alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated November 18, 2010, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on December 3, 2010, (75 FR 75498), Agilent Technologies, 25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630-8810, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Drug
SchedulePhencyclidine (7471)
II1-piperidinocyclohexanecarbonitrile (8603)
IIBenzoylecgonine (9180)
II
 The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances for use in diagnostic products. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Agilent Technologies to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Agilent Technologies to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 9, 2011. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2011-6163 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
NO. 07-06-0241-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JULY 25, 2007

______________________________

TOMMY JOE VASQUEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 121 DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY; ST

NO. 5428; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child and was

sentenced to twenty years. Appellant’s plea was entered after the trial court had overruled

a motion to suppress appellant’s written statement. The trial court certified appellant’s right

to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress his written statement. We affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion

to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion,
 In granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, however, we remind counsel to insure 1

that he has complied with the “educational” duty to inform appellant of his right to file a pro

se petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206

S.W.3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).

2

the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-

45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel

has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial

court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy

of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se

response. Appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,

but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an

independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable

grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346,

102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We

have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s 1

judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
KPMG LLP

4200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN  55402

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors of Allianz Life  Insurance  Company of North  America and
Contract Owners of Allianz Life Variable Account B:

We  consent  to the use of our  report  dated  March 19,  2004 on the  financial
statements of Allianz Life  Variable  Account B and our report dated January 19,
2004, on the consolidated financial statements of Allianz Life Insurance Company
of North America and  subsidiaries  included  herein and to the reference to our
Firm under the heading "EXPERTS".

Our report dated January 19, 2004 on the  consolidated  financial  statements of
Allianz Life  Insurance  Company of North America and  subsidiaries  refers to a
change in the method of accounting  for  derivative  instruments in 2001 and its
method of accounting for goodwill in 2002.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP
                                          KPMG LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 26,2004
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Green Mountain Power
Corporation  (the  "Company")  for  the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Robert  J. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Treasurer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as adopted pursuant to   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,  as  amended;  and
     (2)     the  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.



/s/Robert  J.  Griffin
----------------------


Robert  J.  Griffin
Chief  Financial  Officer,  Vice  President  and  Treasurer
March  11,  2004
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Surgical Partners International, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mark A. Kopser, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Mark A. Kopser Mark A. Kopser
### §430aa. Pea Ridge National Military Park; establishment

When not less than one thousand two hundred acres of the non-Federal lands hereinafter described (together with improvements thereon) and known as the Pea Ridge Battlefield, near Bentonville, Arkansas, shall have been acquired and transferred free and clear of all encumbrances to the United States without expense to the Federal Government, such areas shall be, and are hereby, dedicated and set apart as a unit of the National Park System for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States, under the name of the Pea Ridge National Military Park.

(July 20, 1956, ch. 653, §1, 70 Stat. 592.)
April 26, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals
CONNIE VASQUEZ HARRI SON , Appellant
NO. 14

- 10

- 00759

- CV V.

CLIFFORD LAYNE HARRI SON , Appellee

____________________ This court today heard a motion f or rehearing filed by appellee, CLIFFORD LAYNE HARRISON . We ord er that the motion be granted in part and overruled in part , and that this court’s former judgment of March 13, 2012, be vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order this court’ s opinion of March 13, 2012 , w ithdrawn.
This cause, an appeal from the judgmen t in favor of appellee, CLIFFORD LAYNE HARRISON , signed June 21, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find t he trial court erred

. We therefore AFFIRM the trial court’s divorce decree in so far as it grants the divorce, but we REVERSE the remainder of the trial court’s divorce decree and order it severed and REMAND for proceedings in accordance with this court’s opinion.

We order CLIFFORD LAYNE HARRI SON to pay a ll costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
ALERTE DE SANTÉ MONDIALE : COVID-19 

CS 315649-AU July 31, 2020 6:01 PM

Pour plus d’informations, consultez le site www.cdc.gov/COVIDtravel

Gardez 6 pieds (2 mètres) de distance avec les autres. Portez un masque. Lavez-vous souvent les mains.

Vous avez peut-être été exposé(e) à la COVID-19 pendant votre voyage.

Surveillez l’apparition de symptômes. Même sans symptômes, vous pouvez propager le virus 

à d’autres personnes.

ÉVITER AUX AUTRES PERSONNES DE TOMBER MALADE :

En pratiquant des activités impliquant des contacts rapprochés, vous risquez d’être exposé(e) à la COVID-19. 

Si vous pensez que vous avez peut-être été exposé(s) pendant votre voyage, faites très attention pendant les 14 jours 

suivant votre déplacement : 

ű Restez chez vous autant que possible. 

ű Évitez surtout de vous entourer de personnes présentant un risque élevé de maladie grave due à la COVID-19.

ű Envisagez de vous faire tester pour la COVID-19.

For information about COVID-19 and how to monitor your health after travel, open your cell phone 

camera and scan this code: 

Для получения информации о COVID-19 и о том, как контролировать 

состояние вашего здоровья после путешествия, включите камеру на 

вашем мобильном телефоне и отсканируйте этот код:

Pour obtenir des informations relatives à COVID-19 et à la manière de surveiller votre santé après 

un voyage, ouvrez la caméra de votre téléphone portable et scannez le code suivant :

코로나바이러스감염증-19(COVID-19) 및 여행 후 건강 상태를 모니터

링하는 방법에 대한 정보를 보려면, 휴대폰 카메라로 이 코드를 스캔

하십시오:

COVID-19 ,

, :

新型コロナウイルス感染症(COVID-19)に関する情報、

および旅行後の自身の健康状態を観察する方法について

は、携帯電話のカメラを起動して、このコードをスキャ

ンしてください:

Untuk mendapatkan maklumat mengenai COVID-19 dan cara mengawasi kesihatan anda selepas 

perjalanan, buka kamera telefon bimbit anda dan imbas kod ini:

Para obter informações sobre o COVID-19 e como monitorar sua saúde após a 

viagem, abra a câmera do seu celular e digitalize este código:

Para obtener información sobre el COVID-19 y cómo monitorear su salud después de 

un viaje, abra la cámara de su teléfono y escanee este código: 

有关COVID-19 的信息以及如何在旅行后监测您的健康状

况,请打开手机摄像头并扫描此二维码:

Per informazioni sulla COVID-19 e su come monitorare la Sua salute dopo il viaggio, 

apra la fotocamera del Suo cellulare e scansioni questo codice:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00400

- CR

GUADALUPE CORTEZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 06

- CR

- 2880

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cau se on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 27, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR JESUS VARGAS

- LEON, AKA Edgar J. Vargas Leon,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73482

Agency No. A044

- 569

- 849

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020 * *

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Jesus Vargas

- Leon

, a native and citizen of Mexico

, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum

, withholding of

removal

, and relief under the Convention Against T orture (“CAT”)

. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAR 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Vargas

- Leo n does not challenge the agency’s denial of

his asylum and withholding of removal claims

. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706

F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a

party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to

asylum and withholding of removal.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Vargas

- Leon failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with

the consent or acquiescence o f the government if returned to Mexico

. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also Wakkary v. Holder , 558

F.3d 1049, 1067

- 68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 August 12, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChairman and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Filed 12/16/08 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2008 ND 218

Anthony T. Miller, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20080113

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kent M. Morrow, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2155, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Tyrone J. Turner, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 E. Thayer Ave., Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Miller v. State

No. 20080113

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Anthony T. Miller appeals from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief and a district court order confirming credit for incarceration.  On appeal, Miller argues his attorney provided him ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court failed to give him credit for time served.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). 

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Vendor Outreach Day

The SEC provides this forum for interested businesses to exchange information about

their capabilities, ask questions about SEC’s procurement processes and discuss 

our forecast of procurement opportunities.

VOD SESSIONS

• Held monthly – dates varies month to month

• Offered to minority-owned, women-owned and small businesses

• Twenty (20) minute sessions to meet with the SEC personnel, including the 

OMWI Supplier Diversity Advocate and the SEC Small Business Specialist

• Participation via WebEx conference

TIPS FOR A SUCCESSFUL VOD SESSION

• Review SEC’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion website and SEC’s Office 

of Acquisition website to learn more about SEC’s procurement processes and 

opportunities.

• Review SEC’s Forecast of Contracting Opportunities for the upcoming 

opportunities within the Fiscal Year. 

• Review SEC’s Enterprise Contract Vehicle Listing for potential subcontracting 

opportunities with SEC prime contractors.

SCHEDULING OR CANCELLING A VOD SESSION

The Supplier Diversity Business Management System (SDBMS) serves as the central 

repository of general business information and statements of capabilities for vendors 

interested in SEC procurement opportunities. SDBMS is used to source diverse 

vendors for market research purposes in developing agency requirements and used to 

share information with vendors about SEC supplier diversity initiatives.

Visit Supplier Diversity Business Management System (SDBMS) to create a vendor 

profile and upload your capability statement. Once your profile is processed, the VOD

registration will be available within SDBMS to schedule an upcoming appointment.
#### Henry H. Collins, appellee, v. William J. Brown et al., appellants.

Filed March 19, 1902.

No. 11,352.

Foreclosure: Error: Supersedeas: Undertaking: Use and Occupation. In an error proceeding from a decree of the district court foreclosing a.real estate mortgage, an undertaking which does not provide for the payment of “the value of the use and occupation of the property” is not effective as a supersedeas.

Appeal from the district court for Lancaster county. Heard below before Frost, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Burr & Burr,*for appellants.

*Stephen L. Geisthardt, contra.*

Sullivan, C. J.

The district court of Lancaster county rendered a decree of foreclosure in an action brought by Henry H. Collins, the appellee herein, against William J% Brown and others. The defendants at once gave notice of their intention to appeal, and obtained an order fixing the amount of the supersedeas bond at $500. In due time an undertaking-conditioned as required by section 677 of the Code of Civil *174Procedure was given and approved. Afterwards a transcript of the proceedings in the district court, together with a petition in error, was fthed in this court, and a summons in error was issued, served and returned. Whthe the cause was pending in this court the decree of foreclosure was executed by a sale of the mortgaged property. When the motion for confirmation came on to be heard, it was resisted by defendants, on the ground that the decree had been superseded. The trial court, however, held that the sale was valid, and entered an order affirming it. This decision was, in our judgment, entirely right. Defendants sought to obtain a review of the proceedings of the district court by prosecuting error to this court. They might have brought the case here by appeal, but they did not do so; and they might have changed the character of the proceeding in this court by dismissing the petition in error, but this they did not do. The remedy first chosen was adhered to. This is the only inference warranted by the record. *Monroe v. Reid,*46 Nebr., 316; *Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Cass County,*51 Nebr., 369. The undertaking given by the defendants contained no provision binding them and their surety to pay “the value of the use and occupation of the property” affected by the decree. It fathed therefore to comply with one of the substantial requirements of section 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and consequently did not operate as a supersedeas. *State v. Thiele,*19 Nebr., 220.

Note.—The bond or undertaking is not a condition precedent to obtaining a review, but is essential to obtaining a supersedeas. *Creighton v. Keith,*50 Nebr., 810; *State v. Ramsey,*50 Nebr., 166. The bond or undertaking does not supersede unless conditioned according to law. *State v. Ramsey, supra; O’Chander v. State,*46 Nebr., 10. To supersede a confirmation, on appeal, the bond need not be in double the amount of the deficiency judgment. A bond to cover waste is sufficient. *Kountze v. Erck,*45 Nebr., 288, 293.—Reporter.

The order of Confirmation is

Affirmed.
§ 548.20 Dietary practices. ( a ) The Bureau provides inmates requesting a religious diet reasonable and equitable opportunity to observe their religious dietary practice within the constraints of budget limitations and the security and orderly running of the institution and the Bureau through a religious diet menu. The inmate will provide a written statement articulating the religious motivation for participation in the religious diet program.
( b ) An inmate who has been approved for a religious diet menu must notify the chaplain in writing if the inmate wishes to withdraw from the religious diet. Approval for an inmate's religious diet may be withdrawn by the chaplain if the inmate is documented as being in violation of the terms of the religious diet program to which the inmate has agreed in writing. In order to preserve the integrity and orderly operation of the religious diet program and to prevent fraud, inmates who withdraw (or are removed) may not be immediately reestablished back into the program. The process of reapproving a religious diet for an inmate who voluntarily withdraws or who is removed ordinarily may extend up to thirty days. Repeated withdrawals (voluntary or otherwise), however, may result in inmates being subjected to a waiting period of up to one year.
( c ) The chaplain may arrange for inmate religious groups to have one appropriate ceremonial or commemorative meal each year for their members as identified by the religious preference reflected in the inmate's file. An inmate may attend one religious ceremonial meal in a calendar year.
[60 FR 46486, Sept. 6, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 44836, Aug. 22, 1997; 68 FR 74860, Dec. 29, 2003]
### §204l. Application of Federal Power Act

The provisions of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.], shall not apply to any lands added to the Lassen Volcanic National Park under the authority of section 204k of this title.

(July 3, 1930, ch. 834, §2, 46 Stat. 853.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Power Act, referred to in text, was in the original the "Act of June 10, 1920, known as the Federal Water Power Act," and was redesignated as the Federal Power Act by section 791a of this title. The Federal Power Act is act June 10, 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, and is classified generally to chapter 12 (§791a et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 791a of this title and Tables.