alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Rural Business-Cooperative Service

# AGENCY:

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of withdrawal of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG).

# SUMMARY:

                        Rural Development is withdrawing the May 6, 2009,                         **Federal Register**                         notice (74 FR 20900), announcing the availability of approximately $18 million in competitive grants for fiscal year 2009 to help independent agricultural producers enter into value-added activities.                    

# DATES:

July 1, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Andrew A. Jermolowicz, USDA Rural Development, Mail STOP 3250, Room 4016-South, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3250,                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 720-8460,                         *e-mail: cpgrants@wdc.usda.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The May 6, 2009,                     **Federal Register**                     notice was published in error. The notice will be reissued with clarification of contradictory language, additional guidance on new program components, and extended application deadlines.                

Dated: June 25, 2009.

Judith A. Canales,

Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

[FR Doc. E9-15533 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30022 Summary Calendar

WENDELL V. GRAY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JAMES M. LEBLANC, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

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

USDC No. 00-CV-1331-J

-------------------- November 21, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Wendell V. Gray, Louisiana prisoner # 300228, was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue whether the district court erred in dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Gray argues that the limitations period should be equitably tolled during the time that he diligently sought a copy of the transcript of the postconviction evidentiary hearing which was allegedly necessary to enable him to file a writ application to the Louisiana court of appeal. Gray has not shown that theNo. 01-30022 -2- transcript of the postconviction evidentiary hearing was necessary to enable him to file a writ application to the Louisiana court of appeal. The limitations period was tolled from the time that Gray filed his state habeas application on October 24, 1997, to the date that the state trial court denied the application on September 4, 1998. See § 2244(d)(2). Prior to October 24, 1997, 203 days of the one-year limitations period had elapsed. The limitations period was not tolled from September 4, 1998, to March 19, 1999, during the period in which Gray did not have a writ application to the court of appeal pending. See Melancon v. Kaylo , 259 F.3d 401, 407 (5th Cir. 2001). Gray’s motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on February 11, 1999, did not toll the limitations period under § 2244(d)(2). During this period, 195 days of the limitations period elapsed. Because Rule 4-3 of the Louisiana Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal allowed the court of appeal to consider Gray’s untimely writ application and the court of appeal did consider Gray’s writ application on the merits, Gray’s writ application to the Louisiana court of appeal was properly filed.

See id. at 405. However, as of March 19, 1999, the time in which the limitations period was running exceeded 365 days. Therefore, Gray’s federal habeas petition was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Further, Gray is not entitled to equitable tolling because he waited approximately six months from the state trial court’s denial of his habeas application to file a writ application to the Louisiana court of appeal and because he waited an additional two months from the Louisiana SupremeNo. 01-30022 -3- Court’s denial of his writ application to file his federal habeas petition. See Melancon , 259 F.3d at 407-08; Coleman v. Johnson , 184 F.3d 398, 403 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 1564 (2000).

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2015

No. 04-14-00472-CV

ARC PARKLANE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Arvel SEALS, Jr.,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-10177

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 5, 2014, we abated this interlocutory appeal pending the Texas Supreme 

Court’s disposition of the same issue in other cases from this court. The Texas Supreme Court 

decided the matter in the other cases and issued its mandate. Appellant filed an unopposed 

motion to reinstate this appeal for the remaining issues to be resolved.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. We reinstate this accelerated appeal of an interlocutory order

on this court’s docket. Appellant’s brief is due within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Amy R. Gurvey (Admitted as Amy Rebecca Weissbrod), an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Appellant. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

Decided March 26, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [EG09-34-000, EG09-35-000]

Take notice that during the month of May 2009, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-15730 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 651 

Supporting the designation of October 2019 as ‘‘National Bullying Prevention 

Month’’ and October 23, 2019, as ‘‘Unity Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 22, 2019 

Mr. EMMER (for himself, Mr. HIMES, and Mr. CRENSHAW) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of October 2019 as ‘‘National 

Bullying Prevention Month’’ and October 23, 2019, as 

‘‘Unity Day’’. 

Whereas more than 1 in 5 students report being bullied, and 

nearly 16 percent of students report being cyberbullied; 

Whereas students who experience bullying are at an increased 

risk for poor school adjustment, sleep difficulties, anxiety, 

and depression; 

Whereas National Bullying Prevention Month was founded in 

2006 by the National Bullying Prevention Center of 

PACER and has been held during the month of October 

each year since; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 651 IH 

Whereas National Bullying Prevention Month is a nationwide 

campaign that seeks to educate the public about, and 

raise awareness of, bullying prevention; 

Whereas individuals, families, schools, school districts, communities, and many others have hosted thousands of 

events to spread the message of National Bullying Prevention Month; 

Whereas Unity Day was started by the National Bullying 

Prevention Center in October 2011 and is the signature 

event of National Bullying Prevention Month; 

Whereas Unity Day has been held on the third or fourth 

Wednesday of each October since 2011 and will be recognized in 2019 on October 23; 

Whereas the goal of Unity Day is to bring together youth, 

parents, educators, businesses, and community members 

across the United States to emphasize— 

(1) a message of uniting for kindness, acceptance, 

inclusion, and mutual respect; 

(2) that all students deserve to be safe in school, online, and in their communities; 

(3) that there is value in celebrating the differences 

between people; and 

(4) that compromise and tolerance are important in 

communication; 

Whereas Unity Day has been highlighted on national television shows and in public service announcements, films, 

and public displays of art and expression; and 

Whereas Unity Day is often celebrated by— 

(1) wearing orange, the official color of Unity Day; 

(2) holding student and teacher led discussions at 

schools; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 651 IH 

(3) organizing efforts at community centers; and 

(4) expressing support for Unity Day through art, 

music, dance, and social media: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Bul3 lying Prevention Month’’; 

4 (2) supports the designation of ‘‘Unity Day’’; 

5 and 

6 (3) acknowledges that the prevention of bullying 

7 of children should be a national priority. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 22, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01580-CV

RICHARD J. DEAGUERO, Appellant

V.

VINCE FUDZIE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND TMV, LLC D/B/A TRIUNE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-11305

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Brown, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Brown

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By 

postcard dated December 18, 2014, we notified appellant the $195 filing fee was due. We 

directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that 

failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated December 18, 

2015, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed 

appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so might result in dismissal of this appeal. By letter dated March 25, 2015, we informed 

appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of 

payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant 

had been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that 
–2–

failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, provided the required 

documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

141580F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RICHARD J. DEAGUERO, Appellant

No. 05-14-01580-CV V.

VINCE FUDZIE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND 

TMV, LLC D/B/A TRIUNE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-11305.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees VINCE FUDZIE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND TMV, LLC 

D/B/A TRIUNE recover their costs of this appeal from appellant RICHARD J. DEAGUERO.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of July, 2015.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VS Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael
G. Archbold, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VS Holdings, Inc.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 13, 2008



/s/ Michael G. ArchboldMichael G. ArchboldChief Financial and Chief Operating Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 4243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARVIN JOSHUA WHITE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:15

- cr - 00715

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted : December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Bradley M. Kirkland, BRA DLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, f or Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marvin Joshua White seeks to appeal his 180

- month sentence, imposed pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, for possession with intent to distri bute crack cocaine. White’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. White filed a p ro se brief contending that the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress, and that he is entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 794 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. We generally revie w a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse

- of

discretion standard.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “However, not all sentences are subject to appellate review.” United States v. Williams , 811 F.3d 621, 622

- 23 (4th Cir. 2016). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to review White’s sentence of imprisonment because the district court sentenced White in accordance with the terms of his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the sentence is not unlawful, and the sentence is not based on the Sentencing Guidelines. See id. at 623

- 25. We therefore dismiss White’s appeal of his sentence. We have considered the arguments asserted in White’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude they are without merit. In accordance with Anders , within the constraints set forth in Williams , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm White’s conviction

. This court requires that counsel inform White, in writing, of the right to petitio n the Supreme Court3 of the United States for further review. If White requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on White. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00222-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF CARLOS AGUILAR, DECEASED,

Appellant

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PB4-000048-L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

 Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

 Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellee’s motion to reconsider, and the motion is 

DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on July 22, 2015.

PER CURIAM 

ATTESTED TO: ______________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-16059, No. 33-12755, No. 33-55614, No. 33-80504, No. 333-00327 and No. 333-44180 of Sharper Image Corporation on Form S-8 of (i) our report dated May 3, 2005, relating to the financial statements of Sharper Image Corporation (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement discussed in Note B), (ii) our report dated May 3, 2005 on the financial statement schedule included in Item 15 and (iii) our report dated May 3, 2005
on internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Sharper Image Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2005.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|San Francisco, California
|May 3, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

UNITED STATES of AMERICA O R D E R

:

 

v. : Case No. 2:10cr851-11(DMC)

SALVATORE LAGRASSO :

This matter having been opened to the court by

defendant Salvatore Lagrasso, Peter W. Till, Esq appearing to

modify defendants current release conditions to permit him to

work for Zamora Trucking, and Anthony Mahajan, Assistant US

Attorney having filed opposition; and 

The court having reviewed same; and

For good cause shown;

It is on this 11 day of January 2013 ORDERED that th

the motion of the defendant is GRANTED insofar as his employment

with Zamora Trucking does not involve any port related work. 

 /S/ DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH 

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.
# Director's Messages
#### GREAT LAKES CASUALTY CO. v. PEANO et al.

Civ. No. 142.

District Court, D. Oregon.

April 5, 1940.

Hugh L. Biggs and Arthur C. Spencer, Jr. (of Maguire, Shields & Morrison), both of Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

*245E. R. Trayle, Arthur M. Dibble, Jos. H. Page, and W. H. Powell, all of Portland, Or., for defendants.

McCOLLOCH, District Judge.

In denying plaintiff’s motion to amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment Order, and for additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I desire to make the following observations:

The motion was filed, *following entry of final*judgment, under Rule 52(b), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, reading as follows: “(b) *Amendtnent.*Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings o"r make additional findings *and may amend tlte judgment accordingly.*The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made in the district court an objection to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment.” (Italics added.)

I would grant certain parts of the motion which do not call for an amendment of the judgment, if I were convinced that I could properly do so at this time. Specifically, I would allow additional requested Findings numbered X, XII, XIV, XV and XVI, and I would allow substitution of Conclusion of Law No. IV, were I convinced that Rule 52 (b) permitted additional Findings *after judgment, where the additional Findings are merely by way of *enlargement of the original Findings and do not call for amendment of the judgment.*

The discussions of the Rule makers and others at the Institutes, and the discussions in Edmunds and Moore, leave me in doubt.

At the hearing, Mr. Biggs stated that he thought he could not file request for amended Findings until after the judgment had been entered. With this I cannot agree. See the discussions foregoing.

Generally, as to whether amended Findings may be made following the entry of final judgment, see 28 Cyc. 1987; 46 Cent. Dig., Trial, § 951; Decennial Digests and General Digests, Trial, *401.*The cases are conflicting.

For the reasons stated I feel that I must ■deny the motion in toto.