 to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, 

11 or conference report that would cause total budget re12 sources in a fiscal year for harbor maintenance programs 

13 described in subsection (b)(1) for such fiscal year to be 

14 less than the amount required by subsection (a)(1) for 

15 such fiscal year. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy
New Orleans' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and 
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000071508
<NAME> ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 017
   <NAME> ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      293,976 
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      3,259
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         119,804 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        81,111
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 498,150
<COMMON>                                        33,744
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       36,294 
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             61,558
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 131,596
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,780
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           168,953
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 177,821
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  498,150
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      504,822
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            12,142
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     462,531
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     462,531
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         42,291
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 303
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  42,594
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        15,001
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,451
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        965
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   14,486
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        26,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       14,951
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          48,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Hill, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Hill*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 174.]

(No. 96-2370

Submitted March 4, 1997

Decided April 16, 1997.)

*Joseph T. Deters,*Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Philip R. Cummings,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*175
      *Gary W. Crim,*for appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its journal entry, which is appended hereto.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Jeffrey D. Hill, Defendant-Appellant.

No. C-920497

Entry Denying Application for Reopening.

This cause came on to be considered upon the application of defendant-appellant Jeffrey D. Hill for reopening the appeal wherein judgment was entered by this court in *State v. Hill*(Dec. 22, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-920497, unreported, and the memoranda filed by the parties in connection therewith.

App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires a showing of good cause for filing an application to reopen more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment. Appellant argues that there is good cause for filing this application approximately two and one-half years after this court’s judgment was journalized because the same attorney participated in representing appellant in the direct appeals of his capital case to this court and to the Ohio Supreme Court (and, apparently, in subsequent motions).

In *State v. Williams*(1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 454, 455, 659 N.E.2d 1253, 1254, the court held that:

> “[Ijssues of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised at the first opportunity to do so. Thus, in capital cases in which the death penalty has been imposed for offenses committed before January 1,1995, such issues must be raised in the first appeal as of right in this court, unless, because of unusual circumstances, applying the doctrine of *res judicata*would be unjust. See *State v. Murnahan*[(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 66, 584 N.E.2d 1204, 1209].”

Considering that appellant also received new counsel on appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, that such counsel did raise in the Supreme Court the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel before the Court of Appeals, and that many of the issues appellant now attempts to raise have already been addressed in the *176Supreme Court’s decision, we find no injustice in applying the doctrine of res judicata.

Therefore, appellant’s application for reopening is denied.
September 20, 2021 

Summary of proposed change to 25 C.F.R. Part 585 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Parts 580-585: Administrative Appeals regulations 

Potential regulatory changes 

585.4 Are motions permitted? 

(a) Motions for extension of time under §580.4(f) of this subchapter, motions to 

supplement the record under §581.5 of this subchapter, motions to intervene under 

§585.5, and motions for reconsideration under §581.6 of this subchapter, are permitted. 

All other motions may be considered at the discretion of the Commission. 

(b) The Chair shall not, either individually or through counsel, file or respond to motions

unless the Commission invites, directs or grants the Chair leave to do so. 

585.8 What is the process for pursuing settlement in an appeal to the Commission? 

(a) General. At any time after the commencement of a proceeding, but at least 5 days before 

the date scheduled for the Commission to issue a final decision under §585.7, the parties may 

jointly move to stay the proceeding for a reasonable time to permit negotiation of a settlement or 

an agreement disposing of the whole or any part of the proceeding. 

(b) Content. Any agreement disposing of the whole or any part of a proceeding shall also 

provide: 

(1) A waiver of any further proceedings before the Commission regarding the specific 

matter(s) settled under the agreement; and 

(2) That the agreement shall constitute dismissal of the appeal of the specific matter(s) 

settled, a final order of the Commission, and final agency action. 

(c) Submission. Before the expiration of the time granted for negotiations, the parties or 

their authorized representatives may: 

(1) Notify the Commission that the parties have reached a full or partial settlement and have 

agreed to dismissal of all or part of the action, subject to compliance with the terms of the 

settlement agreement; or 

(2) Inform the Commission that an agreement cannot be reached. 

(d) Disposition. If the parties enter into a full or partial settlement agreement, it shall 

constitute: full or partial dismissal of the appeal, as applicable; a final order of the Commission; 

and final agency action. 
2
#### CASTELLANO v. PENNSYLVANIA-READING SEASHORE LINES.

Civ. A. No. 12698.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 11, 1953.

Richter, Lord & Farage, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa.,, for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

Paragraph 4 of the motion for the production of documents under Rule 34, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C., asks for “AÍ1 boiler inspection' reports or other reports required to be filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission on the said locomotive.” In the briefs submitted, both parties have assumed that the reports asked for were those required by Sections 38 and 40, U.S.C.A., Title 45, relating to reports and evidence submitted by railroads, in connection with accidents. At any rate, that was the only point argued.

These reports are clearly protected by Section 41 — not because they are made inadmissible as evidence but because the Act provides that they shall not be “used for any purpose” in any suit for damages. Certainly this covers their use for purposes of discovery.

The defendant’s objection is sustained.