alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2013- 0228.

#### In re Comm. Rev. of Capacity Charges of Ohio Power Co.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 10-2929-EL-UNC. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

Upon consideration of the application of appellant/cross-appellee, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., for *1477dismissal of its cross-appeal, it is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. The cross-appeal of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. is dismissed, and the case remains pending on all other appeals.
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration 

          - [Docket No. 00N-1505] 

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Guidance for Industry on How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Intent to Slaughter for Human Food Purposes” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denver Presley, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57192), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0450. The approval expires on November 30, 2003. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets.                 

Dated: December 26, 2000. 

Margaret M. Dotzel, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 01-46 Filed 1-2-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         335,610
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      8,672,515
<ALLOWANCE>                                    182,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,132,523
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,141,446
<OTHER-SE>                                   (204,823)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,132,523
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,107,133
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 8,945
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,116,078
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   85,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                481,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   655,209
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,814,359
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               156,391
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   58,749
<RECOVERIES>                                       103
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              182,745
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

YVENEL EUGENE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1661

[October 4, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2016-CF003760-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Brad R. Schlesinger, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. 

Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RANDERS
GROUP INCORPORATED REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 3, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             APR-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                                 13,031
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          14,551
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,213
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       38,763
<PP&E>                                                 16,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                          4,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         96,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  11,342
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                   13
<OTHER-SE>                                             81,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           96,751
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       41,071
<CGS>                                                  31,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          38,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          430
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         3,050
<INCOME-TAX>                                            1,443
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,607
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            1,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.01
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHANETA NEDIALKOVA IVANOVA;

et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72051

Agency Nos. A098-534-269

A098-534-270

A098-534-271

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Zhaneta Nedialkova Ivanova and her family, natives and citizens of

Bulgaria, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

FILED

JUL 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72051

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054

(9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

because the discrepancies between petitioners’ testimony, a medical document, and

a witness’ testimony regarding Aleksandar Petkov Ivanov’s fractured pelvis go to

the heart of petitioners’ claim, see id. at 1058, and petitioners’ explanation does not

compel a contrary conclusion, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th

Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum

and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,

1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Further, because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same statements

found to be not credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence that

shows it is more likely than not that they will be tortured if returned to Bulgaria,

their CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-12-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                    50,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

p0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140559 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140559 

 COA: 283675 

Wayne CC: 99-008710-FH 

DAMON PARHAM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1942 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1942

To provide for a program established by a nongovernmental organization 
 under which Haitian Americans would help the people of Haiti recover 
       from the destruction caused by the coup of December 1991.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 1993

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a program established by a nongovernmental organization 
 under which Haitian Americans would help the people of Haiti recover 
       from the destruction caused by the coup of December 1991.

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

SECTION 1. GRANT BY AID.

    (a) Grant for Program.--The Administrator of the Agency for 
International Development shall use funds available for development 
assistance for each of fiscal years 1994 through 1998 to provide a 
grant for each such fiscal year to an appropriate nongovernmental 
organization that has established a program under which Haitian 
Americans would engage in activities in Haiti designed to help the 
people of that country in meeting their needs for trained manpower in 
recovering from the destruction caused by the military coup that 
occurred in Haiti in December 1991. Any such grant may be used only for 
such program.
    (b) Requirements of Program.--The Administrator of the Agency for 
International Development shall ensure that the activities engaged in 
by Haitian Americans in Haiti under a program for which a grant is 
provided under subsection (a) are similar to those activities that 
would be engaged in by Peace Corps volunteers under the Peace Corps 
Act.
    (c) Training.--The Director of the Peace Corps shall provide to 
Haitian Americans participating in a program for which a grant is 
provided under subsection (a) appropriate training in preparation for 
their activities in Haiti under the program. The costs of such training 
shall be reimbursed, from amounts provided in the grant, by the 
nongovernmental organization administering the program.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

    As used in this Act, the term ``Haitian American'' means an 
individual residing in the United States who is of Haitian ancestry and 
whose citizenship or immigration status would make such individual 
eligible to be a Peace Corps volunteer under the Peace Corps Act.

                                 <all>
```
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-185V 

Filed: May 8, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

ROISIN MAGEE, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On February 6, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she received an influenza (“flu”) vaccination in 

her right arm on October 11, 2016, and subsequently suffered a right shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to 

the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 7, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, respondent has concluded that compensation is appropriate in this case 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the 

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management 

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. 
Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a 

SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

 Chief Special Master
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7704
ANTHONY JESUS SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus JAMES P. BOHNAKER, Clerk of Court, Defendant - Appellee, and CHRISTOPHER W. HUTTON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-03-942-1) Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 17, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Jesus Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Jesus Sanders appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sanders v. Bohnaker , No. CA-03-942-1 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 6, 2003 & entered August 8, 2003; filed Sept. 28, 2004 & entered Sept. 30, 2004). Sanders’ motion to dismiss James P. Bohnaker as a party to the appeal is denied as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED
946 A.2d 636

#### Margaret KOLBRICH, Executrix of the Estate of Robert Kolbrich, Deceased and Margaret Kolbrich, in Her Own Right, Petitioner v. ALLIED GLOVE CORPORATION; Allied Signal, Inc., in its Own Right and as Successor-In-Interest to Allied Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to Bendix Corporation; Argo Packing Company; Cashco, Inc.; Chicago Firebrick Company; Crane Valve Group; Crown, Cork & Seal Company; Dezurik, Inc.; Dravo Corporation; Eaton Corporation, as Successor-In-Interest to Cutler-Hammer, Inc.; Eichleay Corporation; Fabri-Valve, Division of ITT Grinnell Valve Company, Inc.; F.B. Wright Company; I.U. North America, Inc., as Successor by Merger to The Garp Company, formerly known as The Gage Company, formerly known as Pittsburgh Gage and Supply Company; General Refractories Company; George V. Hamilton, Inc.; Gould Pumps, Inc.; Honeywell, Inc.; Hunter Sales *495Corporation; Industrial Holdings Corporation f/k/a Carborundum Company; M.S. Jacobs & Associates; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company a/k/a Metropolitan Insurance Company; Minnotte Contracting Corporation; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Power Piping; Quigley Company, Inc.; Safety First Industries, Inc., in its Own Right and as Successor-In-Interest to Safety First Supply, Inc.; The Sager Corporation, Successor-In-Interest to the Sager Glove Corporation, Sealite, Inc.; Stockham Valves & Fittings, f/k/a Marlin Valve, Inc.; Taylored Industries, Inc; Treco Construction Services, Inc., f/k/a The Rust Engineering Company; Unifrax Corporation, f/k/a Carborundum Company; Union Carbide Corporation, and its Linde Division, Respondents v. Viacom, Inc., Successor by Merger to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; National Vulcanized Fiber Co.; Spaulding Composites Company, Inc., *f/k/a*Spaulding Fiber Company; Synthane-Taylor; Fisher Scientific; Sun Chemical Co., Respondents v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, *f/k/a*Garlock Inc.; The Anchor Packing Company; A.W. Chesterton Company, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 25, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, Application to Supplement Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and Second Application to Supplement Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED.

Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.