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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (1173).                    

*Dates/Time:*                         October 25, 2004, 8:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m. and October 26, 2004, 8:30 a.m.—2 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1235 S, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Margaret E.M. Tolbert, Senior Advisor and Executive Liaison, CEOSE, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8040.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the Executive Liaison at the above address.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning broadening participation in science and engineering.                    

*Agenda:*

## Monday, October 25, 2004

Welcome by the CEOSE Chair.

Introduction of New Members.

Review of the CEOSE Meeting Agenda.

Discussions:

CEOSE Meetings Held at Little Big Horn and Chief Dull Knife Colleges in Montana;

Meeting with Dr. Ardent L. Bement, Acting Director of the National Science Foundation.

Congressionally Required Ten-Year Reports Prepared by CEOSE Members.

## Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Opening Statement by the CEOSE Chair.

Presentations:

Response to Action items in the CEOSE Meeting Minutes;

Report on Mentoring Workshop;

Reports on NSF Advisory Committees;

Changes in SESTAT;

Data on Persons with Disabilities.

Discussions:

Plans for the CEOSE 2004 Biennial Report to Congress;

Recommendations by CEOSE;

Dates for Future CEOSE Meetings.

Dated: September 28, 2004.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-22222 Filed 10-01-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS

LIMITED, a Public Limited Company,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC, a New

Jersey Limited Liability Company,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-15532

D.C. No. 

2:14-cv-02961-DJC-CKD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Daniel J. Calabretta, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2024

Pasadena, California

Before: BOGGS,** RAWLINSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 

In V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited v. Meenakshi Overseas, LLC, 946 F.3d

542 (9th Cir. 2019) (“VVV I”), Appellant V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited

FILED

FEB 1 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
(VVV) appealed the dismissal of its trademark claims for three marks: (1) the mark

“IDHAYAM” for sesame oil products, Reg. No. 4,006,654 (the ‘654 Mark); (2) the

mark “IDHAYAM” for a variety of cooking oil products, Reg. No. 4,225,172 (the

‘172 Mark); and (3) the mark “IDHAYAM SOUTH INDIAN DELITE” for a

variety of cooking oil and staple food products, Reg. No. 4,334,000 (the ‘000

Mark). We reversed the district court’s dismissal of VVV’s claims as to the ‘654

Mark, and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims regarding the other

two marks based on VVV’s non-opposition to dismissal of those claims. See id. at

546–47. 

On remand, the district court entered final judgment as to the dismissal with

prejudice of all claims relating to the ‘172 and ‘000 Marks. VVV now appeals that

judgment, contending that the district court misinterpreted the mandate to mean

that it no longer had jurisdiction to consider claims relating to the ‘172 and ‘000

Marks. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see

Creech v. Tewalt, 84 F.4th 777, 787 (9th Cir. 2023), we affirm. 

The rule of mandate requires the district court to strictly comply with the

mandate of the appellate court. See id. Particularly, “the mandate of an appellate

court forecloses the lower court from reconsidering matters determined in the

appellate court.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Our mandate

2
in VVV I was clear. We expressly reserved only the claims relating to the ‘654

Mark to be considered by the district court on remand. VVV I, 946 F.3d at 547. 

Under the mandate, the claims relating to the ‘172 and ‘000 Marks were

foreclosed. See id. The district court complied with the mandate in dismissing

those claims with prejudice. We are not persuaded by VVV’s arguments to the

contrary. 

AFFIRMED.

3
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-60853-RAR

FEDIA SAMEDY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE RESOURCES, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense 

(“Motion”) [ECF No. 9], filed on May 28, 2020. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks to strike 

Defendant’s third affirmative defense, which asserts that “any violation of federal or state law in 

[Defendant’s] dealings with Plaintiffs [sic] was a bona fide error, notwithstanding the maintenance 

of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error.” Answer [ECF No. 5] at 4. Having reviewed 

the Motion, Answer, and the record, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART. Defendant’s third affirmative defense is STRICKEN because it is conclusory and lacks 

necessary detail. See Oriole Gardens Condo. Ass’n I v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., No. 11-62281, 

2012 WL 864629, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2012) (noting that “an affirmative defense must be 

stricken when the defense comprises no more than bare-bones, conclusory allegations.”); see also 

Morrison v. Exec. Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2005). 

Case 0:20-cv-60853-RAR Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Defendant is granted leave to replead this stricken defense with greater specificity

and is encouraged to review the Court’s analysis of the standard for establishing the bona fide error

defense in Malone v. Accounts Receivable Res., Inc., 408 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2019). 

3. Defendant shall file an amended answer and affirmative defenses in compliance 

with this Order on or before June 16, 2020. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 2020.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-60853-RAR Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3511.12 Are there standard terms and conditions which apply to all leases?

Yes. BLM will issue your lease on a standard form which will contain several terms and conditions. We will add your rental rate, royalty obligations and any special stipulations to this lease form.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CHARLES A. BROWN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-815 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed August 22, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Robinson v. State, 37 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Coke v. State, 955 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

BLACK, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
§ 3175.115 Spot samples—frequency. ( a ) Unless otherwise required under paragraph (b) of this section, spot samples for all FMPs must be taken and analyzed at the frequency (once during every period, stated in months) prescribed in Table 1 to § 3175.110.
( b ) After the time frames listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the BLM may change the required sampling frequency for high-volume and very-high-volume FMPs if the BLM determines that the sampling frequency required in Table 1 in § 3175.110 is not sufficient to achieve the heating value uncertainty levels required in § 3175.31(b). ( 1 ) *Timeframes for implementation.* ( i ) For high-volume FMPs, the BLM may change the sampling frequency no sooner than 2 years after the FMP begins measuring gas or January 19, 2021, whichever is later; and
( ii ) For very-high-volume FMPs, the BLM may change the sampling frequency or require compliance with paragraph (b)(5) of this section no sooner than 1 year after the FMP begins measuring gas or January 17, 2020, whichever is later.
( 2 ) The BLM will calculate the new sampling frequency needed to achieve the heating value uncertainty levels required in § 3175.31(b). The BLM will base the sampling frequency calculation on the heating value variability. The BLM will notify the operator of the new sampling frequency.
( 3 ) The new sampling frequency will remain in effect until the heating value variability justifies a different frequency.
( 4 ) The new sampling frequency will not be more frequent than once every 2 weeks nor less frequent than once every 6 months.
( 5 ) For very-high-volume FMPs, the BLM may require the installation of a composite sampling system or on-line GC if the heating value uncertainty levels in § 3175.31(b) cannot be achieved through spot sampling. Composite sampling systems or on-line gas chromatographs that are installed and operated in accordance with this section comply with the uncertainty requirement of § 3175.31(b)(2).
( c ) The time between any two samples must not exceed the timeframes shown in Table 1 to this section.
( d ) If a composite sampling system or an on-line GC is installed under § 3175.116 or § 3175.117, either on the operator's own initiative or in response to a BLM order for a very-high-volume FMP under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, it must be installed and operational no more than 30 days after the due date of the next sample.
( e ) The required sampling frequency for an FMP at which a composite sampling system or an on-line gas chromatograph is removed from service is prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF

THE UNITED STATES CODE AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
BankUnited Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation (the Company), for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Quarterly
Report), I, Alfred R. Camner, Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                       
|-----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
|                       
|/s/ ALFRED R. CAMNER   
|Alfred R. Camner       
|                       
|Dated: May 12, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22165]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Reserach and 
Production Act of 1993--Ethernet in the First Mile Alliance

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 26, 2004, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Ethernet in the First Mile 
Alliance (``EFMA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Actelis Networks, Fremont, CA; Agilent Technologies, 
Santa Rosa, CA; Harbour Networks, Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; 
Tometrix, San Francisco, CA; and University of New Hampshire, 
InterOperabilty Lab, Durham, NH have been added as parties to this 
venture. Also, Alloptic, Inc., Livermore, CA; Analog Devices, Norwood 
MA; BATH Advanced Communications, Yokneam Ilit, ISRAEL; Broadcom, 
Irvine, CA; Calix, Petaluma, CA; Fiberintheloop, Marlow, UNITED 
KINGDOM; Finisar Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA; Harmonic, Inc., Sunnyvale, 
CA; Intel, Santa Clara, CA; National Semiconductor, Santa Clara, CA; 
Panasonic Semiconductor Dev. Co., San Jose, CA; Paradyne, Alpharetta, 
GA; Spirent Communications, Calabasas, CA; Texas Instruments, Dallas, 
TX; and World Wide Packets, Veradale, WA have been dropped as parties 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and EFMA intends to file addiltional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 16, 2002, EFMA filed its original notification pursuant 
to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 8, 2002 (67 FR 10760).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 3, 
2002. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65603).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-22165 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
PUBLIC LAW 106–234—JULY 6, 2000 114 STAT. 487

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2307:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 145 (1999): Nov. 8, considered and passed House.

Vol. 146 (2000): June 23, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–234

106th Congress

An Act

To designate the building of the United States Postal Service located at 5 Cedar

Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The building of the United States Postal Service located at

5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Thomas

J. Brown Post Office Building’’.

Approved July 6, 2000.

July 6, 2000

[H.R. 2307]
#### § 3501.30 May I appeal BLM's decisions under this part?

Any party adversely affected by a BLM decision under this part may appeal the decision under parts 4 and 1840 of this title.
#### § 3461.3-2 Application of criteria on leased lands.

The unsuitability criteria shall not be applied to leased lands.

[47 FR 33149, July 30, 1982. Redesignated at 52 FR 46473, Dec. 8, 1987]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Frederick Moser, Appellant.

*Crime*— *seduction*— *evidence.*

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court of Queens county, entered in the office of the clerk of said comity on the 23d day of November, 1913, denying bis motion for a new trial, and from a judgment of said court, rendered on the 39th day of November, 1913, convicting him of the crime of seduction under promise of marriage.

Per Curiam:

Unaided by a brief for the respondent, promised after delay but not forthcoming, we have considered with care the evidence. It appears that as early as Christmas, 1911, the complainant and defendant were engaged to be married, and that at some time they had sexual intercourse resulting in the complainant’s pregnancy. The indictment charges that on or about July ninth the defendant seduced her “by means of a promise of marriage.” The complainant fixes the offense on the 9th day of July, 1913, at about eight p. M., at her house, and denies intercourse at any other time. The difficulty is that the complainant is not only uncorroborated as to the time and place when the act was done, but the testimony of the witnesses Loeffier, Lemmo and Mrs. Moser shows that the complainant on that evening was in their company on a trolley ride. The complainant’s mother testified to a conversation with the defendant, but did not make definite the date of the occurrence to which her conversation with defendant refers, and the testimony of the other witnesses is not more helpful. This condition of the evidence requires a new trial, and this court expects that in the interests of justice it will be had promptly. While there was no exception, the court’s charge at folio 361 seems to take from the jury a fact that it was its province to determine. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Queens county reversed and new trial ordered.
1

BLD-061 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4127

___________

In re: JEFFREY ALONZO SIMMS,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to D. Del. Civ. No. 1-11-cv-01010)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 8, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 23, 2011)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Jeffrey Alonzo Simms, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus 

compelling the District Court to rule on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the 

reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.

Simms filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court on 

October 21, 2011. On October 25, 2011, Simms requested that the District Court provide 
2

him with copies of “criminal case: motion to get good day credits on 7-8-2006” and 

“hearing in case 11:5132 U.S. Supreme Court.” The District Court responded the next 

day by letter, noting that his requests for copies appeared to be for closed cases, and 

informing him of the fee for copies. On November 16, 2011, Simms filed a petition for a 

writ of mandamus. In it, he appears to make substantive arguments from his § 2254 

petition and asks this court to “order the institution to provide adequate records,” 

including “criminal and medical documents.” 

 Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, see In re 

Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005); the petitioner must 

demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a 

“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 

(3d Cir. 1996). Less than two months have passed since Simms filed his § 2254 petition;

thus, there has been no appreciable delay in the District Court. See Madden, 102 F.3d at 

79 (an appellate court “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is 

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction”). We are confident that the District Court 

will enter an order in due course. As to his claims for documents, his requests are nearly 

unintelligible. It is impossible for us to tell what documents from which cases, closed or 

otherwise, he is seeking. In any event, he has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable 

right to the copies. The District Court informed him that he may request and pay for such 

copies in the future. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
§ 38.1 Definitions. In this subpart: *Adjusted annual rate of pay* means an employee's scheduled annual rate of pay multiplied by 1.08 and rounded to the nearest whole dollar, counting 50 cents and over as a whole dollar. *Employee* means a U.S. Park Police officer whose official duty station is located in an interim geographic adjustment area.
*Interim geographic adjustment area* means any of the following Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). ( 1 ) New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT; and
( 2 ) San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA.
*Official duty station* means the duty station for an employee's position of record as indicated on his or her most recent notification of personnel action.
*Scheduled annual rate of pay* means— ( 1 ) The U.S. Park Police rate of basic pay for the employee's rank and step, exclusive of additional pay of any kind;
( 2 ) A retained rate of pay, where applicable, exclusive of additional pay of any kind.
#### § 3809.111 Will BLM disclose to the public the information I submit under this subpart?

Part 2 of this title applies to all information and data you submit under this subpart. If you submit information or data under this subpart that you believe is exempt from disclosure, you must mark each page clearly “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” You must also separate it from other materials you submit to BLM. BLM will keep confidential information or data marked in this manner to the extent required by part 2 of this title. If you do not mark the information as confidential, BLM, without notifying you, may disclose the information to the public to the full extent allowed under part 2 of this title.