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.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# SUMMARY:

                        The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. In its meeting, the BBG anticipates it will: Affirm its 2011 policy statements on sexual harassment and equal employment opportunity; consider, among other things, resolutions recognizing anniversaries of various broadcasting services; receive a budget update, an East Asia trip report, and a report from the Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau; receive and consider a report from the BBG Strategy and Budget Committee on the status of the current regional reviews, including Africa and Latin America; and receive and consider a report from the BBG Governance Committee on matters pertaining to committee administrative matters, board operations and responsibilities, grantee oversight, entity authority, and interaction with non-USIB entities. The meeting is open to public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the BBG's public Web site at                         *http://www.bbg.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545. 

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011-5426 Filed 3-4-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             616
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (50)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,994
<PP&E>                                           7,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,580)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,733
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,642
<OTHER-SE>                                          24
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,965
<SALES>                                         37,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,730
<CGS>                                           25,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,160 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       398
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        


</TABLE>
§ 515.6 Request for amendment or correction of records. ( a ) *How made and addressed.* An individual may make a request for an amendment or correction to a Commission record about that individual by writing directly to the Privacy Act Officer, following the procedures in § 515.3. The request should identify each particular record in question, state the amendment or correction that is sought, and state why the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The request may include any documentation that would be helpful to substantiate the reasons for the amendment sought.
( b ) *Privacy Act Officer response.* The Privacy Act Officer shall, not later than 10 working days after receipt of a request for an amendment or correction of a record, acknowledge receipt of the request and provide notification of whether the request is granted or denied. If the request is granted in whole or in part, the Privacy Act Officer shall describe the amendment or correction made and shall advise the requester of the right to obtain a copy of the amended or corrected record. If the request is denied in whole or in part, the Privacy Act Officer shall send a letter signed by the denying official stating: ( 1 ) The reason(s) for the denial; and
( 2 ) The procedure for appeal of the denial under paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Appeals.* A requester may appeal a denial of a request for amendment or correction in the same manner as a denial of a request for access as described in § 515.7. If the appeal is denied, the requester shall be advised of the right to file a Statement of Disagreement as described in paragraph (d) of this section and of the right under the Privacy Act for judicial review of the decision.
( d ) *Statements of Disagreement.* If the appeal under this section is denied in whole or in part, the requester has the right to file a Statement of Disagreement that states the reason(s) for disagreeing with the Privacy Act Officer's denial of the request for amendment or correction. Statements of Disagreement must be concise, must clearly identify each part of any record that is disputed, and should be no longer than one typed page for each fact disputed. The Statement of Disagreement shall be placed in the system of records in which the disputed record is maintained and the record shall be marked to indicate a Statement of Disagreement has been filed.
( e ) *Notification of amendment, correction, or disagreement.* Within 30 working days of the amendment or correction of the record, the Privacy Act Officer shall notify all persons, organizations, or agencies to which it previously disclosed the record, and if an accounting of that disclosure was made, that the record has been amended or corrected. If a Statement of Disagreement was filed, the Commission shall append a copy of it to the disputed record whenever the record is disclosed and may also append a concise statement of its reason(s) for denying the request to amend the record.
( f ) *Records not subject to amendment.* Section 515.13 lists the records that are exempt from amendment or correction.
§ 77.4 Application for and retention of zones. ( a ) A State animal health official may request at any time that the Administrator designate part of a State as having a different tuberculosis classification under this part than the rest of the State. The requested zones must be delineated by the State animal health authorities, subject to approval by the Administrator. The request from the State must demonstrate that the State complies with the following requirements: ( 1 ) The State must have the legal and financial resources to implement and enforce a tuberculosis eradication program and must have in place an infrastructure, laws, and regulations that require and ensure that State and Federal animal health authorities are notified of tuberculosis cases in domestic livestock or outbreaks in wildlife;
( 2 ) The State in which the intended zones are located must maintain, in each intended zone, clinical and epidemiologic surveillance of animal species at risk of tuberculosis at a rate that allows detection of tuberculosis in the overall population of livestock at a 2 percent prevalence rate with 95 percent confidence. The designated tuberculosis epidemiologist must review reports of all testing for each zone within the State within 30 days of the testing; and
( 3 ) The State must enter into a memorandum of understanding with APHIS in which the State agrees to adhere to any conditions for zone recognition particular to that request.
( b ) Retention of APHIS recognition of a zone is subject to annual review by the Administrator. To retain recognition of a zone, a State must continue to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section, as well as the requirements for maintaining or improving the tuberculosis risk classification of each zone in the State, and must retain for at least 2 years all certificates required under this part for the movement of cattle, bison, and captive cervids.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0146)
### Part D—General Provisions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANFORD D. JONES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LEE D. BACA, Sheriff of Los Angeles

County; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a

public entity,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56503

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-08194-PA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Sanford D. Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations during his

detention in the Los Angeles County Jail pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent

FILED

MAR 03 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Predator Act (“SVP Act”). We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918,

926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even

assuming that a constitutional deprivation occurred, Jones failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether any such constitutional deprivation resulted

from an official county custom or policy, whether Baca was personally involved in

any constitutional violation, or whether there was a causal connection between

Baca’s conduct and any such violation. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436

U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (requirements for municipal liability); Starr v. Baca, 652

F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for supervisory liability); see also

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (party opposing summary

judgment must present “significant probative evidence tending to support its claim

that material, triable issues of fact remain” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

We reject Jones’s contention that his detention in a jail pursuant to the SVP

Act is unconstitutional. See Jones, 393 F.3d at 932 (declining to hold that

involuntary civil commitment detainees cannot be housed in jail).

We also reject Jones’s contention that he raised a genuine dispute of material

fact based on the “totality of conditions” of his confinement. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682

2 11-56503
F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner,

515 U.S. 472 (1995) (courts generally may not find constitutional violations based

on the totality of conditions of confinement).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 

AFFIRMED.

3 11-56503
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12937-12938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5378]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-824]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: 
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Toni Page, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0197 or (202) 482-1398, respectively.

Background

    On December 21, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
issued the preliminary results of the new shipper review under the 
antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and 
strip from India for SRF Limited (SRF) covering the period July 1, 
2009, through December 31, 2009. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet and Strip from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 75 FR 81570 (December 28, 2010) (Preliminary Results). 
The final results of review are currently due March 21, 2011.

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), provide that the Department will issue 
the preliminary results of a new shipper review of an antidumping duty 
order within 180 days after the day on which the review was initiated, 
and the final results of review within 90 days after the date on which 
the preliminary results were issued. However, if the Department 
concludes that a new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated, the 
Department may extend the 180-day period to 300 days, and the 90-day 
period to 150 days. See 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).

Extension of Time Limit for Final Results

    The Department determines that this new shipper review is 
extraordinarily complicated because of questions that arose after the 
Preliminary Results concerning the bona fides of the new

[[Page 12938]]

shipper sale. Due to this issue, the Department had to issue another 
supplemental questionnaire to SRF, provide SRF with time to respond, 
and now must analyze SRF's response. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the 
Department is extending the time limit for the final results from 90 
days to 150 days. Thus, the final results will now be due no later than 
May 20, 2011.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(I) of the Act.

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-5378 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1258 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1258

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize funds for the payment of salaries and expenses of the 
          Patent and Trademark Office, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation 
Protection Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be made available for the payment of 
salaries and necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office in 
fiscal year 2000, $116,000,000 from fees collected in fiscal year 1999 
and such fees as are collected in fiscal year 2000 pursuant to title 
35, United States Code, and the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 
et seq.), except that the Commissioner is not authorized to charge and 
collect fees to cover the accrued indirect personnel costs associated 
with post-retirement health and life insurance of officers and 
employees of the Patent and Trademark Office other than those charged 
and collected pursuant to title 35, United States Code, and the 
Trademark Act of 1946.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

            Passed the Senate July 1, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1258

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize funds for the payment of salaries and expenses of the 
          Patent and Trademark Office, and for other purposes.
```
# C_2013336EN.01001702.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Knut IP Management v OHIM — Zoologischer Garten Berlin (KNUT — DER EISBÄR)

(Case T-250/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KNUT – DER EISBÄR - Earlier national word mark KNUD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2013/C 336/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Knut IP Management Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by C. Jaeckel, then by J. Steinberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Schulz and P. Vatankhah, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2010 (Case R 650/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Zoologischer Garten Berlin AG and Knut IP Management Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Knut IP Management Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Knut IP Management Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

1

---
### §1510. Clerical assistants

There shall also be such clerical assistants as may from time to time be authorized by the Congress.

(Feb. 14, 1903, ch. 552, §2, 32 Stat. 826; July 16, 1952, ch. 878, §2, 66 Stat. 710.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 594 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

#### Amendments

1952—Act July 16, 1952, provided for clerical assistants instead of a disbursing clerk.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Disbursement Clerk

Section, act Feb. 14, 1903, ch. 552, §2, 32 Stat. 826, provided for a disbursing clerk in the Department of Commerce.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Disbursement Agencies

Division of Disbursement and certain other offices and agencies and their functions consolidated into Fiscal Service of Department of the Treasury by Reorg. Plan No. III of 1940, §1(a)(1), eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2107, 54 Stat. 1231, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. See section 306 of Title 31, Money and Finance.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 800084

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.


### ANTHONY M. JONES
Private First Class ( E

- 2 ) , U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

______________________ ___ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Terrance J. Reese, USMC

. Convening Authority: C ommand ing Offic er, 1st Battalion, 10th Marine

Regiment, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejuene, NC

. Staff Judge Advocate’s R ecommendation: Lieutenant Colonel Keith A. Parrella, USMC

. For Appellant : Major David A. Peters, USMCR. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 21 June 2018

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON , S AYEGH , and E LLINGTON , Ap pellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court