alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14014]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8918-8]


Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund (202) 566-1682, or e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1a6b4a2a5bda4bfb5ffa3b8b2ba91b4a1b0ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="691e0c1a1d051c070d471b000a02290c1908470e061f">[email protected]</span></a> and please refer to the appropriate EPA 
Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 2357.01; Regulations.gov Exchange Information 
Collection; was approved 05/18/2009; OMB Number 2025-0008; expires 11/
30/2009.
    EPA ICR Number 2163.03; NSPS for Other Solid Waste Incineration 
(OSWI) Units (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart EEEE; was approved 
05/21/2009; OMB Number 2060-0563; expires 05/31/2012.
    EPA ICR Number 1821.06; NESHAP for Steel Pickling, HCI Process 
Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants (Renewal); in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart CCC; was approved 05/21/2009; OMB Number 2060-
0419; expires 05/31/2012.
    EPA ICR Number 2288.01; Pesticides Data Call In Program; in 40 CFR 
parts 154 and 155; was approved 05/27/2009; OMB Number 2070-0174; 
expires 05/31/2012.
    EPA ICR Number 1084.10; NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing 
(Final Rule); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO; was approved 06/01/2009; 
OMB Number 2060-0050; expires 06/30/2012.
    EPA ICR Number 2183.03; Drug Testing for Contractor Employees 
(Renewal); in 5 CFR parts 731, 732 and 736; was approved 06/02/2009; 
OMB Number 2030-0044; expires 06/30/2012.

OMB Comments Filed

    EPA ICR Number 2300.02; Regulation to Establish Mandatory Reporting 
of Greenhouse Gases (Proposed Rule); OMB filed comment on 05/21/2009.

    Dated: June 9, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-14014 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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



# COURTOFAPPEAL, FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LANDEN K. ESNEAULT NO. 

### 2022 Kw 0532 MAY 17, 2022 In Re: Landen K. Esneault, 

### applying 

### for supervisory writs,



### 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 08- 17- 0739. BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JMM WIL EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



## A V i DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-31158 Summary Calendar

GARY SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO ANNE B BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-539

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gary Smith appeals the affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). He argues that the district court erroneously concluded the he was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act because (1) his impairment meets or exceeds the impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.06 for an anxiety disorder, and (2) his impairment makes him unable to work. Substantial evidence in the record supports theNo. 04-31158 -2- ALJ’s conclusion that Smith could not meet or exceed the listed impairment because there was no evidence that Smith experienced two of the conditions of 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.06B. Regarding Smith’s allegation that he is unable to work, the ALJ found Smith’s subjective complaints of functional limitations to lack credibility. Because this finding is supported by substantial record evidence, it is entitled to judicial deference. See Villa v. Sullivan , 895 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir. 1990) . Moreover, the vocational expert testified that a person with Smith’s age, education, and impairment could work at one of over 50,000 jobs in Louisiana. Thus, the ALJ’s conclusion that Smith could work is supported by substantial evidence. See Masterson v. Barnhart , 309 F.3d 267, 273-74 (5th Cir. 2002). Smith also argues that his case should be remanded based on new material evidence that reveals that he is disabled. Smith has not shown that the new evidence relates to the time period for which benefits were denied, reveals more than a deterioration of his impairments that were previously found not to be disabling, or would have changed the outcome of the Commissioner’s determination. Accordingly, no remand is warranted based on the new evidence Smith submitted. See Ripley v. Chater , 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995); Leggett v. Chater , 67 F.3d 558, 567 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
| SUBSIDIARIES OF BALDWIN & LYONS, INC. |
|-------------------------------------------|

|  NAME                                            |   | STATE OR JURISDICTIONOF ORGANIZATIONOR INCORPORATION |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|  Protective Insurance Company                    |   |  Indiana                                        |
|  Sagamore Insurance Company (1)                  |   |  Indiana                                        |
|  B&L Insurance, Ltd.                         |   |  Bermuda                                        |
|  B&L Brokerage Services, Inc.                |   |  Indiana                                        |
|  Transportation Specialty Insurance Agency, Inc. |   |  Michigan                                       |
|  Protective Specialty Insurance Company (2)      |   |  Indiana                                        |
|  Baldwin and Lyons Capital Markets, LLC          |   |  Delaware                                       |

|   | (1) | Wholly-owned subsidiary of Protective Insurance Company |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Wholly-owned subsidiary of Protective Insurance Company |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000823927
<NAME> ELECTROSOURCE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             649
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,212
<PP&E>                                           7,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,654)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,907
<BONDS>                                            111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,235
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,887)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,366
<SALES>                                            604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   632
<CGS>                                            1,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,676)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,532
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,144)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)
        


</TABLE>
# News Releases
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000850506    
<NAME>                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PSHIP II-F
                                     
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                   166,828
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            192,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         359,731
<PP&E>                                11,104,842
<DEPRECIATION>                         9,123,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2,387,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     32,098
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             2,330,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           2,387,121
<SALES>                                  394,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         396,908
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            329,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           67,399
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       67,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              67,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>
** **

** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Good Times Restaurants Inc. (the "Company") for the periodended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Boyd E. Hoback, as Chief Executive Officerof the Company, and Susan M. Knutson, as Controller of the Company, each herebycertifies, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge and belief:

(1)        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| */s/ Boyd E. Hoback*    | */s/ Susan M. Knutson*                   |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                          |
| Boyd E. Hoback          | Susan M. Knutson                         |
| Chief Executive Officer | Controller (principal financial officer) |
| February 16, 2010       | February 16, 2010                        |

----
#### Geoffrey Bond et al., Respondents, v Thomas A. Turner et al., Appellants, and Village of Lakewood, Respondent.

Submitted September 17, 2012;

decided November 20, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that simultaneous appeals do not lie to both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals *(see Parker v Rogerson,*35 NY2d 751, 753 [1974]).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MAY 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000823975
<NAME>                        COLUMBUS ENERGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAY-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        1385
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 2490
<ALLOWANCES>                  116
<INVENTORY>                   117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              3972
<PP&E>                        35956
<DEPRECIATION>                17264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                22782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3340
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      915
<OTHER-SE>                    15127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  22782
<SALES>                       5618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              6321
<CGS>                         1758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 8286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              34
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            114
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2113)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (803)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1310)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.31)
        


</TABLE>
96-1030.

#### Miller v. Bike Athletic Co.

Belmont App. No. 94-B-52. On motion for admission *pro hoc vice*of Randolph T. Struk and Phillip M. Davis. Motion granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4622

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY MICHAEL SEARCY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00091)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew C. Joseph, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy

Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Michael Searcy pled guilty to possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to 70 months in

prison. On appeal, Searcy’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are

no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the claim that Searcy

received ineffective assistance of counsel. Although informed of

his right to do so, Searcy has not filed a pro se supplemental

brief. After reviewing the entire record for any meritorious

claims, we affirm.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not

cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively

establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson,

195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). To allow for adequate

development of the record, claims of ineffective assistance

generally should be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). We find

that the record does not conclusively establish ineffective

assistance. 

Accordingly, we affirm Searcy’s conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing of

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
- 3 -

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3650 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3650

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
 fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall be 
  included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for 
                    treatment in the civil service.

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

SECTION 1. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN 
              PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.

    Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the following:
                    ``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or 
                her life under honorable conditions while serving in 
                the armed forces during a period named by paragraph 
                (1)(A) of this section, if--
                            ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally 
                        and permanently disabled; or
                            ``(ii) that parent, when preference is 
                        claimed, is unmarried or, if married, legally 
                        separated from his or her spouse;
                    ``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently 
                and totally disabled veteran, if--
                            ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally 
                        and permanently disabled; or
                            ``(ii) that parent, when preference is 
                        claimed, is unmarried or, if married, legally 
                        separated from his or her spouse; and''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3650

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
 fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall be 
  included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for 
                    treatment in the civil service.
```
#### Jasmine Zheng et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 29, 2012;

decided May 31, 2012

Motion by Sanctuary for Families et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3541 

To prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater drilling, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2010 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit royalty incentives for deepwater drilling, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deepwater Drilling 

5 Royalty Prohibition Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ROYALTY INCENTIVES FOR DEEP7 WATER DRILLING. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 

10 any oil or gas lease sale under the Outer Continental Shelf 

11 Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) with royalty-based 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3541 IS

1 incentives in any tract located in water depths of 400 me2 ters or more on the outer Continental Shelf. 

3 (b) ROYALTY RELIEF FOR DEEP WATER PRODUC4 TION.—Section 345 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

5 U.S.C. 15905) is repealed. 

6 (c) ROYALTY RELIEF.—Section 8(a)(3) of the Outer 

7 Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)) is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(D) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding 

10 subparagraphs (A) through (C) or any other 

11 provision of law, the Secretary shall not reduce 

12 or eliminate any royalty or net profit share for 

13 any lease or unit located in water depths of 400 

14 meters or more on the outer Continental 

15 Shelf.’’. 

16 (d) APPLICATION.—This section and the amend17 ments made by this section— 

18 (1) apply beginning with the first lease sale 

19 held on or after the date of enactment of this Act 

20 for which a final notice of sale has not been pub21 lished as of that date; and 

22 (2) do not apply to a lease in effect on the date 

23 of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Appellant, v New York State Department of Taxation and Finance et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 4, *2012;*

decided June 26, *2012*

Motion by American Bankers Association et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.

Judge Smith taking no part.