alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.40 Refund of cash deposits. ( a ) When a cash deposit is made in lieu of surety, it shall be refunded to the person in whose name the entry is made upon exportation in compliance with § 10.38.
( b ) If any article entered under Chapter 98, subchapter XIII, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, is not exported or destroyed within the period of time during which articles may remain in the customs territory of the United States under bond (including any lawful extension), the Center director shall notify the importer in writing that the entire cash deposit will be transferred to the regular account as liquidated damages unless a written application for relief from the payment of the full liquidated damages is filed with the Center director within 60 days after the date of the notice. If such an application is timely filed, the transfer of the cash deposit to the regular account as liquidated damages shall be deferred pending the decision of the Headquarters, U.S. Customs and Border Protection or, in appropriate cases, the Center director on the application.
[28 FR 14663, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41165, Oct. 19, 1984; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 41249, Dec. 21, 1988; CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93013, Dec. 20, 2016]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donnie Wayne NIPPER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4628.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 1, 2006.

Lisa S. Costner, Lisa S. Costner, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Donnie Wayne Nipper appeals the 195-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of transporting stolen vehicles in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312, 2 (2000), and possession of a firearm in commerce after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). The district court concluded that Nipper qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal and sentenced him under an advisory sentencing regime, after consideration of the applicable sentencing range and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), to a sentence in the middle of the applicable guideline range.

On appeal, Nipper asserts that his sentence violates the Supreme Court’s holding in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because his sentence was enhanced based upon facts, *ie.,*his qualifying prior convictions, that were not alleged in the indictment, admitted to by him, or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Nipper does not assert that his prior convictions are not valid predicates for sentencing as an armed career criminal, but states only a legal challenge to his sentence. Nipper acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by existing Supreme Court precedent on prior convictions and this court’s decision in *United States v. Cheek,*415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.2005). He asserts, however, that the prior conviction exception will eventually be overruled, based on Justice Thomas’s concurrence in *Shepard v. United States,*544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, *175161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). In *Cheek,*we considered and rejected an argument identical to Nipper’s contentions on appeal. We concluded:

> It is thus clear that the Supreme Court continues to hold that the Sixth Amendment (as well as due process) does not demand that the mere fact of a prior conviction used as a basis for a sentencing enhancement be pleaded in an indictment and submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even were we to agree with Cheek’s prognostication that it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court overrules *Almendarez-Torres,*we are not free to overrule or ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents.

*Cheek,*415 F.3d at 352-53.

We therefore affirm Nipper’s conviction and sentence. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
### §181. Program for exchange of information among legislative branch agencies

(a) On September 16, 1996, there shall be established a program for providing the widest possible exchange of information among legislative branch agencies with the long-range goal of improving information technology planning and evaluation. The Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate are requested to determine the structure and operation of this program and to provide appropriate oversight. All of the appropriate offices and agencies of the legislative branch as defined below shall participate in this program for information exchange, and shall report annually on the extent and nature of their participation in their budget submissions to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) the term "offices and agencies of the legislative branch" means, the office of the Clerk of the House, the office of the Secretary of the Senate, the office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Government Accountability Office, the Government Publishing Office, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate; and

(2) the term "technology" refers to any form of computer hardware and software; computer-based systems, services, and support for the creation, processing, exchange, and delivery of information; and telecommunications systems, and the associated hardware and software, that provide for voice, data, or image communication.

(Pub. L. 104–197, title III, §314, Sept. 16, 1996, 110 Stat. 2415; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(b), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.

"Government Publishing Office" substituted for "Government Printing Office" in subsec. (b)(1) on authority of section 1301(b) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note preceding section 301 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents.
§ 18.400 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
( b ) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
( c ) A filing or amended filing on or after the date on which an administrative action for the imposition of a civil penalty is commenced does not prevent the imposition of such civil penalty for a failure occurring before that date. An administrative action is commenced with respect to a failure when an investigating official determines in writing to commence an investigation of an allegation of such failure.
( d ) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, by reason of a violation by any person, the agency shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the effect on the ability of such person to continue in business, any prior violations by such person, the degree of culpability of such person, the ability of the person to pay the penalty, and such other matters as may be appropriate.
( e ) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $10,000 and $100,000, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
( f ) An imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not prevent the United States from seeking any other remedy that may apply to the same conduct that is the basis for the imposition of such civil penalty.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report FY...**
 
2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27: M 87/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000638242
 
October 30, 2017
Composite Exhibit 10

Case 0:20-cv-61404-DPG Document 1-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 1 of 4
Case 0:20-cv-61404-DPG Document 1-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 2 of 4
USPTO Assignments on the Web

http://assignments.uspto.gov/...&reel=&frame=&sno=&rno=3117381&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=&apct=&apcti=&rgst=&rgsti=[11/15/2018 12:13:02 PM]

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Home|Site Index|Search|Guides|Contacts|eBusiness|eBiz alerts|News|Help

Assignments on the Web > Trademark Query

Trademark Assignment Abstract of Title

Total Assignments: 4

Serial #: 79012121 Filing Dt: 05/31/2005 Reg #: 3117381 Reg. Dt: 07/18/2006

Registrant: Haltin SA, c/o CM Management Services S.

Mark: RICHARD MILLE

Assignment: 1

Reel/Frame: 3335/0828 Recorded: 06/22/2006 Pages: 2

Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME

Assignor: TURLEN HOLDING S.A. Exec Dt: 05/01/2006

Entity Type: UNKNOWN

Citizenship: SWITZERLAND

Assignee: HALTIN SA, C/O CM MANAGEMENT SERVICES S.A.

RUE DE L'AVENIR 23

CH-2800 DELÉMONT, SWITZERLAND

Entity Type: UNKNOWN

Citizenship: SWITZERLAND

Correspondent: HALTIN SA,

RUE DE L'AVENIR 23

CH-2800 DELÉMONT

SWITZERLAND

Assignment: 2

Reel/Frame: 3420/0813 Recorded: 11/02/2006 Pages: 2

Conveyance: ASSIGNS THE ENTIRE INTEREST

Assignor: HALTIN SA Exec Dt: 07/05/2006

Entity Type: UNKNOWN

Citizenship: SWITZERLAND

Assignee: TURLEN HOLDING SA C/O C.M. MANAGEMENT SERVICES S.A.

RUE DE L'AVENIR 23

CH-2800 DELÉMONT, SWITZERLAND

Entity Type: SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME

Citizenship: NONE

Correspondent: TURLEN HOLDING SA

RUE DE L'AVENIR 23

CH-2800 DELÉMONT

SWITZERLAND

Assignment: 3

Reel/Frame: 4598/0616 Recorded: 08/05/2011 Pages: 2

Conveyance: CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Assignor: TURLEN HOLDING SA Exec Dt: 06/28/2011

Entity Type: UNKNOWN

Citizenship: SWITZERLAND

Assignee: TURLEN HOLDING SA

C/O SIPO S.A.

CHEMIN DU CH?TEAU 26A

CH-2805 SOYHI?RES, SWITZERLAND

Entity Type: UNKNOWN

Citizenship: NONE

Correspondent: TURLEN HOLDING SA

C/O SIPO S.A.

Case 0:20-cv-61404-DPG Document 1-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 3 of 4
USPTO Assignments on the Web

http://assignments.uspto.gov/...&reel=&frame=&sno=&rno=3117381&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=&apct=&apcti=&rgst=&rgsti=[11/15/2018 12:13:02 PM]

CHEMIN DU CH?TEAU 26A

CH-2805 SOYHI?RES

SWITZERLAND

Assignment: 4

Reel/Frame: 5716/0684 Recorded: 01/28/2016 Pages: 2

Conveyance: CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Assignor: TURLEN HOLDING SA Exec Dt: 11/27/2015

Entity Type: UNKNOWN

Citizenship: NOT PROVIDED

Assignee: TURLEN HOLDING SA

RUE DU JURA 11

CH-2345 LES BREULEUX, SWITZERLAND

Entity Type: UNKNOWN

Citizenship: NOT PROVIDED

Correspondent: TURLEN HOLDING SA

RUE DU JURA 11

CH-2345 LES BREULEUX

SWITZERLAND

Search Results as of: 11/15/2018 12:13 PM

If you have any comments or questions concerning the data displayed, contact PRD / Assignments at 571-272-3350. v.2.6

Web interface last modified: August 25, 2017 v.2.6

| .HOME | INDEX| SEARCH | eBUSINESS | CONTACT US | PRIVACY STATEMENT

Case 0:20-cv-61404-DPG Document 1-11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 4 of 4
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1670-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 1 of 3
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1670-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1670-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2023 Page 3 of 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.23 Standards, quotas, and visas.

All requirements and restrictions applicable to imported merchandise, such as labeling, radiation standards, flame-retarding properties, quotas, and visas, apply to assembled articles eligible for the exemption in the same manner as they would apply to all other imported merchandise.

[T.D. 75-230, 40 FR 43025, Sept. 18, 1975]
#### § 9180.1 Interpretation of survey records.
MARY ANN GRIFFIN,

Appellant,

v.

GLENN R. GRIFFIN, JR.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5875

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 11, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

Mary Ann Griffin, pro se, Appellant.

Timothy J. Nusser of Timothy J. Nusser, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Joseph R. MIULLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART,* Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-55679.

D.C. No. CV-00-01237(RZ).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 **.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Jo Anne B. Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The panel therefore denies Miulli’s request for argument.

MEMORANDUM ****

Joseph R. Miulli appeals pro se the district court’s *judgment affirming the Com*missioner *of*Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his application for Title II Social Security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, and we review for substantial evidence or legal error the Commissioner’s decision. *Tidwell v. Apfel,*161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s determination that Miulli is not disabled. *See id.*The Commissioner properly rejected the opinion of Miulli’s treating physician by “setting forth specific, legitimate reasons ... based on substantial evidence in the record.” *Winans v. Bowen,*853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir.1987) (quotations omitted). The Commissioner also provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by the record, for rejecting Miulli’s testimony. *See Bunnell v. Sullivan,*947 F.2d 341, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citations omitted).

Miulli waived his contention that the ALJ failed to consider his back trouble in combination with his alleged depression because he failed to raise it before the district court. *See Edlund v. Massanari,*253 F.3d 1152, 1158 *&*n. 7 (9th Cir.2001).

The ALJ’s hypothetical to the Vocational Expert was reasonable and elicited meaningful testimony, because the ALJ’s key question was supported by substantial evidence and the vocational expert’s answers were definitive. *See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d*747, 756-57 (9th Cir.1989).

*700Miulli’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

****

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Denali Highway Georeferenced PDF Map

This PDF map is designed for use on your GPS-enabled mobile device and can be displayed on any PDF reader. When viewed in an installed mobile map application, this map is designed so that your location can be displayed on screen in real time. 

Georeferenced map applications allow you to navigate using your mobile device’s GPS even without cellular reception. There are a variety of georeferenced PDF apps available for Apple and Android devices. 

**This map is not intended to be used as a federal subsistence hunting map.**

## Download Files

Maps_GeoPDF_Alaska_Denali_Highway.pdf(PDF / 18.5 MB)

## Publication Date

Mon, 03/27/2017

## Region

## Organization

**Collection: **

**Category: **

## Keywords
### §43. Creation and composition of courts

(a) There shall be in each circuit a court of appeals, which shall be a court of record, known as the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit.

(b) Each court of appeals shall consist of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service. The circuit justice and justices or judges designated or assigned shall be competent to sit as judges of the court.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 870; Pub. L. 88–176, §1(a), Nov. 13, 1963, 77 Stat. 331.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §212 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §117, 36 Stat. 1131).

The provision in section 212 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for a three-judge court of appeals was permissive and did not limit the power of the court to sit in banc. Thus, subsection (b) reflects present status of law, namely, that court is composed of not only circuit judges of the circuit in active service, of whom there may be more than three, but the circuit justice or justices and judges who may be assigned or designated to the court. (See Textile Mills Securities Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1942, 62 S.Ct. 272, 314 U.S. 326, 86 L.Ed. 249 and Reviser's Notes under section 46 of this title.)

Words "with appellate jurisdiction, as hereinafter limited and established" were omitted as covered by section 1291 et seq. of this title, conferring appellate jurisdiction on the courts of appeals.

The term "court of appeals" was substituted in this section and throughout this title for the term "circuit court of appeals."

Provision for a quorum of the court is now covered by section 46(d) of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1963—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 88–176 inserted "regular" before "active service".

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

#### Change of Name of Court

Act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §2(b), 62 Stat. 985, provided in part that each circuit court of appeals should, after Sept. 1, 1948, be known as a United States Court of Appeals, but that the enactment of act June 25, 1948 should in no way entail any loss of rights, interruption of jurisdiction, or prejudice to matters pending in any such courts on Sept. 1, 1948.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  /s/ Carlos      Stocker                                               |
| CARLOS      STOCKER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Chief      Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| April      14, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-169 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Tuesday, November 18,

1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has scheduled a

meeting on December 3 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will

begin at 10 a.m. in Room T-2B1, of the NRC's Two White Flint

North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Subcommittee on

Planning and Procedures will discuss proposed ACRS activities and

the qualifications of candidates for appointment to ACRS. Some

portions of the meeting dealing with internal personnel rules and

practices of ACRS, may be closed to the public.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for

public comment, will be described in a Notice of Meeting

published in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

#