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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-3163-EM] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Wisconsin, (FEMA-3163-EM), dated January 24, 2001, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 15, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of January 24, 2001:
      ( print page 11590)    
Columbia, Ozaukee and Waukesha Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program for a period of 48 hours.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 01-4603 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

Order Denying Motion for En Banc Reconsideration and Motion for Oral Argument

Appellate case name: Charlie Thomas Chevrolet, Ltd d/b/a Champion Chevrolet Gulf 

Freeway v. Genaro Martinez

Appellate case number: 01-17-00830-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-27666

Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County

The En Banc Court unanimously voted to deny Appellee Genaro Martinez’s motion for 

en banc reconsideration and his motion for oral argument. Therefore, the motion for en banc 

reconsideration and motion for oral argument are both denied. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Richard Hightower

 Acting for En Banc Court

En Banc Court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelley, Goodman, 

Landau, Hightower, and Countiss

Date: January 7, 2020
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3924]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


Open Meeting of the Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency 
Medical Services (FICEMS)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA announces the following open meeting.
    Name: Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services 
(FICEMS).
    Date of Meeting: March 1, 2001.
    Place: Suite 900, Emergency Medical Service for Children (EMS-C), 
8737 Colesville Road in Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
    Time: 10:30 a.m.
    Proposed Agenda: Review and submission for approval of previous 
FICEMS Committee Meeting Minutes; Ambulance Design Subcommittee and 
Technology Subcommittee Reports; presentation of member agency reports; 
reports of other Interested parties; discussion on Federal programs and 
policies regarding Public Access Defibrillation; presentation on 
military logistics program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to the public with 
limited seating available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members 
of the general public who plan to attend the meeting should contact 
William Troup, United States Fire Administration, 16825 South Seton 
Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, (301) 447-1231, on or before 
Monday, February 26, 2001.
    Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available upon 
request 30 days after they have been approved at the next FICEMS 
Committee Meeting on June 7, 2001.

Kenneth O. Burris, Jr.,
Acting U.S. Fire Administrator, United States Fire Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-3924 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-08-P
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-40101 Summary Calendar

THOMAS GREISAMER, MD

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL AT GALVESTON; GEORGE T. BRYAN, MD; JOAN C. LANG, MD; JAN BLALAOCK, PhD

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(G-96-CV-18)

May 30, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Plaintiff-Appellant sought damages from Defendants-Appellees

claiming discrimination under Title IX, Title VII and § 1983, and

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Defendants moved to

dismiss and for summary judgment. The district court granted the

motion to dismiss as to Bryan, Lang and Blaylock a nd as to all2

defendants dismissed claims asserted under § 1983. Appellant does

not argue these claims or his Title IX claim on appeal. The

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University

and only the claims against it under Title VII and the ADEA remain.

We have conducted a de novo review of the record and find no error.

Plaintiff offered no competent evidence to create any issue of

material fact. Additionally, the University offered a nonpretextual reason for not renewing Dr . Greisamer’s contract as a

resident in psychiatry. Appellant contends that the district court

terminated discovery thereby depriving him of the opportu nity to

gain information to create an issue of fact. This argument is not

persuasive. There were ten months during which discovery was

conducted. Additionally, Plaintiff did not suggest to the trial

court that he needed more time for discovery, nor does he suggest

to this court what information he would expect more discovery to

produce that he could use to create an issue of material fact.

AFFIRMED.
#### Malvin L. SCHAEFER, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 2011-3057.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2011.

Malvin L. Schaefer, Canton, TX, pro se.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Malvin L. Schaefer moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is granted.
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |   |                          |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Date:      August 7, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Dallas      E. Lucas |   |
|                      |   | Dallas      E. Lucas          |   |
|                      |   | Chief      Executive Officer  |   |
|                      |   |                          |   |
# Supreme Court of Kentucky

2019

- SC

- 000438

- MR

CHARLES LAMAR RICHARDSON APPELLANT

ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

V. HONORABLE MITCH PERRY, JUDGE

CASE NO. 2015

- CR

- 0 1542

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

ORDER DEN YING PETITION FOR REHEARING

The Petition for Rehearing, filed by the APPELLANT , of the Memorandum

Opinion of the Court

, rendered May 28 , 20 20 , is DENIED.

All sitting. All concur.

ENTERED: August 20, 2020.

_______________________________________ CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN D. MINTON , JR.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-0293

LT Case No. 2017-CF-16382

_____________________________

NATHAN T. GRIFFIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.

Christine Ann Marlewski, Judge.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, Tenth Judicial 

Circuit, and Andrea M. Norgard. Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonia C. 

Lawson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

August 2, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Nathan T. Griffin appeals an order revoking his probation

and resulting sentence. We affirm in all respects without further 

discussion. However, we remand for correction of a scrivener’s 

error in the revocation order, which incorrectly states that Griffin 

admitted to violating condition 5 of his probation. The record 
2

reflects that the court held a hearing on the violation, that Griffin 

contested the fact that he violated probation, and that the court 

found a willful and substantial violation. See Caldwell v. State, 72 

So. 3d 779, 779–80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct scrivener’s error.

MAKAR, HARRIS and SOUD, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 11064 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ALEX NOEL MENDOZA

- CANO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10

- CR

- 4

- 2

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alex Noel Mendoza

- Cano, federal prisoner # 39625

- 177, was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 102 months in prison and a five

- year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he challenges the district c ourt’s denial of the motion for reconsideration he filed with respect to his unsuccessful motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) . As he did in the district court, Mendoza

- Cano insists

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-11064 Document: 00512689582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2014No. 13

- 11064

that he is entitled to relief because his g uidelines calculations were flawed and because Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), provides for such relief. He is mistaken, and his arguments do not show that the district court abused its discretion in connection with its rejection of hi s motions. See United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2) ) ; Martinez v. Johnson , 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1997) . Although Mendoza

- Cano invoked § 3582(c)(1)(B), his claims do not fit within the confines of that subsection, nor do these claims fall under the strictures of the other subsections of § 3582(c). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his § 3582(c) motion. See Evans , 587 F.3d at 672 ; see also United States v. Garcia , 606 F.3d 209 , 212 n.5 (5th Cir. 2010). Because Alleyne does not affect this conclusion, the district court likewise did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration. See Martinez , 104 F.3d at 771 . The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.

2 Case: 13-11064 Document: 00512689582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2014
Exhibit 21





                                                         State of
Subsidiary                                            Incorporation
-----------------------------------------------    ---------------------

Car Care, Inc.                                     Delaware
Care Investment, Inc.                              Delaware
Colonial Full Service Car Wash, Inc.               Texas
Crystall Falls Car Wash, Inc.                      Delaware
CRCD, Inc.                                         Texas
Eager Beaver Car Wash, Inc.                        Florida
F.E.D. Properties, Inc.                            New York
50's Classic Car Wash of Lubbock, Inc.             Texas
Mace Car Wash - Arizona, Inc.                      Arizona
Mace Car Wash, Inc.                                Delaware
Mace Security Centers, Inc.                        Colorado
Mace Security Products, Inc.                       Delaware
Mace Texas I, Inc.                                 Delaware
Mace Texas II, Inc.                                Delaware
Mace Trademark Corp.                               Delaware
Mace Truck Wash, Inc.                              Delaware
Mace Wash, Inc.                                    Delaware
MSP Retail, Inc.                                   Colorado
Worth Manufacturing Company, Inc.                  Texas
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 12, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00807

- CR

Mark All en WATSON, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 2380

- CR

- B The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on September 19, 2016

. No further extensions will be granted

.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of September, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 17, 2009

p0414 

# Order

April 17, 2009

137024 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137024 COA: 285582 Allegan CC: 07-015202-FH MICHAEL JAY EDING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of December 10, 2 008, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the appli cation for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be revi ewed by this Court.

K ELLY , C.J. ( dissenting ).

I would vacate defendant’s sentence and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing because OV 10 of the sentencing guidelines was misscored. Nothing in the record shows that defendant engaged in preo ffense conduct aimed at victimizing another person, as MCL 777.40(3 )(a) requires to support the score that the trial court gave for OV 10. Because the prosecutor appears to have conceded the scorin g error, defendant is entitled to resentencing. People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82 (2006).
Exhibit 32 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 Oak Ridge Micro-Energy, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark L. Meriwether, President of the Registrant, certify, 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 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 Registrant.  Date:November 14, 2008By:/s/Mark L. MeriwetherMark L. Meriwether, President and Director
Order entered July 16 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00160
- CV
IN RE BRIDGET PARSON A/K/A BRIDGET BROWN PARSON , Relator

Orig inal Proce e ding fr om the C ou nty Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 15
- 01563

O RDER Before Ju stices Molberg, Reichek , and Smith
Relator has filed a notice stating that she has filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to 11 U .S .C. § 362, further action in this cause is automatically stayed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, this cause is ABATED . It may be
reinstat ed on prompt motion by any party showing that the stay has been lifted and speci fy ing what further action, if any, is required from this Court. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 8.3.
/s/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2356

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 to extend the

authority of the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain construction

projects in the Virgin Islands.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1993

Mr. DE LUGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1990

to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army

to carry out certain construction projects in the Virgin

Islands.

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

3 That section 406 of the Water Resources Development Act

4 of 1990 (48 U.S.C. 1405c note; 104 Stat. 4646) is amend5 ed by striking subsection (c).

Æ
Exhibit 10.3


 


Form of Supplying Agreement


 


Party A: Greater Khingan Range Forasen
Energy Technology Co., Ltd. - Tahe Biopower Plant


 


Party B:


 


The following agreements are reached after
friendly negotiation based on the reciprocal principle of both parties.


 


1. The price of wood chips is subjected
to the mutual agreement of both parties, the total payment for each purchase will be determined after delivery;


 


2. The processing specification of wood
chips is determined by Party A;


 


3. Any dispute occurred during the implementation
of this agreement is allowed to be solved by negotiation between the two parties.


 


4. If any other issues occur, supplemental
agreements can be added after negotiation between both parties. Supplemental agreement is equally effective as this agreement.


 


5. This agreement is entered by and between
Party A and Party B upon signing and stamping. This agreement is made in duplicate with one copy held by each party.


 


 


Party A: Greater Khingan Range Forasen
Energy Technology Co., Ltd. - Tahe Biopower Plant


  


 


 


Party B:
J

- A24005

- 18

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DONALD LEE KRIETZ

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 493 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 15, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 01

- SA

- 0000101

- 2017

BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Donald Lee Krietz appeals, pro se , from the judgment of sentence
entered on February 15, 2018, in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas.
At a summary trial on that same day, the trial court convicted Krietz of

m aximum speed limits in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3362(a)(2). The court
sentenced Krietz to pay a fine in the amount of $67.00, plus all fees, fines,
and costs mandated by law.

The record reveals that on March 20, 2018, the trial court ordered Krietz

to f ile a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Krietz failed to do so. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
has previously held that issues are waived when an appellant fails to file a
timely, court

- ordered concise sta tement. See Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Schofield , 888 A.2d 771 (Pa.J

- A24005

- 18

- 2

-

2005). 1 Here, we find Krietz’s failure to file a concise statement results in

waiver of the sole issue 2 raised on appeal, and consequently, his ap peal is

dismissed. See Castillo , supra

. Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Matter stricken from
argument list.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 0 9/19/2018

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 See also Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/2018, at 1, citing Feingold v. Hendrzak , 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2 In his one

- page pro se brief, Krietz challenges the weight of the evidence with respect to the credibility of the investigating police officer. See Krietz’s Brief.