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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-6624-8] 

Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated May 18, 2001 (66 FR 27647). 

## Draft EISs 

ERP No. D-COE-A39138-00 Rating **3, Programmatic EIS—Nationwide Permits Procedures Review and Examination, US Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 and 404 Permit Issuance. 

*Summary:*                     EPA believes the data used in the Draft PEIS and the methods used to analyze and draw conclusions from that data were inadequate, thereby preventing a full disclosure of potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposal. EPA recommended that the draft PEIS be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft PEIS.                 

                    ERP No. D-USA-A10074-00 Rating EC2,                     *Programmatic EIS*                    —Army Transformation, Army Vision to Address the Changing Circumstances of the 21st Century, Transformation in three Phases: Initial Phase, Interim Capacibility Phase, and an Objective Force Phase.                 

*Summary:*                     EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding air, land use, water resources, and noise and requested additional information regarding impact analysis.                 

Dated: December 18, 2001. 

Joseph C. Montgomery, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 01-31538 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001093

28-JAN-2019

07:52 AM
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1507

WILLIAM A. TACCINO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PATRICK MORRISEY; SUE ROBEY; J. COURRIER; JOE E. MILLER; JAMES DAVIS; TROOPER JOHN DROPPLEMAN; NELSON MICHAEL; MICHAEL SHAY; KEITH BRADSHAW; BRIDGET COHEE; TRACEY B. EBERLING; JASON P. FOSTER; RALPH BRADY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv
- 00164

- GMG

- RWT )

Submitted : September 19, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William A. Taccino, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William A. Taccino appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Taccino v. Morrisey ̧ No. 3:16

- cv
- 001 64

- GMG

- RWT (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 21, 2017) . 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
Page 1 of 2



## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

NO. 15-0944

THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, P ETITIONER

V



### .

C.W.H., R ESPONDENT



### No. C0824736 in the 145th District Court

, Nacogdoches County

BILL OF COSTS

Petition for Review

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

Submiss/Oral Argument

Miscellaneous Motion

Miscellaneous Motion

Petition for Review Filed

M/E/T to file Petition

M/E/T to file Petition $75.00

$10.00

$0.00

$155.00

$0.00

$0.00 $75.00

$10.00

$0.00

$155.00

$0.00

$0.00 Paid by Office of Attorney the General

Paid by Office of the Attorney General

Paid by C.W.H.

Paid by Office of Attorney the General

Paid by Office of Attorney the General

Paid by Office of Attorney the General

Clerk’s Record $79.00 Unknown 1 Volume

Reporter’s Record $94.50 Unknown 1 Volume

Balance of costs owing to the Supreme Court of Texas: 0.00

Each party shall bear its own costs in this Court.

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby

certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of the Supreme

Court of Texas, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as

the same appears of record in this office.Page 2 of 2 with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Austin,

this the 30th day of November, 2017

.

BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31412]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 01-2716]


Low Power Television Auction No. 81--Mutually Exclusive 
Proposals--Additional Settlement Period Announced

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice that the Mass Media Bureau has 
opened an additional settlement window for proposals filed during the 
limited low power television/television translator/Class A television 
auction filing window. That settlement window closes January 22, 2002.

DATES: Settlements must be submitted by January 22, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaun Maher, Video Services Division, 
Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a Public Notice 
released November 20, 2001. The complete text of the Public Notice, 
including attachment, is available for public inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-
A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. It may also be purchased 
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20035, 
(202) 857-3800. It is also available on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.fcc.gov.
    In this Public Notice, the Mass Media Bureau announces an 
additional settlement window for those proposals filed during the 
limited low power television, television translator, and Class A 
television auction filing window that are mutually exclusive. Parties 
have until January 22, 2002, to file a settlement if they desire to 
avoid going to auction.

Federal Communications Commission.
Roy J. Stewart,
Chief, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-31412 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Order entered October 23, 2012



### In The

No. 05-11-01498-CR No. 05-11-01499-CR No. 05-11-01500-CR 

### JOSEPH GEORGE BUCKALOO, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-53490-W



### ORDER Before the Court is the State of Texas’s October 22, 2012 Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief. We GRANT the motion. The clerk is directed to file the brief tendered by the State on October 22, 2012.



### ROBERT M. FILLMORE PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### Frank BARLET, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. W. ALVIS, as Warden, Ohio Penitentiary, et al., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13005.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 31, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1957.

*952John Brown, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

William Saxbe, Atty. Gen., of Ohio, John W. Shoemaker and William M. Vance, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Frank Barlet appeals from denial by the United States District Court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He avers that his constitutional rights had been violated in his trial in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio. Among other things, he alleged gross and prejudicial conduct of the prosecuting attorney which, he said, was concurred in and condoned by the trial judge.

The United States District Court afforded him a hearing with full opportunity to show wherein his constitutional rights had been violated. This he utterly failed to do. The attorney who had represented petitioner-appellant at the trial in the State court had been chosen by him; and no showing has been made that the attorney failed to represent him properly, or that he exhibited any lack of skill in doing so. Whether the attorney made mistakes of judgment in conducting the defense is immaterial. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held recently that the remedy for denial of a fair trial on the ground of the inefficiency of counsel is by appeal and not by habeas corpus proceedings, where the court had jurisdiction of the crime and of the person. McConnaughy v. Alvis, 165 Ohio St. 102, 133 N.E.2d 133.

Here, the court had jurisdiction, both of the crime and of the person of the petitioner. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

It is so ordered.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Grievance Mediation - FMCS","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CfjKyhnzrg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/resolving-labor-management-disputes\/grievance-mediation\/\">Grievance Mediation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/resolving-labor-management-disputes\/grievance-mediation\/embed\/#?secret=CfjKyhnzrg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Grievance Mediation” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"CfjKyhnzrg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

August 16, 2024 SC-2024-0353 Ex parte David Otto Jacobson PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: David Otto Jacobson v. State of Alabama) (Etowah Circuit Court: DC-23-1514 and CC-23-727; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0963).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on August 16, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 9, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132164 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GAILA MARIE MARTIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132164 

 COA: 259228 

Kent CC: 03-001526-NO 

THE RAPID INTER-URBAN TRANSIT 

PARTNERSHIP and CITY OF GRAND 

RAPIDS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this 

order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in 

their application papers. 

t0206 

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. 

February 9, 2007 

 Clerk
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                 REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
PLATINUM technology International, inc.:


With respect to the registration statements on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of PLATINUM
technology International, inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein
of our report dated May 14, 1999 related to our review of interim financial
information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
May 14, 1999
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 the Quarterly Report of Global Diversified Industries, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I , Phil
Hamilton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Phil
Hamilton


Phil
Hamilton


Chief
Executive Officer





December
21, 2009
Exhibit 32.0

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 the Quarterly Report of Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                     
|----------- |  | ------------------------------------
|May 6, 2010 |  | /s/ David T. Blair                  
|            |  | David T. Blair                      
|            |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
|            | 
|            |  | /s/ Hai V. Tran                     
|            |  | Hai V. Tran                         
|            |  | Chief Financial Officer             



21
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated August 24, 1998 accompanying the consolidated 
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Premium Restaurant 
Company on Form 10-KSB for the fifty-two weeks ended June 28, 1998. We 
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration 
Statements of Premium Restaurant Company on Form S-8, File No. 33-28306, 
effective April 24, 1989; Form S-8, File No. 33-76974, effective March 28, 
1994; and Form S-2, File No. 333-33187, effective February 23, 1998.

                                        GRANT THORNTON LLP

                                        /s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 18, 1998
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.,  INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive
Plan (No. 333-135663), 2004 Stock Purchase Plan (No. 333-116405 and 333-153072) and 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (No. 333-132603, 333-18601 and 333-114013), of HemaCare Corporation
our report dated March 25, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of HemaCare Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2008.

/s/
Stonefield Josephson, Inc.

CERTIFIED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Los
Angeles, California
March 25, 2009

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32(a)

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dwight Foster, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  June 12, 2006


                                 /s/ Dwight Foster
                                 DWIGHT FOSTER,
                                 Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3318 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3318

  To require the Secretary of Transportation to repay the credit risk 
  premiums paid with respect to certain railroad infrastructure loans 
   after the obligations attached to such loans have been satisfied.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2021

   Mr. Perlmutter (for himself, Mr. Crow, Mr. Buck, and Ms. DeGette) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Transportation to repay the credit risk 
  premiums paid with respect to certain railroad infrastructure loans 
   after the obligations attached to such loans have been satisfied.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Railroad Rehabilitation and 
Improvement Financing Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. CREDIT RISK PREMIUMS.

    Section 502(f) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 
Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(f)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(5) Refund of premiums.--The Secretary shall repay the 
        credit risk premium of each loan in cohort 3, as defined by the 
        Department of Transportation's memorandum to the Office of 
        Management and Budget dated November 5, 2018, with interest 
        accrued thereon, not later than 60 days after the date on which 
        all obligations attached to each such loan have been satisfied. 
        For each such loan for which obligations have already been 
        satisfied, as of the date of enactment of the Railroad 
        Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Equity Act, the 
        Secretary shall repay the credit risk premium of each such 
        loan, with interest accrued thereon, not later than 60 days 
        after the date of the enactment of such Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re: Larry James GRIMLIE, Debtor, Terri A. Running, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee, v. Larry James Grimlie, Appellant.

No. 09-3114.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2010.

Filed: March 31, 2010.

Matthew R. Burton, Leonard & O’Brien, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Larry James Grimlie, Monticello, MN, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Larry Grimlie appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of the trustee of Grimlie’s bankruptcy estate. After careful review, *see In re Vote,*276 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir.2002) (review standards), we affirm for the reasons stated by the BAP, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert J. Kressel, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Minnesota.