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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [NM-920-1310-04; NMNM 108479] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 108479 for lands in Lea County, New Mexico, was timely filed and was accompanied by all required rentals and royalties accruing from June 1, 2003, the date of termination. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico State Office, (505) 438-7586. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500.00 administrative fee and has reimbursed the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice.                 

The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lease Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate the lease effective June 1, 2003, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. 

Lourdes B. Ortiz, 

Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team. 

[FR Doc. 04-22004 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
#### § 3904.12 Where to file bonds.

File one copy of the bond form with original signatures in the proper BLM state office. Bonds must be filed on an approved BLM form. The obligor of a personal bond must sign the form. Surety bonds must have the lessee's and the acceptable surety's signatures.
### PART II—PROVISIONS COMMON TO FORFEITURES

Sec.
7321.
Authority to seize property subject to forfeiture.
7322.
Delivery of seized personal property to United States marshal.
7323.
Judicial action to enforce forfeiture.
7324.
Special disposition of perishable goods.
7325.
Personal property valued at $100,000 or less.
[7326.
Repealed.]
7327.
Customs laws applicable.
7328.
Cross references.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(b)(50), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1205, struck out item 7326 "Disposal of forfeited or abandoned property in special cases".

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–514, title XV, §1566(d), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2763, substituted "$100,000" for "$2,500" in item 7325.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1904(b)(8)(H)(ii), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1816, struck out item 7328 "Confiscation of matches exported" and redesignated item 7329 as 7328.

**1958**—Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §204(11), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1429, substituted "$2,500" for "$1,000" in item 7325.
#### § 3278.12 How long will information I give BLM remain confidential or proprietary?

The FOIA does not provide a finite period of time during which information may be exempt from public disclosure. BLM will review each situation individually and in accordance with part 2 of this title.
Appendix E. Glossary

Word or Acronym Definition

AI Active ingredient

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

part 161 40 CFR part 161. Antimicrobial uses were covered in the original part 

158, which was promulgated in 1984 and developed primarily for 

agricultural pesticides. The original part 158, became part 161 and 

temporarily applies only to antimicrobials until part 158W is 

promulgated

Baseline The data requirements under part 161

Current practice The data requirements as practiced from 2000 through 2005, that is, the 

baseline (CFR part 161) plus data requirements that have been imposed 

on a case-by-case basis, 2000-2005.

Incremental cost The additional costs of the rule compared to the baseline. 

EA Economic Analysis

Newly Codified 

Data Requirements

Data not required for antimicrobials under part 161, even though most of 

these data have been currently required in practice on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Newly Codified 

Expanded Use 

Pattern

Increase in the probability of data required for the use pattern in a test 

currently in part 161

New data 

requirements

Newly codified data requirements that are not currently being imposed.

D&B Dun and Bradstreet – a source of financial data on firms.

Registration action. In this EA, the use of the term "registration action" refers to an 

application for registration of a new product that contains an active 

ingredient that is not included in any currently registered product, an 

application for a new product that includes the addition of a use pattern 

that is not currently registered for one or more active ingredients 

contained in the product, and an amendment of a registration of a product 

that includes the addition of a use pattern that is not currently registered 

for one or more active ingredients contained in the product. Registration 

action, in general use, can refer to other registration actions, such as label 

amendments, but these are not relevant to this economic analysis.
§ 3173.21 Combining production downhole in certain circumstances. ( a ) ( 1 ) Combining production from a single well drilled into different hydrocarbon pools or geologic formations (*e.g.,* a directional well) underlying separate adjacent properties (whether Federal, Indian, State, or private), where none of the hydrocarbon pools or geologic formations underlie or are common to more than one of the respective properties, constitutes commingling for purposes of §§ 3173.14 through 3173.20.
( 2 ) If any of the hydrocarbon pools or geologic formations underlie or are common to more than one of the properties, the operator must establish a unit PA (see 43 CFR part 3180) or CA (see 43 CFR 3105.2-1-3105.2-3), as applicable, rather than applying for a CAA.
( b ) Combining production downhole from different geologic formations on the same lease, unit PA, or CA in a single well requires approval of the AO (see 43 CFR 3162.3-2), but it is not considered commingling for production accounting purposes.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


March 25, 2002



Management Report on Internal Control over
Servicing of Securitized Credit Card Receivables

Management of JPMorgan Chase Bank is responsible for establishing and
maintaining effective internal control over servicing of securitized credit card
receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
proper servicing of securitized credit card receivables. The internal control
system contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and actions are taken to correct
deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in any internal control, including the
possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls.
Accordingly, even effective internal control can provide only reasonable
assurance with respect to servicing of securitized credit card receivables.
Further, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control
may vary over time.

Management of JPMorgan Chase Bank assessed its internal control over servicing
of securitized credit card receivables as of December 31, 2001 in relation to
criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal
Control-Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management
believes that, as of December 31, 2001, JPMorgan Chase Bank maintained effective
internal control over servicing of securitized credit card receivables.


/s/ Richard Srednicki
------------------------------
Richard Srednicki
Executive Vice President
JPMorgan Chase Bank


/s/ Daniel DeMeo
------------------------------
Daniel DeMeo
Senior Vice President
JPMorgan Chase Bank
§ 3837.11 When may I acquire a delinquent co-claimant's interests in a mining claim or site? ( a ) You may acquire a co-claimant's interest in a mining claim or site under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) You are a co-claimant who has performed the assessment work, made improvements, or paid the maintenance fees required under parts 3834 and 3836 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Your co-claimant fails to contribute a proportionate share of the assessment work, expenditures, or maintenance fees by the end of the assessment year concerned;
( 3 ) You notify the delinquent co-claimant of the alleged delinquency as provided in § 3837.21; and
( 4 ) If, within 90 days following the date the delinquent co-claimant received the notice provided for under § 3837.21 or 90 days following the end of the publication period described in § 3837.21, the delinquent co-claimant fails or refuses to contribute a proportionate share of the assessment work, expenditures, or maintenance fees, the remaining co-claimants acquire the delinquent co-claimant's share in the mining claim or site.
( b ) You may not acquire a co-claimant's interest in a mining claim or site if the co-claimant is on active military duty.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21D0334. DEWAYNE THOMAS v. THE STATE.

In 2013, Dewayne Thomas pled guilty to two drug offenses and wassentenced

as a first offender to ten years, to serve five in confinement and the remainder on

probation. In 2019, the trial court revoked Thomas’s probation and first-offender

status upon finding that he had committed new offenses and violated certain

conditions of probation. The court adjudicated him guilty of the 2013 offenses and

sentenced him to a total of 40 years in confinement. 

In November 2020, Thomasfiled a motion to correct hissentence, arguing that

the trial court had erred by imposing a more severe sentence upon revoking his firstoffender probation. The trial court denied the motion, and Thomas filed a direct

appeal to thisCourt. We dismissed the appealfor lack of jurisdiction because Thomas

was required to file a discretionary application to obtain review of an order revoking

first-offender probation. See Case No. A21A0807 (Jan. 14, 2021).

Back in the trial court, Thomas filed a second motion to correct his sentence,

again arguing that the court had erred by imposing a more severe sentence upon

revoking his first-offender probation. On March 23, 2021, the trial court entered an

order finding that Thomas’ssecond motion wasidentical to the first and therefore was

moot. On May 3, 2021, Thomas filed this application for discretionary appeal. We

lack jurisdiction because the application was not timely filed.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35

are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in

compliance therewith. See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220 (1) (728 SE2d 617)

May 27, 2021
(2012); Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Thomas filed

this application 41 days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal. Accordingly, the

application is untimely and is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/27/2021
**CHANGE IN PURPOSE OF USE**

7.(a)The parties anticipate that, during the term of this Settlement Contract, a gradual change in the purpose of use of water will occur within the place of water use shown in Exhibit B from predominantly agricultural purposes to a mixture of municipal and industrial, wildlife habitat and agricultural purposes, and the parties agree to work cooperatively to accommodate and facilitate such change.  Base Supply and Project Water furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this Settlement Contract may be delivered or furnished by the Contractor for agricultural or municipal and industrial purposes:  Provided, however, that the Contractor shall not deliver or furnish Base Supply or Project Water for municipal and industrial purposes outside those areas delineated on Exhibit B, as approved for such purposes by the Contracting Officer, without the written consent of the Contracting Officer.  Such consent will not be unreasonably withheld and a decision will be provided in a timely manner following completion of any environmental review required under applicable law.For purposes of this Settlement Contract, “agricultural purposes” includes, but is not restricted to, the irrigation of crops, the watering of livestock, incidental domestic use including related landscape irrigation, or underground water replenishment; and “municipal and industrial purposes” includes, but is not limited to, the watering of landscaping or pasture for animals (e.g., horses) which are kept for personal enjoyment or water delivered to landholdings operated in units of less than 5 acres unless the Contractor establishes to the satisfaction of the Contracting Officer that the use of Project Water is for agricultural purposes

514748.1
#### Lillian Williams, Respondent, v. Howard Kemp et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

*892All concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-21746-CIV-MORENO

NATIONAL EQUESTRIAN LEAGUE, LLC 

and JUMPING CLASH, S.L., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KEEAN WHITE, ANGELSTONE FARMS, 

INC., MORRISEY MANAGEMENT GROUP, 

LLC, and MAJOR LEAGUE SHOW 

JUMPING LLC,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE GOODMAN’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, filed 

on March 5, 2021. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (D.E. 50) on May 

26, 2021. The Court has reviewed the entire file and record. The Court has made a de novo 

review of the issues and notes that no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has 

now passed. Being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is 

ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report and 

Recommendation is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is

ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss is DENIED in large part as set forth 

in the Report and Recommendation. The Court grants the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as 

follows: (1) striking Plaintiffs’ requests for disgorgement of profits in their breach of contract 

claims; (2) striking Plaintiffs’ request for damages other than actual damages, infringer profits, 

Case 1:20-cv-21746-FAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

and costs for copyright infringement in Count XIII; and (3) striking Plaintiffs’ request for 

damages other than actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and court costs for the FDUTPA claim. 

It is also

ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint by June 18, 2021 and 

Defendants shall substantively answer all counts by June 25, 2021. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th of June 2021.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-21746-FAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO CASTELO-LINARES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73480 

Agency No. A206-262-756 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Castelo-Linares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of 

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

* 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

OCT 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73480 

questions of law, including claims of due process violations in immigration 

proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We 

deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in pretermitting Castelo-Linares’s application for 

cancellation of removal, where the evidence “indicates that one or more of the 

grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply.” See

8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (a conviction for a crime 

of domestic violence, as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), is a ground for 

mandatory denial of an application for cancellation of removal).

Castelo-Linares failed to meet his burden to establish that he is not subject to 

mandatory denial of relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); see also Pereida v. 

Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 760 (2021) (applicant for removal relief bears the 

burden of establishing eligibility for discretionary relief, including that the 

applicant has not been convicted of certain disqualifying offenses).

The BIA did not err or violate Castelo-Linares’s right to due process by 

concluding the IJ did not fail to provide him an opportunity to meet his burden of 

proof, where Castelo-Linares was on notice for approximately eleven months of 

the need to provide evidence that he was not convicted of a crime of domestic 

violence in order to establish his eligibility for relief. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 

F.3d at 830 (requiring demonstration of a violation of rights to prevail on a due 
3 16-73480 

process claim).

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### John S. Pedersin, Respondent, v. Leonhard Michel Brewing Company, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Certification of questions is unnecessary. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
# Официален вестник C 249I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 249I |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 6329 юли 2020 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 249I

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 6329 юли 2020 г.

---

| Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Информация |
| | ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ |
| | Съвет |
| 2020/C 249 I/01 | Приемане на измененията на процедурния правилник на Евроюст | 1 |

Съдържание

Страница

IV   Информация

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ

Съвет

2020/C 249 I/01

Приемане на измененията на процедурния правилник на Евроюст

1

---

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

IV Информация

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ

Съвет

| 29.7.2020 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CI 249/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2020

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CI 249/1

---

Приемане на измененията на процедурния правилник на Евроюст

(2020/C 249 I/01)

На 24 юли 2020 г. колегията на Евроюст прие изменения на процедурния правилник на Евроюст (1). Тези изменения са приложени към Решение за изпълнение (ЕС) 2020/1114 на Съвета от 23 юли 2020 г. (2).

За колегията на Евроюст,

Ladislav HAMRAN

Председател на Евроюст

---

(1)  Одобрени от Съвета с Решение за изпълнение (ЕС) 2019/2250 от 19 декември 2019 г. (ОВ L 336, 30.12.2019 г., стр. 309) и приети от колегията на 20 декември 2019 г. (ОВ L 50, 24.2.2020 г., стр. 1.).

1

(2)  OВ L 244, 29.7.2020 г., стp. 13

2

---
#### Fred Meyers, as President of Paper Box Makers Union, Local 299, International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite *&*Paper Mill Workers of America, A. F. of L., an Unincorporated Association, et al., Respondents, *v.*Huschle Brothers, Inc., et al., Appellants.

First Department,

December 22, 1947.

*108*Daniel F. Kelley*of counsel *(Nugent & Nugent,*attorneys), for appellants.

*George Rifkin*of counsel *(Ashe & Rifkin,*attorneys), for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Special Term correctly struck out paragraphs X through XXVI of the answer, allowing defendant to plead over, for the reason that they are redundant, and that section 241 of the Civil Practice Act requires a pleading to contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts, even in an action for libel. Furthermore, the said material is insufficient in law if regarded as purporting to allege the defense of justification, since it is not clear that the answer intends to apply these statements about labor unions in general to the plaintiff union *(Larocque*v. *New York Herald Company,*220 N. Y. 632).

*109In permitting the defendants to amend their answer, however, scope must he allowed to them to comply with the rules that in pleading justification the particular facts and circumstances constituting what is claimed to have been the truth must be set forth in some detail, and that a mere reiteration of the libelous words and the averment that they are true is insufficient *(Wachter*v. *Quenzer,*29 N. Y. 547, 552; *Bingham*v. *Gaynor,*203 N. Y. 27, 34), and that in pleading mitigation, the particular mitigating circumstances must themselves be stated, including the sources of defendants’ information and the grounds for their belief, so as to show absence of actual malice (Civ. Prac. Act, § 338). This would also be true with respect to disproving the existence of actual malice under the defense of qualified privilege, except that where facts appear giving rise to a relationship resulting in qualified privilege, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish actual malice *(Byam*v. *Collins,*111 N. Y. 143, 150; *Peeples*v. *State of New York,*179 Misc. 272, 276; Seelman, Law of Libel and Slander [1933 ed.], par. 541).

The order so far as appealed from should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements.
#### William Luhman, Respondent, v. New York, Westchester and Boston Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon *930authority of *Luhman*v. *New*York, *Westchester & Boston Railway Company*(163 App. Div. 964). Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.