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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 2 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, exemption 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the item listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday, November 22, 2010 will be:

Consideration of amicus participation.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting item.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: November 18, 2010.

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-29595 Filed 11-19-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOANNE JENKINS and

QUENTON WOODEN,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cv208-SPM/AK

CITY OF TALLAHASSEE,

CHIEF WALTER MCNEIL,

OFFICER CHUCK PERRY,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendants’

Motion to Strike Exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motions for

Summary Judgment (doc. 107) and Plaintiffs’ Response (doc. 124). At issue are

three exhibits filed by Plaintiffs in opposition to summary judgment. Those are

Exhibit J, a photo of Ms. Jenkins displaying her robe; Exhibit U, Ms. Jenkins’

affidavit; and Exhibit V, affidavits from Abu Ghraib prison inmates.

The Court finds that Exhibit V should be stricken because it is irrelevant. 

Exhibits J and U, however, are relevant to this case. Any authentication

problems with Exhibit J have been cured by Ms. Jenkins’ affidavit, doc. 124, p. 7. 

Likewise, any problem with the oath on Ms. Jenkins’ original affidavit has been

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 168 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

cured, doc. 124, pp. 9-10. Although Defendants seek to strike the affidavit on the

additional ground that it contradicts her deposition testimony, the conflicts noted

are not inherently irreconcilable so was to warrant striking the affidavit as a

sham. See Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949, 953-55 (11th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ motion to strike (doc. 107)

is granted as to Exhibit V and denied as to Exhibits J and U.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 168 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2
114 STAT. 330 PUBLIC LAW 106–211—MAY 26, 2000

Public Law 106–211

106th Congress

An Act

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve the program for American

Indian Tribal Colleges and Universities under part A of title III.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPLICATIONS FOR AND AWARD OF GRANTS.

(a) SIMPLIFICATION OF APPLICATIONS.—Sections 316(d)(2) and

317(d)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(d)(2),

1059d(d)(2)) are each amended by inserting after the first sentence

the following: ‘‘The Secretary shall, to the extent possible, prescribe

a simplified and streamlined format for such applications that takes

into account the limited number of institutions that are eligible

for assistance under this section.’’.

(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR AWARDS.—

(1) TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.—Section 316(d)

of such Act is further amended by striking paragraph (3) and

inserting the following:

‘‘(3) SPECIAL RULES.—

‘‘(A) ELIGIBILITY.—No Tribal College or University that

receives funds under this section shall concurrently receive

funds under other provisions of this part or part B.

‘‘(B) EXEMPTION.—Section 313(d) shall not apply to

institutions that are eligible to receive funds under this

section.

‘‘(C) DISTRIBUTION.—In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall, to the extent possible and consistent with the competitive process under which such

grants are awarded, ensure maximum and equitable distribution among all eligible institutions.’’.

(2) ALASKAN NATIVE AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN INSTITUTIONS.—

Section 317 of such Act is further amended by striking subsection (e) and by inserting at the end of subsection (d) the

following new paragraph:

‘‘(3) SPECIAL RULES.—

‘‘(A) ELIGIBILITY.—No Alaskan Native-serving institution or Native Hawaiian-serving institution that receives

funds under this section shall concurrently receive funds

under other provisions of this part or part B.

‘‘(B) EXEMPTION.—Section 313(d) shall not apply to

institutions that are eligible to receive funds under this

section.

‘‘(C) DISTRIBUTION.—In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall, to the extent possible and consistent with the competitive process under which such

May 26, 2000

[H.R. 3629]

PUBLIC LAW 106–211—MAY 26, 2000 114 STAT. 331

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3629:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

May 2, considered and passed House.

May 18, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

grants are awarded, ensure maximum and equitable distribution among all eligible institutions.’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this Act shall

be effective on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Approved May 26, 2000.

20 USC 1059c

note.
(April 21, 1969)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Theodore Hunt, Appellant.

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the County County, denying appellant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis,*without a hearing. Appellant’s attack upon the sufficiency of the indictment on the ground that it was founded upon incompetent evidence before the Grand Jury cannot prevail where as here he failed to raise such contentions prior to the entry of a plea of guilty and judgment thereon (e.g., *People ex rel. Newman*v. *McMann,*29 A D 2d 704, mot. for lv. to app. den. 21 N Y 2d 644; *People*v. *Moore,*30 A D 2d 720; *People*v. *Brown,*22 A D 2d 920). Nor do we find any merit in appellant’s additional contentions and, accordingly, the order must be affirmed. Order affirmed. Reynolds, J. P., Aulisi, Staley, Jr., Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P.
§ 3201.136 Kitchenware and accessories. ( a ) *Definition.* Kitchenware and accessories are products designed for food or drink preparation. These products include cookware and bakeware, such as baking cups, cookie sheets, parchment paper, and roasting bags or pans; cooking utensils, such as brushes, tongs, spatulas, and ladles; and food preparation items, such as cutting boards, measuring cups, mixing bowls, coffee filters, food preparation gloves, and sandwich and snack bags. These products exclude kitchen appliances, such as toasters, blenders, and coffee makers; disposable tableware; disposable cutlery; disposable containers; durable tableware; durable cutlery; and cleaning tools.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 22 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased kitchenware and accessories. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased kitchenware and accessories.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]
149 So.2d 763

#### STATE of Louisiana v. James CREAMER.

No. 46585.

Feb. 6, 1963.

Writs denied. The showing made by relator is not sufficient to justify this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3402

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3402 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3402.9 Financial provisions.

An institution may elect to apply the cost-of-education/training institutional allowance to a Fellow's tuition, fees and laboratory expenses and to defray other program expenses (e.g., recruitment, travel, publications, or salaries of project personnel), unless stated otherwise in the solicitation. Tuition and fees are the responsibility of the Fellow unless an institution elects to use its cost-of-education institutional allowance for this purpose or elects to pay such costs out of non-USDA monies. No dependency allowances are provided to any USDA Graduate or Postdoctoral Fellows. Stipend payments and special international study or thesis/dissertation research travel allowances may be made to Fellows by the institution, in accordance with standard institutional procedures for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships and assistantships.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL JOSEPH NILIO.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 3:20cv5528/LAC/HTC

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report

and Recommendation dated July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff has been

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity

to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I

have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

Case No: 3:20cv5528/LAC/HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05528-LC-HTC Document 16 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of court is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2020.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:20cv5528/LAC/HTC

Case 3:20-cv-05528-LC-HTC Document 16 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 2
MEDIATION REFERRALS

2006-0787.

#### State ex rel. Spears v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-96, 2006-Ohio-1654.

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6):
Page 1 of 1

1

The defendant moved for early termination under 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c), which relates to

early termination of probation. Ms. Hanna, who was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, is

currently on supervised release, not probation. Thus, the Court will construe the motion as one

brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which relates to supervised release.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00046-MP

JESSIE HANNA,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 149, Motion for Early Termination of Supervised

Release, filed by Jessie Hanna. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1),1 the Court, after considering the

statutory sentencing factors, may "terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the

defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release" if the Court

"is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the

interest of justice." One year of defendant's supervised release expired in early April. 

Additionally, the Court has conferred with the probation office, and the government does not

object to the early termination. The Court is satisfied that early termination is warranted by the

conduct of the defendant and not contrary to the interest of justice. Accordingly, the motion is

granted and defendant is discharged from supervised release.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00046-MP Document 150 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Meros.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Meros*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 222.]

(No. 98-712

Submitted June 10, 1998

Decided September 23, 1998.)

*223
      *Jonathan E. Coughlan,*Disciplinary Counsel, and *Harald F. Craig III,*Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

*224
      *Ford L. Noble,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., not participating.
# L_2021369EN.01001501.xml

| 19.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 369/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 369/15

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1826

of 18 October 2021

amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 (1), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 (1), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi.

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 31 October 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 31 October 2022.

| (3) | Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 6 of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 31 October 2022.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 18 October 2021.

For the Council

The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1763 of 1 October 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Burundi (OJ L 257, 2.10.2015, p. 37).

1

---
#### The State ex rel. Allied/Egry Business Systems, Inc., a.k.a. Shade Allied, Appellee, *v.*Seymour, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Allied/Egry Business Sys., Inc. v. Seymour*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 518.]

(No. 98-665

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*519*Arter & Hadden L.L.P., Douglas M. Bricker*and *Shane M. Dawson,*for appellee.

*Gibson & Robbins-Penniman*and *Corñne S. Carman,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the writ.

Douglas, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
HOW 

W

like to teKeeping military hsecure paccess ahealthcainformat

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Veterans Health Administration 

Office of Public Health and 

Environmental Hazards (13) 

810 Vermont Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20420

(202) 273-8575 

November 2005 

IB 10-93 P96156 

Your story is important and documented medical history in an electronic format.......

3⁄4 enables you to enter information 

and recall it at the push of a button. Editing, changing or adding information can be done at any time. 

3⁄4 is easy to fill out and your 

documentation will explain where you were and what you experienced. You can print the information and give to your provider without having to remember everything at the time of your appointment. 

3⁄4 is a good way to help clinicians 

identify medical conditions. 

3⁄4 provides a tool to collect your 

military history. 

3⁄4 condenses military history 

information into an easy-todigest printed summary 

3⁄4 maintains confidentiality and 

security of your medical information. 

3⁄4 provides a tool to record your 

experiences and concerns. 

3⁄4 eliminates paper. 3⁄4 your health history may explain 

you current health problem. 

Each individual 

who served our 

country in the 

military 

demonstrated an 

appreciation for the 

freedoms and 

values we share. 

Each has their own 

unique story 

and we hope this 

brochure provides 

each veteran an 

avenue for 

documenting, 

preserving and 

sharing their past. YOU
This new program lets you give input 

into your own medical history. It’s now available in an easy to use form to record your military history and individual health details. The military history form can be used in your diagnosis and treatment processes, and it could inform your provider of the time and place you were exposed to toxic substances or diseases. Documenting your military story will help enable your physicians to view you as a whole person rather than just a series of symptoms and diseases. Our goal in the Department of Veterans Affairs is to provide better health care for you. Maintaining and improving health care is not an abstract notion. We believe that this will improve the care we can provide you, with better communication between patient and physician. 

Write your stor

like this: (you cbeginning this 

Indicates Requ

Title: (your 

Event Date:

Month: Day:

Branch of Ser

- -

Location of S

- -

Military Occu

AssignmentsAFB) Exposures an

complete one 

Exposures yoexperienced:(e.g. weaponsradiation, or a

Describe you(e.g. Were yocombat, did yoinjured peopleexperiences to 

To Begin Go to:

http://www.myhealth.va.gov/

Register

Log In To AccountTo access more information, you must log in to your account. User ID:Password:First time user? Register NowForgot User ID?Forgot Password?

Once logged in – go toIn “MyCare” – Go to Military Health History

You are logged in 

Self Entered Information

Personal Information Medical InformationHealth

eLog

Military Health History
Case 3:96-cv0274-LCSMN Document 193Filed 07/1398 Page1of 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. 02-40127 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FAUSTINO MARGARITO TRINIDAD-SALINAS, also known as Santos Benavides Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-603-1

-------------------- January 29, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Faustino Margarito Trinidad-Salinas appeals the 20-month sentence imposed by the district court following his entry of a plea of guilty to a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b) for being found illegally in the United States subsequent to deportation and a conviction for an aggravated felony. Trinidad-Salinas contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance because counsel did not challenge theNo. 02-40127 -2- addition of one point to his criminal history score for each of two state convictions for driving with excessive blood alcohol levels. Trinidad-Salinas has not briefed this issue sufficiently. See United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez , 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991). Trinidad-Salinas does not explain why the criminal history was incorrect, he does not provide citations to the record or to other information to show that the criminal history is incorrect, and he does not indicate what counsel should have done. Further, Trinidad-Salinas cannot establish ineffective assistance because he cannot show prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 697 (1984). Even if the district court had subtracted two points for the challenged convictions, Trinidad-Salinas would have had a criminal history score of four points, which would have resulted in the same criminal history category III. Trinidad-Salinas contends that the Government breached the plea agreement because it did not make a recommendation at sentencing that he receive a sentence at the low end of the applicable Sentencing Guideline range. Because Trinidad-Salinas did not object at sentencing to the Government’s lack of such a recommendation, our review of the issue is for plain error only. United States v. Reeves , 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001). We will not exercise our discretion to correct a forfeited error unless the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.No. 02-40127 -3- The district court was aware of the plea agreement’s terms and imposed sentence in compliance with the agreement. The sentencing recommendation was incorporated in the presentence report. See Reeves , 255 F.3d at 210. Trinidad has not demonstrated a breach or that any error that may have occurred seriously affected the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Reeves , 255 F.3d at 210. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.