alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.111 Authority to issue visa. ( a ) *Issuance outside the United States.* Any consular officer is authorized to issue regular and official visas. Diplomatic visas may be issued only by: ( 1 ) A consular officer attached to a U.S. diplomatic mission, if authorized to do so by the Chief of Mission; or
( 2 ) A consular officer assigned to a consular office under the jurisdiction of a diplomatic mission, if so authorized by the Department or the Chief, Deputy Chief, or Counselor for Consular Affairs of that mission, or, if assigned to a consular post not under the jurisdiction of a diplomatic mission, by the principal officer of that post.
( b ) *Issuance in the United States in certain cases.* The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services and such officers of the Department as the former may designate are authorized, in their discretion, to issue nonimmigrant visas, including diplomatic visas, in the United States, to: ( 1 ) Qualified applicants who are currently maintaining status and are properly classifiable in the A, C-2, C-3, G or NATO category and intend to reenter the United States in that status after a temporary absence abroad and who also present evidence that: ( i ) They have been lawfully admitted in that status or have, after admission, had their classification changed to that status; and
( ii ) Their period of authorized stay in the United States in that status has not expired; and
( 2 ) Children who are born in the United States, but who are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof because they are born to certain qualified individuals who are currently maintaining status and are properly classifiable in the A, C-2, C-3, G or NATO category.
( 3 ) Other qualified applicants who: ( i ) Are currently maintaining status in the E, H, I, L, O, or P nonimmigrant category;
( ii ) Intend to reenter the United States in that status after a temporary absence abroad; and
( iii ) Who also present evidence that: ( A ) They were previously issued visas at a consular office abroad and admitted to the United States in the status which they are currently maintaining; and
( B ) Their period of authorized admission in that status has not expired.
[52 FR 42597, Nov. 5, 1987, as amended at 66 FR 12738, Feb. 28, 2001; 87 FR 53375, Aug. 31, 2022]
### §8102. Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

#### (a) Establishment

There is established a Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation") which shall be a body corporate and shall possess the powers, and shall be subject to the direction and limitations specified herein.

#### (b) Implementation and expansion of demonstration activities

The corporation shall implement and expand the demonstration activities carried out by the Urban Reinvestment Task Force.

#### (c) Principal office

The corporation shall maintain its principal office in the District of Columbia or at such other place the corporation may from time to time prescribe.

#### (d) Exemption from taxation

The corporation, including its franchise, activities, assets, and income, shall be exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States, by any territory, dependency, or possession thereof, or by any State, county, municipality, or local taxing authority, except that any real property of the corporation shall be subject to State, territorial, county, municipal, or local taxation to the same extent according to its value as other real property is taxed.

(Pub. L. 95–557, title VI, §603, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2115; Pub. L. 96–399, title III, §315(1), Oct. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1645.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–399 struck out "National" before "Neighborhood".
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28207]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 1-04]


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR Part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters 
specified, as follows:

Date and Time: Thursday, December 30, 2004, at 11 a.m.

Subject Matter: Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against 
Albania.

Status: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 
Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-
6988.

    Dated at Washington, DC.
Mauricio J. Tamargo,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 04-28207 Filed 12-21-04; 3:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
#### Susan Rishin, Respondent, v. Marvin Rishin, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Susan Rishin, Respondent, v. Marvin Rishin, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

Motion by appellant for a stay, pending appeal, granted, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the October Term, beginning October 1, 1962; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before August 20, 1962. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Gloria Rudes, Respondent, v Magna Stables Company et al., Appellants.

[715 NYS2d 315]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered June 30, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*64Defendants’ showing of possible defenses does not relieve them of the burden of showing a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear for trial of an action reached and called for trial *(see,*CPLR 3215 [a]; 22 NYCRR 202.27 [a]; *Goncalves v Stuyvesant Dev. Assocs.,*232 AD2d 275). As another Justice said in denying a prior motion by defendants for identical relief, “no cognizable reason for the failure to appear for trial has been advanced whatsoever.” We would add that defendants’ failure to appear for trial was part of a clear pattern of delay. We have considered and rejected defendants’ various arguments that the Court lacked “jurisdiction” to enter the default judgment. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER RESCHEDULING SENTENCING

CR 09-1031 VRW

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

BRIAN C. LEWIS (DCBN 476851)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: brian.lewis@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLEOPHUS FULLER,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-1031 VRW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

RESCHEDULING SENTENCING

FROM APRIL 29, 2010 TO MAY 13,

2010

On January 21, 2010, the parties appeared before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, and

the defendant pled guilty to Count I of the captioned indictment. At that time, sentencing was set

for April 29, 2010. However, government counsel has recently learned that he will be traveling

out of state and unavailable on that date. As such, with the agreement of counsel for both parties,

the U.S. Probation Officer, and the defendant, the Court now finds as follows:

The parties agree to reschedule the sentencing set in this case to Thursday, May 13, 2010

//

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cr-01031-RS Document 28 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER RESCHEDULING SENTENCING

CR 09-1031 VRW -2-

 at 2:00 p.m. The previous sentencing date is vacated.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: March 26, 2010 /s/ 

JODI LINKER

Counsel for Cleophas Fuller

DATED: March 26, 2010 /s/ 

BRIAN C. LEWIS

Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___________ ___________________________

VAUGHN R. WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Northern District of California

March 30, 2010 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:09-cr-01031-RS Document 28 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 1509.300 What must I do to comply with this part if I am an individual recipient? As a condition of receiving a(n) ADF award, if you are an individual recipient, you must agree that— ( a ) You will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and
( b ) If you are convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, you will report the conviction: ( 1 ) In writing.
( 2 ) Within 10 calendar days of the conviction.
( 3 ) To the ADF awarding official or other designee for each award that you currently have, unless § 1509.301 or the award document designates a central point for the receipt of the notices. When notice is made to a central point, it must include the identification number(s) of each affected award.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Plan of Operations, Environmental Assessment, and Draft 
Floodplains and Wetlands Statements of Findings, Big Thicket National 
Preserve, TX; Correction

AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) published a Notice of 
Availability on November 24, 2004 in accordance with Section 9.52(b) of 
Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, Subpart B, of a 
Plan of Operations submitted by Sanchez Oil and Gas Corporation for 
drilling and production of the WM Rice <greek-i>1 Well from a surface 
location north of County Road 4825 within Big Thicket National 
Preserve, Tyler County, Texas. The notice also announced the 
availability of an accompanying Environmental Assessment and draft 
Floodplain and Wetland Statements of Findings. These documents are not, 
in fact, yet ready for review. When they are available, another notice 
will be published.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dusty Pate, Range Technician, Big 
Thicket National Preserve, 3785 Milam Street, Beaumont, Texas 77701, 
Telephone: 409 839-2689 ext. 232, e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#054d646c626960775a55647160456b75762b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a022b232d262f38151a2b3e2f0a243a39642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 30, 2004.
Stephen P. Martin,
Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 04-28295 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-CB-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 9.3 Senior agency official.

The Executive Order requires that each agency that originates or handles classified information designate a Senior Agency Official to direct and administer its information security program. The Department's senior agency official is the Under Secretary of State for Management. The Senior Agency Official is assisted in carrying out the provisions of the Executive Order and the Department's information security program by the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, the Assistant Secretary for Administration, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Services.
#### § 909.2 Board order.

Where the Board's decision imposes action on an Agency the decision shall be in the form of a remedial order addressed to the designated official of the Agency. A copy of the decision shall be supplied to each party.
#### In the Matter of Robert A. Graziano, Appellant, v Michael J. Conn, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about October 25, 1976, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Saypol, J., without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Evans and Capozzoli, JJ.
The HONORABLE CHARLES R. WOLLE, Chief Judge, United States District 1

Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The HONORABLE RUSSELL J. HILL, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy 2

Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2963

___________

Stephen K. Thielking, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Deborah L. Petersen, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 27, 1998

 Filed: September 2, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stephen K. Thielking appeals from the district court’s order affirming the

1

bankruptcy court’s order denying him a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(2), 2

(a)(3), and (a)(4). After carefully reviewing the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for

clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, see In re Berger, 61 F.3d 624, 626 (8th
-2-

Cir. 1995), we conclude the court did not err in denying discharge based on its

determination that Thielking made false and material statements under oath with intent

to defraud his creditors, see 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4); In re Mertz, 955 F.2d 596, 598 (8th

Cir. 1992).

Given the bankruptcy court’s thorough treatment of the discharge issue, we

conclude that an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1364

___________

Len Edwin Davis, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Appeal from the United States

Department of Correction; Max * District Court for the

Mobley, Deputy Director of Health; * Eastern District of Arkansas

Greg Harmon, Warden, Tucker *

Maximum Security Unit, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 7, 1999

 Filed: November 1, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Len Edwin Davis, a federal inmate being housed at Tucker Maximum Security

Prison in Arkansas, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for
-2-

the Eastern District of Arkansas, granting summary judgment to prison officials in

Davis&s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Davis claimed defendants showed deliberate

indifference to his serious dental needs by denying him a root canal and by delaying

dental treatment. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Upon de novo review, see Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.

1997), we conclude summary judgment was proper. The summary judgment record,

viewed most favorably to Davis, shows that while one examining dentist had

recommended a root canal, another had recommended extraction. Thus, the record

shows only a disagreement over a particular type of dental procedure. See Long v. Nix,

86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (inmate does not have constitutional right to any

particular type of treatment; prison officials do not violate Eighth Amendment when,

in exercise of their professional judgment, they refuse to implement inmate’s requested

course of treatment); Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (doctors’

disagreement as to proper course of prisoner&s treatment is not actionable under Eighth

Amendment). We also conclude Davis failed to present a triable issue of fact on his

claim that defendants subjected him to an unconstitutional delay in treatment. See

Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6107
DON RHEW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6189
DON RHEW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-04-340-1) Submitted: November 23, 2005 Decided: December 13, 2005- 2 - Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don Rhew, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Don Rhew seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rhew has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.

DISMISSED
Amendment to Confirmation of OTC Convertible Note - Goldman, Sachs & Co.



  
 Exhibit 10.88

 Goldman, Sachs & Co. 
 200 West Street 
 New York, New York 10282-2198 

Telephone No.:    (212) 902-1000 
 August 30, 2010 
 To: Gilead Sciences, Inc.  

333 Lakeside Drive 
 Foster City, California
94404 

			
	 Attention:
	  	 Treasurer

	 Telephone No.:
	  	 (650) 522-5727

	 Facsimile No.:
	  	 (650) 522-3000


 Re: Base Call
Option Transaction (2016) 
 Reference is made to the letter agreement Re: Base Call Option Transaction
(2016) dated July 26, 2010 and entered into between into between Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“Dealer”) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Counterparty”) (the “Confirmation”). Capitalized terms
used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Confirmation. 
 Whereas the
Confirmation defined the Free Convertibility Date as April 1, 2016, but Counterparty and Dealer wish to define the Free Convertibility Date as February 1, 2016; 

Now therefore, Counterparty and Dealer do hereby agree that the definition of the Free Convertibility Date in the
Confirmation is hereby replaced in its entirety by February 1, 2016. 
 [Signature Page to Follow] 







  
 
			
	 Yours faithfully,

	
	Goldman, Sachs & Co.
		
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Jonathan Lipnick

	 Name:
	 	 Jonathan Lipnick

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President



 Accepted and confirmed: 
  

			
	Gilead Sciences, Inc.
		
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Brett A. Pletcher

	 Name:
	 	 Brett A. Pletcher

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and General Counsel
### §4910. Enforcement

#### (a) Criminal penalties

(1) Any person who willfully or knowingly violates paragraph (1), (3), (5), or (6) of subsection (a) of section 4909 of this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. If the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this subsection, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both.

(2) Any person who violates paragraph (1), (3), (5), or (6) of subsection (a) of section 4909 of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such violation.

#### (b) Separate violations

For the purpose of this section, each day of violation of any paragraph of section 4909(a) of this title shall constitute a separate violation of that section.

#### (c) Actions to restrain violations

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought by and in the name of the United States to restrain any violations of section 4909(a) of this title.

#### (d) Orders issued to protect public health and welfare; notice; opportunity for hearing

(1) Whenever any person is in violation of section 4909(a) of this title, the Administrator may issue an order specifying such relief as he determines is necessary to protect the public health and welfare.

(2) Any order under this subsection shall be issued only after notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5.

#### (e) "Person" defined

The term "person," as used in this section, does not include a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.

(Pub. L. 92–574, §11, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1242; Pub. L. 95–609, §4, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3081.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–609 redesignated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).