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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

                    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201*et seq.*). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.                

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2009-0010.                

*Date Filed:*                     January 16, 2009.                

*Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:*                     February 6, 2009.                

*Description:*                     Application of 1263343 Alberta Inc d/b/a enerjet (“enerjet”) requesting an exemption and foreign air permit to engage in non-scheduled charter trips in foreign air transportation between Canada and the United States.                

Renee V. Wright,

Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.

 [FR Doc. E9-1800 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
No. 68.

#### Thompson *v.*United States.

June 10, 1946.

The motion for leave to file a third petition for rehearing is denied.

Mr. Justice Burton took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
S07A0593.

#### ANDERSON v. SVARD.

(644 SE2d 861)

Decided May 14, 2007.

*Clark E. Gulley,*for appellant.

April Svard, *pro se.*

Thompson, Justice.

We granted husband’s application for a discretionary appeal in this divorce case to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to wife pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-2. We find that the trial court did abuse its discretion because there is no evidence in the record with regard to the financial circumstances of the parties. OCGA§ 19-6-2 (a) (1); *Findley v. Findley,*280 Ga. 454,463 (629 SE2d 222) (2006); *Weaver v. Weaver,*263 Ga. 56, 57 (428 SE2d 79) (1993).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41075

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

YERED MORALES-ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-1667-28

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Yered Morales-Alvarez has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Morales-Alvarez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-41075 Document: 00512825451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
No. 13-41075

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-41075 Document: 00512825451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2014
###                                                The AAL Mutual Funds

####                                    Supplement to Prospectus dated June 27, 2003

*The AAL Equity Income Fund*

**Matthew D. Finn,  CFA,**  will serve as  portfolio  manager of the The AAL Equity  Income  Fund.  Mr. Finn alsoserves as the portfolio  manager of the Lutheran  Brotherhood  Value Fund, a series of an affiliated  mutual fund group.Mr. Finn joined  Thrivent  Investment  Mgt. from U.S.  Bancorp Asset  Management,  Inc.  where he was managing  director andsenior  portfolio  manager of the First  American  Large Cap Value Fund since 2003.  Prior to that,  he was head ofequities for Advantus  Capital  Management  Inc. from July 2001 to May 2003,  and chief  investment  officer of thegrowth and income  group for  Evergreen  Investment  Management  Co. from March 1998 to June 2001.  Mr. Finn joinedThrivent Investment Mgt. in April of 2004.

                                  The date of this Supplement is April 29, 2004.

**Please include this Supplement with your Prospectus.**
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION





I, William H. Armstrong III, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties 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;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in 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)) 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)

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

(c)

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 officers 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:  August 13, 2004





/s/ William H. Armstrong III

William H. Armstrong III

Chairman of the Board, President

and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orrandy GOODWYN, a/k/a Randy, a/k/a White Boy, a/k/a Trash, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7064.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 17, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2012.

Orrandy Goodwyn, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Aber Brumberg, Office of the United States Attorney, Richard Daniel Cooke, Laura Colombell Marshall, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Orrandy Goodwyn appeals the district court’s order denying, for want of jurisdiction, his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Goodwyn,*No. 3:96-cr-00041-JRS-8 (E.D.Va. May 8, 2012). 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.*
H. Res. 173

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 29, 2003.

Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System, operated by

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, marked its

centennial anniversary on March 14, 2003;

Whereas President Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1903 that

‘‘Wild beasts and birds are by right not the property

merely of the people who are alive today, but the property

of unknown generations, whose belongings we have no

right to squander.’’;

Whereas the vision of conserving wildlife embraced by President Roosevelt was begun with the plants and animals located on Pelican Island off the East Coast of Florida,

and has since flourished across the United States and its

territories and possessions, allowing for the preservation

of an overwhelmingly vast array of flora and fauna;

Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System is composed of

540 refuges encompassing nearly 95 million acres, hosts

35 million visitors annually, and benefits from the selfless

efforts of 30,000 volunteers; and

Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System has established

refuges in every State in the United States, many of

which are reachable within an hour’s drive of almost

every major city: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 173 EH

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes the achievements and contributions

of the National Wildlife Refuge System on the occasion

of its centennial anniversary;

(2) expresses strong support for the continued success of the National Wildlife Refuge System;

(3) encourages the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service in its efforts to broaden understanding and appreciation for the National Wildlife Refuge System by

increasing partnerships on behalf of the refuge system to

better manage and monitor wildlife and by continuing its

support of wildlife dependent recreational activities as

embodied in the Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 (Public Law 105–57); and

(4) reaffirms its commitment to the National Wildlife Refuge System and the conservation of the rich natural heritage of the United States.

Attest:

Clerk.
# 2011-17

Occupation 41-1011 AND 41-2000 to 41-2031 - continued		

Occupation 41-1011 AND 41-2000 to 41-2031		

Occupation 41-1011 AND 41-2000 to 41-2031 - continued		

Occupation 41-1011 AND 41-2000 to 41-2031		

Page &P
##### 



Fiscal Year2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003Weighted average shares outstandingClass A Common
    
    
    1,722
    
    
    
    1,722
    
    
    
    1,722Class B Common (excluding shares issuable
upon exercise of stock options  accounted
for below)
    
    
    7,872
    
    
    
    7,841
    
    
    
    7,808Shares used in computation of basic earnings per
share
    
    
    9,594
    
    
    
    9,563
    
    
    
    9,530Add  Shares assumed issuable upon exercise of
stock options
    
    
    109
    
    
    
    119
    
    
    
    138Deduct  Shares assumed to be purchased for
Treasury with proceeds from exercise of stock
options
    
    
    (87
    )
    
    
    (90
    )
    
    
    (113
    )Shares used in computation of diluted earnings
per
common share
    
    
    9,616
    
    
    
    9,592
    
    
    
    9,555Net income available for common shares
    
    $
    313,363
    
    
    $
    331,740
    
    
    $
    240,061Basic earnings per common share
    
    $
    32.66
    
    
    $
    34.69
    
    
    $
    25.19Diluted earnings per common share
    
    $
    32.59
    
    
    $
    34.59
    
    
    $
    25.12
EX-10.15.(a)



 Exhibit 10.15(a) 

HORACE MANN SERVICE CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN 
 SCHEDULE A PARTICIPANTS

 Note: The effective date of entry shall be subject to Section 4.2(a). 

 

					
	 NAME OR TITLE
	 		  	EFFECTIVE DATE OF PARTICIPATION*
		
		 	TIER I PARTICIPANTS
	 President and CEO
	 		  	November 14, 2012
		
		 	 TIER II PARTICIPANTS

	EVP and CFO	 		  	**
	EVP and Chief Marketing Officer	 		  	**
	EVP, Property and Casualty	 		  	**
	EVP, Annuity, Life, Group	 		  	February 15, 2012

  
 * Subject to acceptance within 30 days of effective
date of participation 
 ** Subject to Section 4.2(b) of the Plan
#### Eric W. BRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERCER ADVISORS INCORPORATED, A Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-16256.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Jan. 3, 2013.

Eric W. Bright, Mesa, AZ, pro se.

Jessica Post, Janice Procter-Murphy, Esquire, Ronald Stolkin, Fennemore Craig PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eric W. Bright appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his *711employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bright’s retaliation claims because Bright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in a protected activity. *See Rand v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist.,*323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir.2003) (describing the elements of a pri-ma facie retaliation claim under Title VII, including that the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity); *Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corp.,*813 F.2d 1406, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1987) (plaintiff failed to show that he engaged in protected activity where his complaint to his employer did not indicate a concern about discrimination).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bright’s racial discrimination claim because Bright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or whether defendant acted with discriminatory intent. *See Vasquez,*349 F.3d at 640 & n. 5 (describing the elements of a prima facie discrimination claim under Title VII).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bright’s breach of contract claim because Bright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant failed to comply with its employee handbook by retaliating against him or failing to investigate his alleged complaints of discrimination. *See Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini,*207 Ariz. 162, 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (2004) (describing the elements of a breach of contract claim under Arizona law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the scheduling order to allow defendant to amend its answer because defendant showed good cause. *See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,*975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir.1992) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a party seeking to amend its pleadings after the date set in the scheduling order must show good cause).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37308-37309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17907]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee 
on Disability Compensation will meet on August 10-11, 2009, in the 
Carlton Ballroom at the St. Regis Washington DC, 923 16th and K 
Streets, NW., from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to 
the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule 
for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review 
relevant information relating to the nature and character of 
disabilities arising from service in the Armed Forces, provide an 
ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule and give 
advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of 
veterans relating to disability compensation.
    On August 10 and the morning of August 11, the Committee will 
receive briefings about studies on compensation for Veterans with 
service-connected disabilities and other Veteran benefits programs. On 
the afternoon of August 11, the Committee will break into subcommittees 
to prepare recommendations. Time will also be allocated during the 
afternoon of August 11 for receiving public comments. Public comments 
will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral 
statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, 
first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 
page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for 
inclusion in the official meeting record.
    The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review 
to Ms. Ersie Farber, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration (211A), 810 Vermont Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public wishing to attend 
the meeting

[[Page 37309]]

or seeking additional information should contact Ms. Farber at (202) 
461-9728 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e6b5c5d474b00484f5c4c4b5c6e584f00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97d2e5e4fef2b9f1f6e5f5f2e5d7e1f6b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 22, 2009.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-17907 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6820

PRESTON M. MILLS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-01-453)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Preston M. Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2000).

2

PER CURIAM:

Preston Mills seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the magistrate judge. Mills v. Angelone, No. CA-01-

453 (E.D. Va. May 2, 2002). 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
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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate):

*AccessAbility (application review):*                     August 27, 2009 by teleconference. This meeting, from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., will be closed.                
      ( print page 37243)    
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 28, 2008, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202-682-5691.

Dated: July 23, 2009.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator,  Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. E9-17885 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P