alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4479]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 19, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Grant County State Bancshares, Inc., Employees Stock Ownership 
Plan, Swayzee, Indiana; to acquire 30.02 percent of the voting shares 
of Grant County State Bancshares, Inc., Swayzee, Indiana, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Grant County State Bank, Swayzee, Indiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 16, 
2001.
Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-4479 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
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

ENRIQUE MENDEZ, AKA Melinda

Gabriella Valenzuela,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17175

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01293-NVWMHB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Enrique Mendez, also known as Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, an Arizona

state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him leave

FILED

JUL 11 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17175

to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of

the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of

discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920

F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand. 

The district court abused its discretion by denying Mendez’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis because, even though he is a three-strikes filer, Mendez

made plausible allegations that he faced an “imminent danger of serious physical

injury,” including that just weeks before filing the complaint he had been brutally

beaten by defendant prison officials and then threatened with death if he sought to

hold the perpetrators liable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056-

57 (holding that “a prisoner who alleges that prison officials continue with a

practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past will satisfy the

‘ongoing danger’ standard and meet the imminence prong of the three-strikes

exception” and noting that “§ 1915(g) merely establishes a threshold procedural

question and does not ask the court to evaluate the merits of the suit”). 

Mendez shall bear his own costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00037-CV

Valerie L. McNally now known as Valerie Jenkins and Kelly Alana McNally a/k/a Kelly Alana Wilkins

v.

Joseph P. McNally §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 2

of Parker County (CIV-14-0690)

April 27, 2017

Per Curiam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2577

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the operation

of certain visitor facilities associated with, but outside the boundaries

of, Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 1, 1993

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate

in the operation of certain visitor facilities associated

with, but outside the boundaries of, Rocky Mountain

National Park in the State of Colorado.

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 Fall River Visitor

5 Center Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 2577 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS OUTSIDE AUTHORIZED

2 BOUNDARY OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL

3 PARK.

4 (a) VISITOR CENTER.—The Secretary of the Interior

5 is authorized to expend donated or appropriated funds for

6 the operation and maintenance of a visitor center to be

7 constructed for visitors to and administration of Rocky

8 Mountain National Park with private funds on the pri9 vately owned lands described in subsection (b).

10 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PARCELS OF LAND.—The lands

11 referred to in subsection (a) are described as follows:

12 Being land owned by H.W. Stewart, Inc., and

13 more particularly described as follows:

14 Beginning at the southwest corner of the

15 north one-half of section 16, township 5 north,

16 range 73 west of the sixth principal meridian,

17 Colorado; thence south eighty-seven degrees six

18 minutes east, eight hundred and fifty-four feet;

19 thence north two degrees west, three hundred

20 and forty-six and one-tenth feet to the south

21 boundary of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway

22 34; thence northwesterly along said south

23 boundary nine hundred and sixty feet to the

24 west line of said section 16; thence south along

25 the west line of said section 16 to the point of

26 beginning.
3

•HR 2577 IH

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 1084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-504]


Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the 
People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey or Abdelali Elouaradia, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312 and (202) 482-1374, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 
1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 
(1999).

Background

    On August 13, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), counsel 
for three PRC companies requested that we conduct an administrative 
review. These three companies were Shanghai Gift and Travel Products 
Import and Export Corporation, Liaoning Native Product Import and 
Export Corporation, and Tianjin Native Produce Import and Export Group 
Corporation, Ltd. On August 31, 1999, the National Candle Association 
(petitioner), requested that we conduct an administrative review of 
twenty-two specific producers/exporters. On October 1, 1999, the 
Department published its initiation of this administrative review for 
the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999 (64 FR 53318). On 
September 7, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results of 
this review (65 FR 54224).

Extension of Time Limits for Final Results

    Due to the complexities involved with this particular case, 
including whether a respondent is eligible for a separate rate and the 
choice of adverse facts available, we find that it is not practicable 
to make a final determination by the current deadline of January 5, 
2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 
section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department 
is extending the time period for issuing the final results of this 
review until no later than March 6, 2001.

    Dated: December 29, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 01-383 Filed 1-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such Form 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         654,429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  697,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,605,466
<PP&E>                                      11,692,175
<DEPRECIATION>                             (9,433,749)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,267,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,479,388
<BONDS>                                     17,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,482
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,720,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,267,995
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,850,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,327,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             4,000,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,160,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,730,427)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,730,427)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

692 KA 11-02029 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TAMMY L. MARVIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (ROBERT TUCKER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (NEAL P. MCCLELLAND OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered August 19, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated (two counts), a class D felony.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her, following a guilty plea, of two counts of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [2], [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), defendant contends that County Court improperly imposed a three-year conditional discharge in order to impose a one-year ignition interlock period, and that her double jeopardy rights were violated when the court sentenced her to a conditional discharge sentence that extends two years beyond the imposition of the ignition interlock system portion of her sentence. Defendant failed to preserve those contentions for our review ( see People v Dexter , 104 AD3d 1184, 1184-1185). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. Penal Law § 65.05 (3) (a) requires that the period of the conditional discharge in the case of a felony shall be three years, while Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (1) (c) (iii) requires that the ignition interlock device condition shall be for a period not less than six months but not exceeding the duration of the conditional discharge, and the court complied with those statutes ( see People v Vidaurrazaga , 100 AD3d 664, 665).

Entered: July 5, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### In re: UPLAND PARTNERS, a Hawaii Limited Partnership, Debtor, William S. Ellis, Jr., Appellant, v. Richard Emery, Appellee, and Office of the United States Trustee, Trustee.

No. 07-15109.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 2, 2007 *.

Filed Jan. 4, 2008.

Timothy I. MacMaster, Honolulu, HI, for Debtor.

*6William S. Ellis, Jr., Honolulu, HI, pro se.

Lyle S. Hosoda, Esq., Raina P. Mead, Esq., Lyle S. Hosoda & Associates, Honolulu, HI, for Appellee.

Curtis B. Ching, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Honolulu, HI, for Trustee.

Before: SKOPIL, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

William Ellis appeals pro se the bankruptcy court’s order deeming him to be a vexatious litigant and imposing a prefiling review requirement. The bankruptcy court has the authority to impose such a sanction. *See In re Dyer,*322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir.2003) (“The inherent sanction authority allows a bankruptcy court to deter ... improper litigation tactics.”); *In re Rainbow Magazine,*77 F.3d 278, 284 (9th Cir.1996) (“[B]ankruptcy courts have the inherent power to sanction vexatious conduct presented before the court.”). The sanction is not “punitive” and therefore does not exceed the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority. *See Dyer,*322 F.3d at 1197.

Ellis received sufficient notice in the bankruptcy court’s show cause order that incorporated by reference a prior order detailing Ellis’s “improper, fraudulent and illegal behavior.” Moreover, he was permitted to respond to the allegations before the court imposed the sanction. *See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co.,*399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir.2005) (noting sanctions require only “notice and an opportunity to be heard”). Finally, the court’s order was sufficiently “narrowly tailored.” *See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.,*500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir.2007). The bankruptcy court identified and discussed other alternatives, including a complete bar to any future filings, before selecting a sanction that would allow Ellis access to the court, but preclude him from filing frivolous papers. *See id.*at 1061 (noting prefiling order is narrowly tailored when it does not prevent filing but “merely subjects [pleadings] to an initial screening review by a district judge”).

We are not unmindful that “pre-filing orders are an extreme remedy that should rarely be used.” *Id.*at 1057. Nonetheless, we agree with the district court’s reasoning in affirming the bankruptcy court’s order that this case “presents the extreme circumstances in which an injunction against a vexatious litigant ... is authorized to deter such conduct.” Indeed, we also found it necessary to enter a pre-filing order that requires Ellis to submit all “future notices of appeal” so that we may “review [his] submissions and determine whether they merit further review and whether they should be filed.” *See In re Ellis,*No. 07-80057 (9th Cir. July 30, 2007) (unpublished order).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 8.1

List of Principal Subsidiaries

 

| Subsidiaries.                                     |    | Jurisdiction |    | Short Name                  |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|----------------------------------|
|                                              |         |         |
| Enel Generación Costanera S.A.               |    | Argentina    |    | Costanera                        |
| Dock Sud S.A.                                     |    | Argentina    |    | Dock Sud                         |
| Empresa Distribuidora Sur S.A.                    |    | Argentina    |    | Edesur                           |
| Enel Generación El Chocón S.A.          |    | Argentina    |    | El Chocón                   |
| Ampla Energia e Serviços S.A.                |    | Brazil       |    | Ampla                            |
| EGP Cachoeira Dourada S.A.                        |    | Brazil       |    | Cachoeira Dourada           |
| Central Geradora Termelétrica Fortaleza S.A. |    | Brazil       |    | Fortaleza                        |
| Enel CIEN S.A.                                    |    | Brazil       |    | CIEN                             |
| Companhía Energética de Ceará S.A. |    | Brazil       |    | Coelce                           |
| Enel Brasil S.A.                                  |    | Brazil       |    | Enel Brasil                      |
| Codensa S.A. E.S.P.                               |    | Colombia     |    | Codensa                          |
| Emgesa S.A. E.S.P.                                |    | Colombia     |    | Emgesa                           |
| Enel Generación Perú S.A.A.             |    | Peru         |    | Enel Generación Perú   |
| Enel Distribución Perú S.A.A.           |    | Peru         |    | Enel Distribución Perú |
| Enel Generación Piura S.A.                   |    | Peru         |    | Enel Generación Piura       |
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4513]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / 
Notices

[[Page 11250]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Bureau for Humanitarian Response, Office of Food for Peace; 
Announcement of Draft Guidelines for Title II Development Activity 
Programs

    Pursuant to the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
of 1954 (Pub. L. 480, as amended), notice is hereby given that the 
Draft Guidelines for Title II Development Activity Programs are being 
made available to interested parties for the required thirty (30) day 
comment period.
    Individuals who wish to receive a copy of these draft guidelines 
should contact: Office of Food for Peace, Agency for International 
Development, RRB 7.06-120, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 
20523-0809. Individuals who have questions or comments on the draft 
guidelines should contact Richard Newberg at the above address or at 
(202) 712-1828.
    The thirty-day comment period will begin on the date that this 
announcement is published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 8, 2001.
William T. Oliver,
Director, Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for Humanitarian Response.
[FR Doc. 01-4513 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M