alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FORM 6-K

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

# Report of Foreign Issuer

# Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of

# Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of March 2006

ABBEY NATIONAL PLC 
  (Translation of registrant's name into English)

Abbey National House, 2 Triton Square, Regent's Place
  London NW1 3AN, England   
 (Address of principal executive offices)

|Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form 20-F . . . .X. . . . Form 40-F . . . . . . . . Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Yes . . . . . . . No . . .X. . . .


---

Abbey National plc



Abbey National plc Annual Report and Accounts 2005



A copy of the above document has been submitted to the UK Listing Authority, and will shortly be available for inspection at the UK Listing Authoritys Document Viewing Facility, which is situated at:



Financial Services Authority

25 The North Colonnade

Canary Wharf

London

E14 5HS







---



# SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

|                           |  | **ABBEY NATIONAL PLC**    
|-------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|**Dated: 24th March 2006** |  | **By: /s/ Jason Wright**  
|                           |  | **(Authorized Signatory)**
### §2565. Attorney fees

The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §125, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1556.)
No. 99-40740 -1-

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 99-40740 Summary Calendar

PEDRO MUNOZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, ORALIA MUNOZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY; CARRIE TOUSANT; JAIME ZAPATA, JR.; SCOTT A. KEMP, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-99-CV-42

-------------------- March 3, 2000 Before JONES, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro and Oralia Munoz appeal the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of this civil action for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. They argue that the district court had diversity jurisdiction because they are citizens of Texas and State Farm Lloyd’s principal place of business is in Illinois and

because the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Because theNo. 99-40740 -2- Munozes named other nondiverse parties, including Carrie Tousant, Jaime Zapata, Jr., and Scott A. Kemp, the district court did noterr in dismissing the civil action for lack of federal subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Owen Equip. and Erect. Co. v. Kroger , 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978); Whalen v. Carter , 954 F.2d 1087, 1094 (5th Cir. 1992). The Munozes’ appeal is without merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00250

- CV

BNSF Railway Company

v.

James E. Phillips §

§

§

§

§ From the 236th District Court

o f Tarran t County (236

- 223592

- 07 )

August 1, 2013

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

Dissent by Justice Meier



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that t he judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant BNSF Railway Company shall pay all of

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
### §178h. Powers of Secretary of Commerce

In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to—

(a) make grants to States, education institutions, scientific organizations, and Indian tribes as defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93–638, 25 U.S.C. 450),1 and enter into contracts with such institutions and organizations and with industrial or engineering firms;

(b) acquire the services of biologists, agronomists, foresters, geneticists, engineers, economists, and other personnel having expertise in native agricultural crops which could supply critical agricultural materials by contract or otherwise;

(c) utilize the facilities of Federal and State institutions and other scientific laboratories;

(d) establish and operate necessary facilities and pilot plants to carry out the continuous research, testing, development, and programing necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section;

(e) acquire secret processes, technical data, invention, patent applications, patents, licenses, land and interests in land (including water rights), plants and facilities, and other property or rights by purchase, license, lease, or donation; and

(f) foster and participate in regional, national, and international conferences relating to the activities authorized by this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 95–592, §10, Nov. 4, 1978, 92 Stat. 2533; Pub. L. 98–284, §10, May 16, 1984, 98 Stat. 184.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93–638, 25 U.S.C. 450), referred to in cl. (a), is Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, which was classified principally to subchapter II (§450 et seq.) of chapter 14 of Title 25, Indians, prior to editorial reclassification as chapter 46 (§5301 et seq.) of Title 25. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of Title 25 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–284, §10(1), (2), in provisions preceding cl. (a) substituted "this subchapter" for "this section" and struck out ", acting through the Regional Commissions or otherwise," after "the Secretary of Commerce".

Cl. (b). Pub. L. 98–284, §10(3), inserted "having expertise in native agricultural crops which could supply critical agricultural materials".

Cl. (f). Pub. L. 98–284, §10(4), substituted "the activities authorized by this subchapter" for "natural rubber manufacture".

1 See References in Text note below.
[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. 
**Title: Guidebookon methods to estimate non-motorized travel: overview of methods [electronicresource].**
 
Volume 1|Volume 2
 
SuDoc Number:TD 2.30:98-166; TD 2.30:98-165
Item Number:0982-G-11 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001060438
 
July 12, 2018
#### § 751.12 Payments.

Payment of approved personnel claims will be made by the Navy or Marine Corps disbursing officer serving the adjudicating authority. Payments will be charged to funds made available to the adjudicating authority for this purpose.

[72 FR 53424, Sept. 19, 2007]
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

TO: The Assistant Secretary

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Delegation of Programmatic Authority 

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3472, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, 

and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or delegated to perform the functions and 

duties of your position, the programmatic authorities described below: 

For programs over which the Assistant Secretary has administrative authority, the 

authority to grant waivers under section 3511 of Division A, Title III, Subtitle B of the 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), Public Law 116- 

136 (H.R. 748), March 27, 2020; 134 Stat. 281. 

For programs over which the Assistant Secretary has administrative authority, the 

authority to grant waivers under any additional waiver authority that the Department or 

the Secretary is provided related to COVID-19. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authorities 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation. 

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following are not 

delegated:

A. the authority to sign documents for publication in the Federal Register other than 

those documents designated in the delegation of authority to sign Federal Register

documents issued to Principal Officers, EA/GEN/18, certified on December 12, 

2019; 

B. the authority to appoint, and fix compensation of, members of advisory 

councils; and

C. unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to 

Congress or the President.
III. REDELEGATION

Subject to applicable provisions of law, and unless otherwise noted, you may redelegate 

any of the authorities delegated to you and may authorize further redelegation. All 

redelegations must be prepared in accordance with the Administrative Communications 

System directive, OM:1-102: Delegations of Authority, dated August 26, 2016. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal 

Delegations Control Officer. 

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by the addressee 

prior to the date of certification. 

Betsy DeVos (signed)

OGC Concurrence: 

Deborah Friendly 

4/17/2020 

Certified Date: 4/17/2020 

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EA/EH/110
#### § 750.9 Claims: Payments.

Claims approved for payment shall be expeditiously forwarded to the disbursing office or the General Accounting Office depending on the claims act involved and the amount of the requested payment. Generally, payment of a Federal tort claim above $2,500.00 requires submission of the payment voucher to the General Accounting Office. All other field authorized payment vouchers are submitted directly to the servicing disbursing office for payment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6793

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MILTON MARK SMITH, a/k/a Pete,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-90-195-G, CA-94-521-2)

Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 16, 1996

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton Mark Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith,

Nos. CR-90-195-G; CA-94-521-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 1995). 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
TO:John Kane

Deputy Chief Business Operations Officer

THROUGH:William Leith

Chief Business Operations Officer

FROM:The Chief Operating Officer

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me by the Secretary through delegation number EA/EN/59, certified on May 29, 2008, I hereby delegate to you as Deputy Chief Business Operations Officer, to your successor in function, and to anyone serving for you in acting capacity, the authority to approve changes to school receivable balances for amounts under $1,000.00, the threshold used by FSA’s Office of Program Compliance for establishing a receivable balance, related to the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program including Direct Loan Consolidation, the Federal Family Education Loan Program, the Federal Perkins program, or any future programs that are appropriated by Congress under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

This authority primarily constitutes but is not limited to: 

1. Approval to make school adjustments in all systems.

2. Approval to adjust school receivable balances creating variances in the Advance Account stemming from FSA not pursuing collections from schools with small outstanding balances.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II.RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following are not delegated: 

1. The authority to sign certain documents for publication in the Federal Register; 

2. The authority to appoint members of advisory councils and fix compensation;

3. Unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to Congress or the President;

4. The authority under the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3415, to serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary on matters affecting public and private postsecondary education is reserved to the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education; and

5. The authority under Title IV, Part H, Subpart 2, Section 496, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. §1099b) is reserved to the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

III.REDELEGATION

Subject to the applicable provisions of law, you may redelegate the authority delegated to you and may authorize further redelegation. All redelegations must be prepared in accordance with the Administrative Communications Systems directive, OM: 1-102, Delegations of Authority.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Delegations Control Officer. 

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification. 

_____________/s/___________________

James Runcie

Chief Operating Officer

OGC Clearance: Debbie Friendly

OGC Clearance Date: 4/22/16

Certified Date: 4/25/16

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EN1/ENB/81
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1103

ALAIN BLAISE ETOUNDI,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-586-986)

Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant

Director, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alain Blaise Etoundi, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

denial of asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons

discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Etoundi asserts that his testimony was credible and

corroborated and contends that he established his eligibility for

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Etoundi fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that

Etoundi seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Etoundi’s

application for withholding of removal. The standard for

withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting

asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To

qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate

“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480

U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Etoundi fails to show he is eligible
- 3 -

for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of

removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
### SUBCHAPTER V—PLANT AND ANIMAL PEST AND DISEASE CONTROL PROGRAM
#### § 651.55 Categorical exclusions.

The list of CXs in Appendix B of this part may be used in reviewing potential environmental impacts of major actions abroad and in the global commons, in accordance with DODD 6050.7 (or DODI upon publication) and Executive Order 12114, section 2-5(c).
#### EVERHART & ASSOC. v. DEPT. OF E.H.N.R.

No. 610P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 693

Petition by petitioners (Everhart & Associates, Inc. and Hettie Tolson Johnson) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1998.
Sealed Documents 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

FIDEL VILLARREAL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-50067 

D.C. No. 

3:08-cr-01332-JAH-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Fidel Villarreal appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s denial of compassionate 

release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Sealed Documents 2 22-50067 

2022). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villarreal’s motion 

for compassionate release. When reviewing motions for compassionate release, a

district court must: (1) “determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warrant a sentence reduction,” (2) “evaluate whether a reduction would be 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission,” and (3) “consider and weigh the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) to decide whether the requested sentence reduction is warranted under 

the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. at 945 (quotation marks and citations 

omitted). “Although a district court must conclude that a defendant satisfies all 

three predicates before granting a motion for compassionate release, it may deny 

compassionate release if a defendant fails to satisfy any of these grounds.” Id.

Villarreal’s argument that the district court improperly took judicial notice 

of facts in other compassionate release cases in its “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons” determination lacks merit. The district court did not take judicial notice of 

any facts, but merely, as courts do, cited other cases holding that diagnoses of 

hypertension and high cholesterol are not “extraordinary or compelling reasons”

warranting compassionate release.

Since Villarreal raises no other arguments for why the district court abused 

its discretion in determining that Villarreal failed to demonstrate “extraordinary 
Sealed Documents 3 22-50067 

and compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release, we need not address 

Villarreal’s remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE TITAN CORPORATION'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX
MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          81,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  315,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     20,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               463,788
<PP&E>                                         149,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 906,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          192,852
<BONDS>                                        270,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        690
<COMMON>                                           543
<OTHER-SE>                                     144,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   906,808
<SALES>                                        476,708
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               476,863
<CGS>                                          359,187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  359,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (33,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,978)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,744)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,722)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)
<FN>
<F1>DUE TO THE USE OF CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR INTERIM REPORTING, THIS
INFORMATION IS NOT COMPILED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.M.M. and * From the 29th District Court

J.E.T., children, of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C49180.

No. 11-21-00176-CV * February 3, 2022

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we 

affirm the order of the trial court.