alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,490]


Tenneco, Inc., Clevite-Pullman Division, Including On-Site Leased 
Workers From Elite Staffing and Time Services, Milan, OH; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on June 24, 2008, applicable to workers of 
Tenneco, Inc., Clevite-Pullman Division, Milan, Ohio. The Department's 
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on July 
15, 2008 (73 FR 40618).
    At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. Subject firm workers 
produce elastomer bushings.
    New information shows that workers leased from Elite Staffing and 
Time Services were working on-site at the Milan, Ohio location of the 
subject firm. The Department has determined that these workers were 
sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered 
leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include leased workers of Elite Staffing and Time 
Services working on-site at the Milan, Ohio location of the subject 
firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift of 
production to a foreign country that is party to a free trade agreement 
with the United States.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,490 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Tenneco, Inc., Clevite-Pullman Division, 
including on-site leased workers from Elite Staffing and Time 
Services, Milan, Ohio, who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after June 24, 2007, through June 24, 2010, 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 
the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for 
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-14061 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000833526
<NAME>                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHIP II-D

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                    440,515
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                             485,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          925,561
<PP&E>                                 17,011,688
<DEPRECIATION>                         14,575,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          3,976,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     206,646
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,563,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            3,976,061
<SALES>                                 1,831,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,878,048
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,321,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           556,214
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       556,214
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              556,214
<EPS-BASIC>                                1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0



</TABLE>
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

TANG, LAWRENCE, and GEIS, 

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Preston J. BURKE

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201900146

Decided: 31 October 2019. 

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Sentence adjudged 12 February 2019 by a special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of 

a military judge sitting alone. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Munoz, USMC. Sentence approved by the convening authority: 

reduction to E-1, confinement for 4 days, and a bad-conduct discharge.1

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton, JAGC, 

USN. 

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

 

1 The convening authority suspended the bad-conduct discharge pursuant to a 

pretrial agreement. 
United States v. Burke, No. 201900146

2

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but 

may be cited as persuasive authority under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 15, 2010 

s0708 

Order 

 

July 15, 2010 

140336 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140336 

 COA: 293833 

Wayne CC: 05-005425 

MARIO TIMOTHY JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 23, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order. 

 The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Custance, Also Known as Keith Forbes, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 884]

Judment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered on or about October 6, 2004, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

*445Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 350 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 350

     Recognizing the value and importance of the Electoral College.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2019

Mr. Budd (for himself, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Banks, and Mr. Hice of Georgia) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Recognizing the value and importance of the Electoral College.

Whereas the framers of the Constitution of the United States established the 
        Electoral College in article II, section 1 of the Constitution, 
        America's founding document;
Whereas the Electoral College serves as a formal body which elects the President 
        and Vice President of the United States, and each State has a number of 
        electors based on the State's number of Representatives and Senators;
Whereas the Electoral College is unique to our Federal republic and provides 
        representation to an American population comprised of different 
        cultures, religions, and economic backgrounds;
Whereas the United States is not a homogeneous Nation, but historically a Nation 
        of immigrants requiring a unique electoral structure like the Electoral 
        College; and
Whereas the Electoral College encourages the smooth transition of power and 
        maintains our American system of government that protects against the 
        tyranny of the majority: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes that the Electoral College preserves the 
        concept of federalism;
            (2) recognizes that the Electoral College is uniquely 
        American; and
            (3) recognizes that the Electoral College is vital to the 
        continued preservation of our government.
                                 <all>
```
#### Klein *v.*Fleetford *et al.*

*(Circuit*Court, *D. Colorado.*

May 9, 1888.)

Injunction—Modification—Motion before Another Judge—Urgency.

Unless the necessity is so urgent as to'require immediate action, an injunction will not be modified, changed, or set aside, except by the same judge who granted it.

In Equity. Motion to modify injunction.

*S. P. Rose*and *H. W. Hobson,*for complainant.

*T. R. Ower*and *O. D. F. Green, for*defendants.

Brewer, J.

This is a motion to modify an injunction order made by the district judge on the 13th day of April. I had occasion last term, in deciding a case, to say to counsel that as a rule injunctions issued by one j’udge would remain, unless modified, changed, or set aside by the same judge. I need not repeat the reasons which were then'stated. Judge Hallett being away when this motion was presented, it seemed to me that it might prove an exception to .that rule; that I might be justified in making an examination of the papers, and seeing if any emergency required immediate action. I have examined them. They are quite voluminous, and while I think it would be right to make the modifications, which are asked; those modifications being simply to the effect that the party in charge, should be some indifferent person, and not one who had been heretofore the active supporter of either of the parties, and also that each party should be allowed to go upon the premises for inspection. Each of these things I think ought to be. done. It is very evident, *from*an examination of these voluminous pleadings, that there is going to be a protracted controversy. It is very evident from the affidavits that there has been a good deal of quarreling between these parties, who are joint owners of the property. It is very evident that there is deep feeling existing between them. So I think it can be *99no moro than fair, in the course of that litigation, to have some one in charge who has never been identified with either party; who would be therefore free from suspicion, to say the least. Yet, after examining these papers, T do not see that there is that urgency for immediate action that would now justify me in putting some one besides Mr. Mitchell in control. The powers given him are limited. If he should remain ton days or two weeks longer, until the district judge can examine this, I think no harm will be done to either sido. And so, although I think the parties would bo entitled to the relief they ask, I shall pro *forma*overrule the motion, giving leave to renew it before the district judge as soon as he returns.
# FY 2023 Interim Funding Strategy for Research Grants

The mission of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is to transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research, paving the way for prevention, recovery, and cure.

NIMH’s work toward this mission is guided by our Strategic Plan for Research. NIMH’s funding priorities are also highlighted in the President’s Budget Request each fiscal year (FY).

## Funding

NIH is currently operating under a continuing resolution (CR) **, which continues government operations at the FY 2022 level. This funding strategy will be updated when FY 2023 appropriations are enacted, and final funding policies are determined.

## Non-Competing Continuation Research Awards

Until the FY 2023 appropriation is finalized, NIH will issue non-competing continuation research awards at a level below the amount indicated on the most recent Notice of Award (generally up to 90% of the previously committed level).

Final adjustments to awarded levels and out-year committed funding levels will be considered after FY 2023 appropriations are enacted, but NIH expects institutions to monitor their expenditures carefully during this CR period.

## Competing Research Project Grant Awards

NIMH continues to apply NIH cost management guidelines when making competing research project grant awards. Although funding decisions are generally made in priority score or percentile order, final funding decisions are based on alignment with the NIMH Strategic Plan for Research, considerations of program balance, representation of diverse perspectives, availability of funds, and recommendations from the National Advisory Mental Health Council. 

NIMH also supports the Next Generation Researchers Initiative ** and will prioritize funding for early-stage investigators and will consider competitive researchers at risk of losing NIH funding. 

NIMH still expects to be able to fund most of the competing research project grant applications that have an impact score up through the 10th percentile.  

Pending a final budget, NIMH expects to fund three-fourths of applications under the 20th percentile and many applications up to the 25th percentile for new and early stage investigators.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE-CORPORATION AND SECURITES BUREAU
Filed May 30, 1995


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

Pursuant to the provisions of Act 284, Public Acts of 1972 (profit 
corporations), the undersigned corporation executes the following Certificate:

1. The present name of the corporation is:
EMPIRE BANC CORPORATION

2. The identification number assigned by the Bureau is:  070-234

3. The location of the registered office is:
1227 East Front Street, Traverse City, Michigan  49684

4. Articles VIII, X and XI of the Articles of Incorporation is hereby
amended to read as follows:
    (Article X is amended.  Articles VIII and XI added)
    see Attachment

5b. The foregoing amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was duly adopted
on the 16th day of May, 1995.  The amendment was duly adopted in accordance
with Section 611(2) of the Act by the vote of the shareholders.  The necessary
votes were cast in favor of the amendment.

Signed this 16th day of May, 1995

By  /s/ William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
    ------------------------------
    William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
    Vice President


ATTACHMENT

ARTICLE VIII
Any director may be removed only for cause and only by the affirmative vote of
the holders of a majority of the shares then entitled to vote at an election
of directors.

ARTICLE X
To the extent that a greater vote is not required by the Michigan Business
Corporation Act, the amendment or repeal of Article VI hereof shall require
the affirmative vote of the holders of not less than 80% of the shares of
stock then entitled to vote at any regular or special meeting of the 
shareholders, voting together a single class, and the amendment or repeal of
Article VII, Article VIII, Article IX, this Article X and Article XI hereof
shall require the affirmative vote of the holders of not less than 66-2/3%
of the shares of stock then entitled to vote at any regular or special 
meeting of the shareholders, voting together as a single class.



<PAGE>   2

ARTICLE XI
The Bylaws of this Corporation shall be subject to alteration, amendment or 
repeal, and new Bylaws may be adopted, (i) by the affirmative vote of the 
holders of not less than a majority of the shares or stock then entitled to
vote at any regular or special meeting of the shareholders, voting together
as a single class, or (ii) by the Board of Directors, as provided in the 
Bylaws; provided, that any alteration, amendment or repeal, or the adoption
of any provision inconsistent with Article 1, Section 1.2, Section 1.3 and
Section 1.11 and Article 2, Section 2.1, Section 2.2, Section 2.3, Section 
2.4, Section 2.5 and Section 2.8, and Article 10 and Article 11 of the Bylaws
shall require, in case of shareholder action, the affirmative vote of the 
holders of not less than 66 2/3% of the shares or stock then entitled to vote
at any regular meeting or special meeting of the shareholders, voting together
as a single class, or in the case of action by the Board of Directors, the
affirmative vote of such number of directors as shall be specified in the 
Bylaws.
Exhibit 31.2


CERTIFICATION





I, Anthony S. Cleberg, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Black Hills Power, Inc.;





2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





4.
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:





(a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)       Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





(c)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(d)       Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and








5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  February 14, 2011/S/ ANTHONY S. CLEBERGAnthony S. ClebergExecutive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-15-00387-CR

 04-15-00388-CR

Benjamin ERICKSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2015CR3805 & 2015CR3807

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2015

DISMISSED

Pursuant to plea agreements with the State, appellant pleaded nolo contendere in two 

separate cases to the offense of assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed sentence in 

each case and signed certificates stating that each case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant 

has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed notices of appeal. 

The clerk’s records, which include the plea bargain agreements and the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) 

certifications, have been filed. See id. R. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a 
04-15-00387-CR; 04-15-00388-CR

- 2 -

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”

Id.

The court gave appellant notice that the consolidated appeals would be dismissed unless 

amended trial court certificationsshowing he has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate 

record within thirty days. See id. R. 25.2(d); id. R. 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 

2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed 

a written response, stating he has reviewed the records and can find no right of appeal in either 

case. After reviewing the records and counsel’s notice, we agree appellant does not have a right 

to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of 

appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). 

We therefore dismiss these appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish