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 Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

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

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
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2880 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine Dihydrochloride. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2005 

Mr. CHABOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine 

Dihydrochloride. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 3,3 DICHLOROBENZIDINE DIHYDROCHLORIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.11.04 [1,1′ Biphenyl] – 4,4′ 

Diamino, 3,3′ Dichloro, 

Dihydrochloride (CAS No. 

612–83–9) (provided for in 

subheading 2921.59.80) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2880 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75342-75343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute Of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Division of 
Intramural Research Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute 
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 
552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by 
the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, including 
consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the 
competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National 
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.
    Date: December 1-2, 2020.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personnel qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 660, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Alicia J. Dombroski, Ph.D., Director, Division 
of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard, Room 660, Bethesda,

[[Page 75343]]

MD 20892, (301) 594-4805, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b1a1f14161909140810123b161a121755151213551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5a4a1aaa8a7b7aab6aeac85a8a4aca9ebabacadeba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the intramural research review cycle.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/about-us/advisory-committees, where 
an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be 
posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 20, 2020.
Patricia B. Hansberger,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26109 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 89-6156.

#### Velasquez *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 96.7 Authorities and responsibilities of an accrediting entity. ( a ) An accrediting entity may be authorized by the Secretary to perform some or all of the following functions: ( 1 ) Determining whether agencies are eligible for accreditation;
( 2 ) Determining whether persons are eligible for approval;
( 3 ) Overseeing accredited agencies and/or approved persons by monitoring their compliance with applicable requirements;
( 4 ) Investigating and responding to complaints about accredited agencies and approved persons (including their use of supervised providers);
( 5 ) Taking adverse action against an accredited agency or approved person, and/or referring an accredited agency or approved person for possible action by the Secretary;
( 6 ) Determining whether accredited agencies and approved persons are eligible for renewal of their accreditation or approval on a cycle consistent with § 96.60;
( 7 ) Collecting data from accredited agencies and approved persons, maintaining records, and reporting information to the Secretary, State courts, and other entities; and
( 8 ) Assisting the Secretary in taking appropriate action to help an agency or person in transferring its intercountry adoption cases and adoption records.
( b ) The Secretary may require the accrediting entity: ( 1 ) To utilize the Complaint Registry as provided in subpart J of this part; and
( 2 ) To fund a portion of the costs of operating the Complaint Registry with fees collected by the accrediting entity pursuant to the schedule of fees approved by the Secretary as provided in § 96.8.
( c ) An accrediting entity must perform all responsibilities in accordance with the Convention, the IAA, the UAA, the regulations implementing the IAA or UAA, and its agreement with the Secretary.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40633, July 14, 2014]
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Edward Junior Lane, Theodore McNeil, Clarence Lee Sloan and John Henry Williams, Defendants.

Motion to remove the trial from the County Court of Orange County to a term of the Supreme Court held in another county denied.
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

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER

ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

MICHAEL J. CARROLL (STATE BAR #50246)

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 303

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 392-5431

Facsimile: (415) 392-1978

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AUTOMOTIVE) NO. C 09 0043 EMC

INDUSTRIES PENSION FUND, et al. ) 

 )

)

Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

) CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

COLOGNE AUTO BODY INC., a )

California corporation )

)

)

Defendant. )

___________________________________)

Settlement discussions have been completed and paperwork for

settlement has been signed. An agreed upon amount is to be paid no

later than April 3, 2010. When the check has cleared the bank this

action will be dismissed. IT IS STIPULATED to continue the Case

Management Conference from February 24, 2010 to April 28, 2010 at 2:30

p.m.

DATED:2/19/10 /s/Michael J. Carroll 

Michael J. Carroll 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: 2/19/10 /s/William A. Bauld 

William A. Bauld

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 3:09-cv-00043-EMC Document 26 Filed 02/22/10 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

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER

Order

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 Honorable Edward M. Chen 

Case 3:09-cv-00043-EMC Document 26 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:09-cv-01228-EMC Document 39 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01228-EMC Document 39 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01228-EMC Document 39 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01228-EMC Document 39 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-01228-EMC Document 39 Filed 07/20/10 Page 5 of 5
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RAMIRO MENDOZA-GUERRA,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-0943 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SENTENCE REDUCTION

Before the Court is defendant Ramiro Mendoza-Guerra’s (“Mendoza-Guerra”) pro se

“Motion for Sentencing Reduction,” filed November 3, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to § 1B1.10 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. 

On December 9, 2014, the United States Probation Office filed a “Sentence Reduction

Investigation Report,” recommending no reduction in Mendoza-Guerra’s sentence, for the

reason that Mendoza-Guerra was sentenced to the applicable statutory minimum. That

same date, the Office of the Federal Public Defender, which previously represented

defendant, filed a “Notice of Nonintervention,” stating the Public Defender has no comment

as to the above-referenced report, has nothing further to add to defendant’s motion, and is

not seeking to intervene in the matter. 

Having read and considered the motion and materials filed in response to the

motion, the Court finds, for the reasons stated by the Probation Office, that MendozaCase 3:09-cr-00943-MMC Document 26 Filed 01/05/15 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

2

Guerra is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence. See Application Notes, Amendment

782, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (“[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not

authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy statement 

if . . . the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable

guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a

statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).”). 

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00943-MMC Document 26 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORI KEMPLY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASHCALL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-03174-MEJ 

ORDER RE: RULE 59(A) MOTION 

FRAMEWORK

In light of the June 2, 2016 status conference in this matter, the Court STAYS any pending 

deadlines and ORDERS the parties to meet and confer (in person, telephonically, or by web-based 

conference) as to the following framework for addressing Defendant CashCall Inc.’s anticipated

Rule 59(a) motion following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. 

Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016).

1. CashCall may file its motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), but in 

doing so, the Court requires CashCall (and later Plaintiffs) to address the following:

a. Whether at the time of the trial and the issuance of the Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, the injury in fact requirement in this circuit was 

different than it is now under Spokeo, and whether given Spokeo and the 

potential change in the law concerning Article III standing, there is any 

basis for Plaintiffs to now submit evidence to prove Article III standing and 

for CashCall to prepare a defense on the same grounds.

b. Whether the Court must also consider other relevant changes or 

clarifications in the law that may affect Plaintiffs’ conditioning claims prior 

to the issuance of judgment. See, e.g., Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 

Case 3:08-cv-03174-TSH Document 319 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016).

2. Following CashCall’s motion, Plaintiffs may file an opposition or a cross motion for a 

new trial under Rule 59. 

3. CashCall may submit a reply, as may Plaintiffs if they affirmatively move under Rule 

59. No sur-replies will be accepted, however.

4. The parties will have two weeks between each submission to file their responses.

The parties may file a stipulation agreeing to this framework and informing the court of 

whether Plaintiffs intend to (1) oppose CashCall’s motion, (2) file a cross-motion, or (3) file 

another relevant motion that addresses the Court’s concerns above. If the parties cannot so 

stipulate, they may submit proposals for modifying the framework above or otherwise objecting to 

it. Their responses are due June 17, 2016.

No motions may be filed until the Court has ruled on a final framework and schedule for 

these issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03174-TSH Document 319 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PATRICIA ESQUIVEL,

 Appellant,

v.

ENRIQUE GARCIA D/B/A

GARCIA & REBE LAW FIRM PLLC,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00154-CV

Appeal from

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2015-DCV1631)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause for further 

proceedings, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. We further order that Appellant recover 

from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue, and this decision be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
### §9113. Protection of submarine electric transmission cables and equipment

#### (a) Prohibited acts; misdemeanor; penalty and fine

Any person who shall willfully and wrongfully break or injure, or attempt to break or injure, or who shall in any manner procure, counsel, aid, abet, or be accessory to such breaking or injury, or attempt to break or injure, any submarine electric transmission cable or equipment being constructed or operated under a license issued pursuant to this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

#### (b) Culpable negligence; misdemeanor; penalty and fine

Any person who by culpable negligence shall break or injure any submarine electric transmission cable or equipment being constructed or operated under a license issued pursuant to this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to a fine not exceeding $500, or to both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

#### (c) Exceptions

The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to any person who, after having taken all necessary precautions to avoid such breaking or injury, breaks or injures any submarine electric transmission cable or equipment in an effort to save the life or limb of himself or of any other person, or to save his own or any other vessel.

#### (d) Suits for damages

The penalties provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section for the breaking or injury of any submarine electric transmission cable or equipment shall not be a bar to a suit for damages on account of such breaking or injury.

#### (e) Indemnity

Whenever any vessel sacrifices any anchor, fishing net, or other fishing gear to avoid injuring any submarine electric transmission cable or equipment being constructed or operated under a license issued pursuant to this chapter, the licensee shall indemnify the owner of such vessel for the items sacrificed: Provided, That the owner of the vessel had taken all reasonable precautionary measures beforehand.

#### (f) Repair costs

Any licensee who causes any break in or injury to any submarine cable or pipeline of any type shall bear the cost of the repairs.

(Pub. L. 96–320, title I, §103, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 982.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a), (b), and (e), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 96–320, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 974, known as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9101 of this title and Tables.
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

MICHAEL STEPANIAN

Attorney at Law (CSBN 037712)

819 Eddy Street

San Francisco, CA 94109

Telephone: (415) 771-6174

Facsimile: (415) 474-3748

mstepanian@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Defendant

JOHN GIMBEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

–ooo–

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN GIMBEL,

Defendant.

 /

CR. 09-00989-MHP

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED

ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE FOR

HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

___________________________

Defendant JOHN GIMBEL, by and through his counsel of record Michael

Stepanian, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Barry hereby stipulate and agree that the

hearing on defendant’s Motion To Dismiss shall be continued from June 30, 2010 to July

15, 2010 at 10 a.m. 

Defense counsel is unavailable on June 30th and this new date will afford sufficient

time for government counsel to prepare their opposition pleadings. The parties agree that,

taking into account the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases, good cause

exists for this extension. Defendant also agrees to exclude for this period of time any

time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161. The parties represent that the

continuance is the reasonable time necessary for continuity of defense counsel and

Case 3:09-cr-00989-MHP Document 30 Filed 06/21/10 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

2

 effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18

U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served

by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant

in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(A).

Date: June 8, 2010 /s/ Michael Stepanian MICHAEL STEPANIAN

Counsel for Defendant

John Gimbel

Date: June 8, 2010 /s/ Kevin Barry KEVIN BARRY

Assistant United States Attorney

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby continues the hearing from June 30,

2010 to July 15, 2010. The Court further finds that an exclusion of time from June 30,

2010 through July 15, 2010 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

See 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance

would deny the defendant continuity of counsel and would deny defense counsel the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of

due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. Section

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

Date: June , 2010 

MARILYN H. PATEL

U.S. District Court Judge 

18

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00989-MHP Document 30 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1508.985 Person.

*Person* means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government, or legal entity, however organized.