alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 500.5 Notification, appeals, and actions held in abeyance. ( a ) If FSIS takes a withholding action or imposes a suspension, the establishment will be notified orally and, as promptly as circumstances permit, in writing. The written notification will: ( 1 ) State the effective date of the action(s),
( 2 ) Describe the reasons for the action(s),
( 3 ) Identify the products or processes affected by the action(s),
( 4 ) Provide the establishment an opportunity to present immediate and corrective action and further planned preventive action; and
( 5 ) Advise the establishment that it may appeal the action as provided in §§ 306.5, 381.35, and 590.310 of this chapter.
( b ) The prior notification provided for in § 500.4 of this part will: ( 1 ) State the type of action that FSIS may take;
( 2 ) Describe the reason for the proposed action;
( 3 ) Identify the products or processes affected by the proposed action;
( 4 ) Advise the establishment of its right to contact FSIS to contest the basis for the proposed action or to explain how compliance has been or will be achieved; and
( 5 ) Advise the establishment that it will have three business days from receipt of the written notification to respond to FSIS unless the time period is extended by FSIS.
( c ) An establishment may appeal the withholding action or suspension, as provided in §§ 306.5, 381.35, and 590.310 of this chapter.
( d ) If FSIS suspends inspection and does not hold the suspension action in abeyance as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the establishment may request a hearing pursuant to the Uniform Rules of Practice, 7 CFR Subtitle A, part 1, subpart H. Upon such request, the Administrator will file a complaint that will include a request for an expedited hearing.
( e ) FSIS may hold a suspension in abeyance and allow the establishment to operate under the conditions agreed to by FSIS and the establishment.
[64 FR 66546, Nov. 29, 1999, as amended at 85 FR 68673, Oct. 29, 2020; 85 FR 81340, Dec. 16, 2020]
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, DC 20549





FORM 6-K





REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER


PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





1 August 2024





Commission File Number: 001-10691





DIAGEO plc


( Translation of registrant’s name into English )





16 Great Marlborough Street, London, United Kingdom, W1F 7HS


( Address of principal executive offices )





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.





Form 20-F þ Form 40-F  ̈










































































---




SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Diageo plc


(Registrant)


Date: 01 August 2024


By:  /s/ James Edmunds


James Edmunds


Deputy Company Secretary























































































































---




EXHIBIT INDEX





EXHIBIT NUMBER                   EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION


99                                                   Diageo plc Annual Report 2024 dated 1 August 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) THOMAS McKEITHAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0086 (ESH) ) WILLIAM A. BOARMAN, ) Public Printer, United States ) Government Printing Office ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On May 25, 2011, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint [Dkt. No. 11]. This Court issued a minute order granting a request from plaintiff, Thomas McKeithan, to amend his complaint, and directing plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss no later than July 6, 2011. (Minute Order, June 27, 2011.) Plainti ff’s amended complaint merely included “additional factual bases for hol ding Defendant responsible for unlawful acts of retaliation.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File an Am. Compl. [D kt. No. 16] at 4-5.) Nevertheless, by filing the amended complaint, “the plaintiff[] rendere d [his] original complaint a nullity.” Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran , No. 08-cv-1460, 2009 WL 4981537, at *1 (D .D.C. Dec. 14, 2009). Therefore, because the defendant’s motion seeks to “dismi ss a complaint that has been subsequently amended,” it is moot and must be denied. Id.; see also Myvett v. Williams , 638 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 n.1 (D.D.C. 2009) (denying as moot defendants’ motion to dismiss “the original complaint” because “plaintiff filed the amended complaint after the defendants moved to dismiss the original”); Bancoult v. McNamara , 214 F.R.D. 5, 13 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Because the original2 complaint now is superseded by the amended comp laint, the court denies without prejudice all pending motions pertaining to th e original complaint.”). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 11] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. It is further ORDERED that the Court’s Minute Order of June 27, 2011 is VACATED IN PART , to the extent it ordered pl aintiff to respond to a motion that was moot. It is further ORDERED that defendant shall file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, if appropriate, by July 21, 2011. It is further ORDERED that if defendant fails to file a motion to dismiss by July 21, 2011, the Court shall issue an Initial Scheduling Order. /s/ ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE United States District Judge Date: July 7, 2011
- Home
- Regulations and Compliance

# PHMSA Guidance

Although some of the materials that can be accessed from this page may fall outside the definitions of “guidance” set forth in 49 CFR 5.25(c), PHMSA has determined that they include potentially useful information for stakeholders and is including them in this database in an effort to make these materials easier for members of the public to find. You may also find useful information that is potentially not accessed from the page in the links below:
                      - PHMSA FAQs
                      - PHMSA Advisory Bulletins
                      - Pipeline Enforcement Guidance
                      - Pipeline Glossary
                      - Pipeline Guidance Manuals
                      - Pipeline Operator Resources
                      - Pipeline Technical Resources
                      - Hazardous Materials Publications
                      - Hazardous Materials Safety Field Operations and Enforcement Guidance
                      - Hazardous Materials Emergency Waivers

Members of the public may submit comments on draft guidance documents noticed in the Federal Register through Regulations.gov. Comments on any guidance document; requests for issuance, reconsideration, modification, or rescission of any guidance document; or concerns about PHMSA’s compliance with the OMB Good Guidance Bulletin regarding existing guidance documents may be submitted to PHMSA_Guidance@dot.gov. Please identify the guidance document in your request.

**Search Instructions**
                      - To search for PHMSA Guidance Documents (not including Interpretations), use the Keywords or Issued Date fields on the left side of the search box below. Your search results will display in the table below.
                      - To search for PHMSA Regulations Interpretations, use the Interpretations Keyword Search on the right side of the search box, or click the “PHMSA Interpretations Advanced Search” link. Results using the Interpretations Keyword Search will open in a new browser window.

PHMSA Interpretations Advanced Search

# Pagination

-  «« First 
-  ‹‹‹ 
-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 
- …
-  ››› 
-  »Last »
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03642

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03642\03642_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03642\03642_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03642\03642_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03642\03642_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03642\03642_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03642\03642_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03642\03642_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03642\03642_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03642\Certification Statement Plant ID 03642.PDF Plant certification statement

03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_2010_9_15 IRPP EPA Effluent ICR Coverletter.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian River Part A MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian_River_Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian_River_Part_A_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_Indian_River_Part_D_D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_IRPP.intake_area_detail-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03642\Supplemental Documents\03642_IRPP.wide_view.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 51.30 Claims for indemnity. ( a ) Claims for indemnity for goats, sheep, and horses destroyed because of brucellosis must be made using an indemnity claim form furnished by APHIS. On the form, the owner of the animals must certify whether the animals are subject to a mortgage. If the owner states there is a mortgage, the claim form must be signed by the owner and by each mortgage holder, consenting to the payment of any indemnity allowed to the owner. Payment will be made only if the claimant has submitted a complete indemnity claim form to the Veterinarian in Charge and the claim has been approved by the Veterinarian in Charge or by an APHIS representative designated by him or her. The Veterinarian in Charge or an APHIS representative designated by the Veterinarian in Charge will record on the APHIS indemnity claim form the amount of Federal and State indemnity payments that appear to be due to the owner of the animals. The owner of the animals will receive a copy of the completed APHIS indemnity claim form. The owner is responsible for paying all fees for holding the animals on the farm pending disposal and for all trucking fees.
( b ) Claims for indemnity for registered sheep and registered goats must be accompanied by the animal's registration papers, issued in the name of the owner. If the registration papers are unavailable or if the animal is less than 1 year old and not registered at the time the claim for indemnity is submitted, the Veterinarian in Charge may grant a 60-day extension or the Administrator may grant an extension longer than 60 days for the presentation of registration papers. Any animal that is not registered but is eligible for registration at the time the claim is submitted will be considered unregistered unless the animal has been in the flock for less than 12 months.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0185)
# C_2013101EN.01001701.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Melli Bank v Council

(Case T-492/10) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Entity wholly owned by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)

2013/C 101/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, and by D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Ashley, S. Jeffrey, and A. Irvine, Solicitors, and by D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant and, further, an application for a declaration of the inapplicability of Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Melli Bank plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Melli Bank plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
#### § 381.523 Separation of operations.

A selected establishment may conduct operations under the cooperative State poultry products inspection program if the establishment implements and maintains written procedures for complete physical separation of product and process for each operation by time or space.
### §1119. Power of court over registration

In any action involving a registered mark the court may determine the right to registration, order the cancelation of registrations, in whole or in part, restore canceled registrations, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registrations of any party to the action. Decrees and orders shall be certified by the court to the Director, who shall make appropriate entry upon the records of the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall be controlled thereby.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title VI, §37, 60 Stat. 440; Pub. L. 93–596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(b)(1)(B)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–583.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Act Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, §22, 33 Stat. 729.

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–113 substituted "Director" for "Commissioner".

1975—Pub. L. 93–596 substituted "Patent and Trademark Office" for "Patent Office".

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

#### Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents.

#### Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–596 effective Jan. 2, 1975, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93–596, set out as a note under section 1111 of this title.

#### Repeal and Effect on Existing Rights

Repeal of inconsistent provisions, effect of this chapter on pending proceedings and existing registrations and rights under prior acts, see notes set out under section 1051 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Commerce, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Commerce, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 5 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
| **RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS (Details 1) (USD $)** | 3 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| Management Fees Paid                               | $ 0            | $ 14,622 |
| Series One [Member]                                |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 0 |
| Series Two [Member]                                |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 5,418 |
| Series Three [Member]                              |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 0 |
| Series Four [Member]                               |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 5,367 |
| Series Five [Member]                               |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 3,837 |
| Series Six [Member]                                |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | $ 0            | $ 0 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Amount of management fees paid during the period.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**bctci_ManagementFeesPaid**Namespace Prefix:**bctci_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-45 

June 30, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is to confirm our telephone conversations concerning the impending acquisition by * * * of the operating assets

of the * * * The * * * is presently covered under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(hereinafter "the Act") and, as such, certain vested benefits provided by the plan would be guaranteed to participants in

the event of a plan termination. 

As you know, it is only within the past week that we received specific information concerning the arrangements for

operation of the transit system following acquisition. Based on the facts made available to us, it appears that, pursuant

to sec. 4021(b) (2) of the Act, the plan will become excluded from coverage under Title IV after the county acquires the

assets, because thereafter the plan will be one

established and maintained for its employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of any

State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing, or to which the

Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 applies and which is financed by contributions required under that Act. [Sec.

4021(b) (2)] [*2] 

This conclusion is based in large part on our interpretation of the agreement (the "Agreement") to be executed

between * * *, a private corporation which we understand is being created. 

Accordingly, the guarantee of benefits under Title IV of the Act will cease upon the acquisition by * * * of the

operating assets of the * * * 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
### §1639f. Requirements for prompt crediting of home loan payments

#### (a) In general

In connection with a consumer credit transaction secured by a consumer's principal dwelling, no servicer shall fail to credit a payment to the consumer's loan account as of the date of receipt, except when a delay in crediting does not result in any charge to the consumer or in the reporting of negative information to a consumer reporting agency, except as required in subsection (b).

#### (b) Exception

If a servicer specifies in writing requirements for the consumer to follow in making payments, but accepts a payment that does not conform to the requirements, the servicer shall credit the payment as of 5 days after receipt.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §129F, as added Pub. L. 111–203, title XIV, §1464(a), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2184.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date on which final regulations implementing such section take effect, or on the date that is 18 months after the designated transfer date if such regulations have not been issued by that date, see section 1400(c) of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 1601 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2011
SONG WU LIN, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-181-936) Submitted: April 30, 2007 Decided: May 11, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Song Wu Lin, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Kristin Kay Edison, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.*As Lin fails to set forth any argument concerning the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, we find that this claim has been abandoned on appeal. See Yousefi v. INS , 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Song Wu Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition. * In his petition for review, Lin maintains that he met his burden of proof for his request for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lin’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal.” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).- 3 - Because Lin fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, though we grant Lin leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED