alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 7.8 Elementary and secondary schools.

The requirements of section 7 with respect to any elementary or secondary school or school system shall be deemed to be satisfied if such school or school system (a) is subject to a final order of a court of the United States for the desegregation of such school or school system, and provides an assurance that it will comply with such order, including any future modification of such order, or (b) submits a plan for the desegregation of such school or school system which the United States Commissioner of Education determines is adequate to accomplish the purpose of the Act and this regulation, and provides reasonable assurance that it will carry out such plans; in any case of continuing Federal financial assistance the responsible agency official may reserve the right to redetermine, after such period as may be specified by him, the adequacy of the plan to accomplish the purposes of the Act and this regulation. In any case to which a final order of a court of the United States for the desegregation of such school or school system is entered after submission of such a plan, such plan shall be revised to conform to such final order, including any future modification of such order.
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. 99-158 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, July 26, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has

scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on severe accident management August 9-10 in

Rockville, Maryland.

The subcommittee will review: the proposed revision of the source term rule and drafts

of the associated regulatory guide and standard review plan section; the proposed revision to

Regulatory Guide 1.78, “Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant

Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release;” and the status of issues

associated with the agency’s severe accident research program.

The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day in room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White

Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Those who wish to make oral statements may contact Paul Boehnert, at 301-415-8065,

at least five days prior to the meeting. Mr. Boehnert may also be contacted with regard to

schedule changes or to obtain further information.

###
FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATION

                                 EXHIBIT 31

                               CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven B. Chotin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fund America
Investors Corporation II;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and


5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls, over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and


b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.




Date:    November 7, 2005                        /s/ Steven B. Chotin
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Steven B. Chotin
                                                Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41137 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. TAMALA MICHELLE WOODS Defendant-Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1-99-CR-10-2

-------------------- April 5, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tamala Michelle Woods contends that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress. Woods has waived this issue by entering an unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Wise , 179 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Bell , 966 F.2d 914, 916-17 (5th Cir. 1992). Woods argues that the district court erred in refusing to adjust her offense level for acceptance of responsibility. This court reviews a district court's finding on acceptance of2

responsibility "under a standard of review even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard." United States v. Gonzales , 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Woods denied knowing that she was transporting cocaine and falsely denied relevant conduct. The district court did not err in refusing to award an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 comment. (n.1(a)). Woods contends that the district court erred in adjusting her offense level upward for obstruction of justice. A district court’s finding of obstruction of justice pursuant to § 3C1.1 is a factual finding which this court reviews for clear error. United States v. Upton , 91 F.3d 677, 687 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Woods provided materially false information to the probation officer regarding her prior criminal conduct and her true identity. See § 3C1.1, comment. (nn.4(h) & 6). The judgment is
AFFIRMED.
### §53. Possessory actions for recovery of mining titles or for damages to such title

No possessory action between persons, in any court of the United States, for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land in which such mines lie is in the United States; but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

(R.S. §910.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §910 derived from act Feb. 27, 1865, ch. 64, §9, 13 Stat. 441.

Section was formerly classified to section 690 of Title 28 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, by act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1, 62 Stat. 869.
----

Appeal brought on 15 September 2005 (fax 9 September 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-7/04 between Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, the other party to the proceedings being Limiñana y Botella, SL

(Case C-334/05 P)

(2005/C 296/25)

Language of the case: Italian

An appeal against the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 June 2005 in Case T-7/04 between Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 September 2005 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, represented by O. Montalto and M. Capostagno, acting as Agents, the other party to the proceedings being Limiñana y Botella, SL.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant considers that the judgment of the Court of First Instance under appeal in this case is vitiated by misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.

It is settled principle that the assessment of likelihood of confusion between trade marks under Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation on the Community trade mark is based on two distinct elements: first, an analytical comparison between both the signs and the goods, and then a concise evaluation of the results obtained in order to determine whether the average consumer of the goods in question might believe that those goods come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings. In particular, as regards the comparison between the signs, the analysis directed at establishing whether the signs are similar must take into consideration the visual, phonetic and conceptual aspects to arrive at a global assessment based on the general impression given by the marks themselves, taking particular account of their distinctive and dominant components.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance failed to give effect to the principle cited above and, in particular, it dismissed the possibility of confusion, basing its assessment exclusively on the visual perception of the contested mark, without taking any account of the further elements which may not be ignored in the overall assessment the likelihood of confusion.

The applicant also submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by manifest inconsistency and illogicality.

----
# HARVEST NATURAL RESOURCES, INC.

FORM 10-K (Annual Report)



## Filed 03/16/10 for the Period Ending 12/31/09

Address 1177 ENCLAVE PARKWAY STE 300 HOUSTON, TX 77077 Telephone 281-899-5700 CIK 0000845289 Symbol HNR SIC Code 1311 - Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry Oil & Gas Operations Sector Energy Fiscal Year 12/31

http://www.edgar-online.com © Copyright 2010, EDGAR Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distribution and use of this document restricted under EDGAR Online, Inc. Terms of Use.
#### § 19.10 Examination packages.

Merchandise sent from a bonded warehouse to the appraiser's stores for examination shall be returned by the port director to the warehouse for delivery unless the warehouse proprietor endorses the duty-paid permit to authorize delivery to another person.

[T.D. 82-204, 47 FR 49371, Nov. 1, 1982]
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

136029 Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. SEVELTA W. LOFTON, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices

v SC: 136029 COA: 277845 WCAC: 01-000331 AUTOZONE, INC., and EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, Defendants-Appellants, and

SECOND INJURY FUND (DUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS), Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission mailed April 4, 2007, and we REMAND this case to the Board of Magistrates for reconsid eration in light of Stokes v Chrysler LLC , 481 Mich 266 (2008). If it is found that the plaintiff is disabled under MCL 418.301(4), but that the limitation of wage earning capacity is only partial, the magistrate sha ll compute wage loss benefits under MCL 418.361(1), based upon what the plaintiff remains capable of earning. The magistrate assigned to this case may take a dditional proofs upon request of either party. We DIRECT the magistrate to issue a decisi on and file that decision with the Clerk of this Court within 126 days of the date of this order.

We retain jurisdiction.

C AVANAGH , J., would deny leave to appeal.

W EAVER , J. ( dissenting )._______________________________________ __ 2

I dissent from the order vacating the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission and remanding this ca se to the Board of Magistrates for reconsideration in light of Stokes v Chrysler LLC , 481 Mich 266 (2008).

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich at 320 (Weaver, J., dissenting ), I vote to grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether a majority of this Cour t reached the correct decision in Stokes.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider Stokes v Chrysler LLC , 481 Mich 266 (2008).

0924 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 1, 2008

Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 141

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.34 Duration of power of attorney.

Powers of attorney issued by a partnership shall be limited to a period not to exceed 2 years from the date of execution. All other powers of attorney may be granted for an unlimited period.

[T.D. 84-93, 49 FR 17754, Apr. 25, 1984]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 02-031 March 19, 2002

NRC REQUIRES PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR LICENSEES

TO SUBMIT INFORMATION ON REACTOR VESSEL HEADS 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent a bulletin to companies that hold licenses for

operating pressurized water reactors (PWRs) requiring information on the structural integrity of the

reactor vessel head and a basis for concluding that the vessel head will continue to perform its function

as a coolant pressure boundary. 

The bulletin was sent to the sixty-nine PWRs for action because of a problem that was recently

discovered at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station at Oak Harbor, Ohio. The bulletin was sent to

licensees of boiling water reactors (BWRs) for information only. 

An earlier bulletin, issued on August 3, 2001, described the discoveries of circumferentially

cracked and leaking penetration nozzles in reactor pressure vessel heads. In response to that bulletin,

PWR licensees provided their plans for inspecting their reactor pressure vessel head penetration nozzles

and/or the outside surface of the reactor pressure vessel head to determine whether the nozzles were

leaking. Some plants have completed these inspections.

In conducting the inspections at the Davis-Besse plant in February and March, First Energy

Corporation, the plant operator, identified three nozzles with indications of axial cracking that resulted

in leakage. While repairing these nozzles, the company detected damage to a small area of the

surrounding reactor vessel head, resulting in a cavity in the ferritic steel vessel head approximately 6

inches deep and 7 inches long by 4 to 5 inches wide. The remaining thickness of the vessel head in this

area was reported as 3/8 inches of stainless steel. 

As previously announced on March 12, the NRC is conducting an Augmented Team Inspection

at Davis-Besse. The investigation of the causes of the degradation of the vessel head is continuing, but

preliminary assessments suggest that the cause may be corrosion, at least partially due to the presence of

boric acid used in the cooling water.

The information required by the bulletin will allow the NRC staff to determine whether current

inspection and maintenance practices at reactor facilities provide reasonable assurance that reactor

coolant pressure boundary integrity is being maintained. The information will also enable the NRC
staff to determine whether inspection and maintenance practices need to be augmented to ensure that the

safety significance of this form of degradation remains low.

A copy of the bulletin is available from the NRC Public Document Room, Washington, D.C.

20555; telephone: 301/415-4737 or 800/397-4209. A copy also is available electronically through the

NRCís web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-headdegradation/ml020770497.pdf .

###
### §1309. Certification and training of blasters

In accordance with this chapter, the Secretary of the Interior (or the approved State regulatory authority as provided for in section 1253 of this title) shall promulgate regulations requiring the training, examination, and certification of persons engaging in or directly responsible for blasting or use of explosives in surface coal mining operations.

(Pub. L. 95–87, title VII, §719, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 526.)
Exhibit
      23.2





**Consent
      of
      Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
      on Form S-8
      (No. 333-47122,
      333-44260 and 333-117237), Form S-8/A (No. 33-52478 and 33-80952), and Form
      S-4
      (No. 333-36387 and 333-61221) of Building Materials Holding Corporation of
      our
      report dated March 12, 2004, relating to the financial statements and financial
      statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.








/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





San
      Francisco,
      California


February
      24,
      2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23439-GAYLES/REID

AL-RABAT MOROCCO EMPRE 

KINGDOM ISLAMIC SOVEREIGNTY 

NATION 37-1880026 and XYZ 

INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL 28,000 

B.C. NATIVES AMERICAN CITIZENS,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

U.S. SUPREME COURT NINE JUSTICES, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report of 

Magistrate Judge (the “Report”) [ECF No. 3]. On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff Drelijah 

Muhammad-Ali filed this pro se pleading, appearing to raise a class action. [ECF No. 1]. That 

same day, the action was referred to Judge Reid, pursuant to Administrative Order 2019-2, for a 

ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any 

dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2]. On August 26, 2020, Judge Reid issued her Report, 

recommending that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when construed as a petition 

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismissed as a three-striker pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

when construed as a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [ECF No. 3]. Plaintiffs filed timely 

objections. [ECF No. 5].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

Case 1:20-cv-23439-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Reid’s 

well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the case should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

(1) Judge Reid’s Report [ECF No. 3] shall be AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and 

incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2) The case shall be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction when construed as a petition 

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and DISMISSED as a three-striker pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) when construed as a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983; and

(3) The case shall be CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of September, 2020.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23439-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 2 of 2
<Page>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective
Amendment No. 7 to the registration statement on Form N-4 (No. 333-43799) of our
report dated February 15, 2002, relating to the financial statements of Fortis
Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in the Statement of Additional
Information constituting part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to such
registration statement. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated April 6, 2001, relating to the financial statements of Fortis
Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D, which appears in such Statement
of Additional Information. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Independent Public Accountants" in such Statement of Additional
Information.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 21, 2003
§ 191.4 Merchandise in which a U.S. Government interest exists. ( a ) *Restricted meaning of Government.* A U.S. Government instrumentality operating with nonappropriated funds is considered a Government entity within the meaning of this section.
( b ) *Allowance of drawback.* If the merchandise is sold to the U.S. Government, drawback shall be available only to the: ( 1 ) Department, branch, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government which purchased it; or
( 2 ) Supplier, or any of the parties specified in § 191.82 of this part, provided the claim is supported by documentation signed by a proper officer of the department, branch, agency, or instrumentality concerned certifying that the right to drawback was reserved by the supplier or other parties with the knowledge and consent of the department, branch, agency, or instrumentality.
( c ) *Bond.* No bond shall be required when a United States Government entity claims drawback.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00841-CR

John Robert HOLTKE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR8690

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

SIGNED February 5, 2020.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice