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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP02-90-001] 

      ( print page 67238)    
Take notice that on December 18, 2001, El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A, Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet No. 37, with an effective date of January 1, 2002. 

On November 30, 2001 in Docket No. RP02-90-000, EPNG submitted for filing thirteen revised tariff sheets to be effective on January 1, 2002. EPNG states that is submitting Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet No. 37 to reflect the same maximum monthly California reservation rate as shown on the Sheet No. 22 submitted in the original filing on November 30. 

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “RIMS” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link.                 

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-31999 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### SHOUMAKE et al. v. MANTOOTH, Chief of Police.

No. 34595.

June 6, 1950.

*219 P. 2d 202.*

Tillman & Tillman and McCoy, Craig & Pearson, all of Pawhuska, and Leander Hall, of Hominy, for plaintiffs in error.

T. F. Dukes, of Hominy, Hamilton & Kane, of Pawhuska, and Kelly Brown, of Muskogee, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

The petition in error with case-made attached was filed March 17, 1950. The allegations of error are such as can be reviewed only on case-made and by consideration of the evidence.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the case-made is a nullity and can serve no purpose to present a review of the alleged errors. The motion to dismiss must be sustained.

The case was tried before Honorable James T. Shipman, of the Eleventh Judicial District, assigned to hold court in the tenth Judicial District. Judgment' was rendered on December 22, 1949. Motion for new trial was overruled December 27, 1949. This order gave plaintiff in error 45 days in which to make and serve a case-made. The time in which to make and serve a case-made expired February 10, 1950. The case-made was served on the 1st day of March, 1950. On February 4, 1950, Judge Shipman granted the application of plaintiff in error for further extension. This purported order is invalid and without force for the reason that the period of the assignment of the trial judge did not extend to and include the 4th day of February, 1950. The last day of the assignment of Judge Shipman was for one day, December 27, 1949, and no other assignment thereafter is shown to have been made authorizing Judge Shipman to act in the Tenth Judicial District.

In Southwestern Electric Co. v. Nunn Electric Co., 80 Okla. 6, 193 P. 973, it is stated:

> “A district judge who has been assigned by order of the Chief Justice to hold court in a county outside of his district in which he is elected has no authority, after the expiration of the time fixed in the order assigning him to hold court in said county, to grant an extension of time in which to prepare and serve case-made in a case tried before him while lawfully holding court in such county.”

See, also, Boswell v. Ingram, 104 Okla. 240, 230 P. 909; Graf Packing Co. v. Palphrey, 178 Okla. 95, 62 P. 2d 53; and Brown v. Tucker, 189 Okla. 615, 119 P. 2d 42.

Since the allegations of error can only be reviewed by case-made and the case-made served and settled under order of February 4, 1950, is a nullity, the appeal is dismissed.
#### Timothy CHARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF the ATTORNEY GENERAL; Henry McMaster, Attorney General; Mary S. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-6904.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 17, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 9, 2010.

Timothy Charley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Charley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Charley v. Office of the Att’y Gen.,*No. 6:10-cv-01204-CMC, 2010 WL 2571739 (D.S.C. June 21, 2010). We deny Charley’s motion for discovery and dispense with oral argument because the *740facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 351 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude from income, 

for the purpose of determining eligibility and benefits, income received 

from cost of living adjustments made under titles II and XVI of the 

Social Security Act and from supplementary payments received under 

section 1616 of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2021 

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude 

from income, for the purpose of determining eligibility 

and benefits, income received from cost of living adjustments made under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and from supplementary payments received 

under section 1616 of such Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘COLA’s Don’t Count 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 351 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 5(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

3 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)) of such Act— 

4 (1) in paragraph (18) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

5 end, 

6 (2) by redesignating paragraph (19) as para7 graph (20), and 

8 (3) by inserting after paragraph (18) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(19) income attributable to cost of living ad11 justments received under title II or XVI of the So12 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and sup13 plementary payments received under section 1616 of 

14 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e); and’’. 

15 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

16 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

17 take effect on October 1, 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

January 5, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 15, 2015

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Secretary of Labor v. JimWalter Resources, Inc.,*Docket No. SE 2012-681-R**(Issues include whetherthe Administrative Law Judge erred in upholding an imminent danger order.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
**Exhibit 23**

 

**InterTAN, Inc.**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-63090, 33-92286, 33-29055, 333-4344, 333-16105, 333-22011 and333-32694) of InterTAN, Inc. of our report dated August 14, 2003, appearing in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated August 14, 2003 on theFinancial Statement Schedule, which is also included in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Toronto, Canada 

August 29, 2003
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

December 29, 2016

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Thursday,February2, 2017

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillhearoralargumentinthematter*Secretaryof*

*LaboronbehalfofGreathouse,etal.v.MonongaliaCountyCoalCompany,etal.,*DocketNos.WEVA2015-904-D,etal.(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerredinrulingthatcertainbonusplansinstitutedbytheoperatorsinterferedwithminers’rightsundertheMine Act.)

 

 

Anypersonattendingthisoralargumentwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.Subjectto 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACT PERSON

FORMORE INFO:                Emogene Johnson (202)434-9935/ (202) 708-9300for TDD

Relay/1-800-877-8339for toll free.

 

 

PHONENUMBERFORLISTENINGTO

ARGUMENT:1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode:129-339

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel
#### Marcus D. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. ROSS, RN; E. Johnson, RN; D. Spiers, Don, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-7622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Marcus D. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Rawls, Mcnelis *&*Mitchell, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus D. Thomas appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Specifically, we conclude that Thomas has presented no evidence that Defendants fabricated the documents submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment and that the district court did not err in denying Thomas’ motions for appointment of counsel and to subpoena *161witnesses. Accordingly, we deny Thomas’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Thomas v. Ross,*No. I:13-cv00989-TSE-MSN, 2015 WL 5786638 (E.D.Va. Sept. 29, 2015). 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.*
GA

DRIVING SAFELY THROUGH 

WORK

ZONES

GEORGIA IS RANKED IN THE TOP 5 STATES

FOR FATAL CRASHES IN THE U.S. INVOLVING CMVs 

IN WORK 

55

ZONES.

%

OF FATAL WORK ZONE 

CRASHES INVOLVING CMVs 

OCCURRED ON AN INTERSTATE 

HIGHWAY IN GEORGIA1

GEORGIA HAS

MORE THAN 500 ACTIVE WORK

ZONES2

STAY ALERT 

GEORGIA:

Your Summer 2023 Work Zone Hot Spots

• I-16/I-75 Interchange Reconstruction in Bibb County

• I-16/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction in Savannah, GA

• I-285/I-20 West Interchange Reconstruction in Fulton County

• I-285 SR400 Interchange Reconstruction in Fulton County

• I-285 I-20 East Interchange Reconstruction in DeKalb County

1 FARS 2014-2018, NHTSA 

2 GDOT

Work zones present unique challenges for 

large trucks and buses. Do your part to 

make roads safer by remembering to plan 

your route, move early into an open lane, 

avoid distractions, obey signs and signals 

to slow down or stop, and keep extra 

space between vehicles.

NATIONAL WORK 

ZONE FACTS 2021

Total Work Zone Fatalities: 956

Drivers and Passengers: 778

Pedestrians and Bicyclists: 173

Others: 5

(Occupants of non-motor vehicle transport 

device and persons on personal conveyances)

Total Fatal Work Zone Crashes 

Involving 

a CMV: 291

From 2020 to 2021, the number of 

fatal work zone crashes involving a 

large truck or bus increased by 41%.

For more information on driving safely around large trucks 

and buses, visit www.ShareTheRoadSafely.gov and for 

more on work zone safety, visit www.workzonesafety.org.

FMCSA-ADO-23-007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Benedict John DAVIS.

No. 15764.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

May 24, 1957.

Robert Vogel, U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for appellant.

John B. Hart, Rolla, N. D., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court, 148 F.Supp. 478, dismissed, on stipulation of parties.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*July*7, *2014*

[Cite as *07/07/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Ohio-3003.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2013-1521.

#### Marysville Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2011-Q-456. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Upon consideration of the agreed motion to remand to the Board of Tax Appeals to implement a settlement agreement, it is ordered by the court that the cause is remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the Board of Tax Appeals.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      S.
      Kumar Chandrasekaran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
      Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
      December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information
      contained in such Annual Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of InSite Vision Incorporated.




By:
            /s/
              S.
              Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.Name:S.
                Kumar Chandrasekaran, Ph.D.
              Title:Chief
                Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
              Date:March
                17, 2008




**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Louis
      C. Drapeau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of InSite
      Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2007
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information contained in such Annual
      Report of InSite Vision Incorporated on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InSite
      Vision Incorporated.




By:
            /s/Louis
              C.DrapeauName:Louis
                C. Drapeau
              Title:Chief
                Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
              Date:March
                17, 2008




The
      signed originals of these two written statements required by Section 906 have
      been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Table Trac, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chad Hoehne, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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 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.





/s/ Chad
      HoehneChad
      HoehneChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerMay
      14, 2010
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor obo Greathouse, et al v. Monongalia County Coal Company, et al               

#   Secretary of Labor obo Greathouse, et al v. Monongalia County Coal Company, et al 

Monongalia WEVA 2015-904-D Argument Notice 2-2-17.pdf

Monongalia WEVA 2015-904-D Argument Notice 2-2-17.htm

Secretary of Labor on behalf of Greathouse etal v Monongalia County Coal etal Docket WEVA2015-904-D etal_02-02-17.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Exhibit 32.1

DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DiVall Insured Income Properties 2 Limited Partnership (the
Company) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                                        |  |                                             
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: November 15, 2010 |  |  |  | By:                                    |  | /s/ Bruce A. Provo                          
|                         |  |  |  |                                        |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and      
|                         |  |  |  |                                        |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                         |  |  |  |                                        |  | (principal executive and principal financial
|                         |  |  |  |                                        |  | officer of the registrant)                  

This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge

standard contained
therein, and not for any other purpose.