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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0118]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Prior Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denver Presley, Jr., Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30036), the Agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0520. The approval expires on December 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: December 23, 2010.

David Dorsey,

Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget. 

[FR Doc. 2010-32946 Filed 12-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
#### § 417.137 Who in the USDA may grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction?

Within the USDA, a debarring official may grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction as provided under 2 CFR 180.135.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7862

KENNETH SHANNON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1323-AM) Submitted: March 25, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Shannon, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Shannon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Shannon v. Garraghty , No. CA1323-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 18, 2001; entered Sept. 19, 2001). We deny Shannon’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, et al 

Complainant, 

v. 

WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY, 

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-08 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to November 23, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case due to the complexity of the Record. 

Dir tor, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

~M Z}) 2-Dlb 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 22,2016, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document 

addressed to: 

Agent for Complainants: 

Mr. William Foster 

Better Airports, LLC 

4504 North Versailles Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75205 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Mr. Larry S. Kaplan 

Mr. Keith Yamaguchi 

Kaplan, Massamillo & Andrews, LLC 

200 West Madison Street 

161

h Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Copies to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

FAA Central Region, ACE-600
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 88 FR 45064, July 14, 2023.

§ 12.93 Summary decisions. ( a ) After the hearing commences, a participant may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a summary decision on any issue in the hearing. Any other participant may, within 10 days after service of the motion, which time may be extended for an additional 10 days for good cause, serve opposing affidavits or countermove for summary decision. The presiding officer may set the matter for argument and call for the submission of briefs.
( b ) The presiding officer will grant the motion if the objections, requests for hearing, other pleadings, affidavits, and other material filed in connection with the hearing, or matters officially noticed, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a participant is entitled to summary decision.
( c ) Affidavits should set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence and show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated. When a properly supported motion for summary decision is made, a participant opposing the motion may not rest upon mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions; affidavits or other responses must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for the hearing.
( d ) Should it appear from the affidavits of a participant opposing the motion that for sound reasons stated, facts essential to justify the opposition cannot be presented by affidavit, the presiding officer may deny the motion for summary decision, order a continuance to permit affidavits or additional evidence to be obtained, or issue other just order.
( e ) If on motion under this section a summary decision is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked. and evidentiary facts need to be developed, the presiding officer will issue an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy and directing further evidentiary proceedings. The facts so specified will be deemed established.
( f ) A participant may obtain interlocutory review by the Commissioner of a summary decision of the presiding officer.
§ 1402.100 Purpose. ( a ) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards set forth in 2 CFR part 200 apply to the Department of the Interior. This part adopts, as the Department of the Interior (DOI) policies and procedures, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200. The Uniform Guidance applies in full except as stated in this part.
( b ) This part establishes DOI financial assistance regulations that implement or supplement the OMB's Uniform Guidance. It is designed to ensure that financial assistance is administered in full compliance with applicable law, regulation, policy, and best practices to ensure the American people get the most value from the funds DOI awards on financial assistance. For supplemental guidance, DOI has adopted section numbering that corresponds to related OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 200.
( c ) This part extends 2 CFR part 200, subparts A through E, policies and procedures to foreign public entities and foreign organizations as allowed by 2 CFR 200.101, except as indicated throughout this part.
#### § 182.630 Debarment.

Debarment means an action taken by a Federal agency to prohibit a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions. A recipient so prohibited is debarred, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and agency regulations implementing the OMB guidance on nonprocurement debarment and suspension (2 CFR part 180, which implements Executive Orders 12549 and 12689).
#### William E. O’CONNOR, Appellant, v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Acting Secretary Of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

No. 95-1049.

United States Court of Veterans Appeals.

Jan. 29, 1998.

Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and IVERS, Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on October 24, 1995, from that portion of a September 29, 1995, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) which denied an effective date earlier than April 18, 1991, for a grant of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. Briefs were filed by both parties, and on August 4, 1997, the Court, in a single-judge memorandum decision, vacated the September 29, 1995, Board decision in part and remanded the matter. Judgment was entered on September 2,1997.

The 30-day period within which to file an application for attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), commenced on November 1, 1997. On November 17, 1997, the appellant filed an EAJA application. On December 30, 1997, the Secretary filed a response in which he

> concedes that Appellant has met the three predicate findings for an EAJA award: (1) Appellant is a “prevailing party;” (2) the Secretary’s position was not “substantially justified;” and (3) there are no “special circumstances” which would make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

> For purposes of avoiding further litigation, the Secretary is not contesting the reasonableness of Appellant’s attorney fees or expenses under the current case law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(C).

Secretary’s Response (Response) at 1. In his conclusion, the Secretary specifically “requests the Court to award reasonable EAJA fees in the instant case.” Response at 2.

In view of the concessions and prayer for specific relief contained therein, the Court construes the Secretary’s response as a motion requesting the Court to enter an order granting the appellant’s application. So construed, the Secretary’s motion is uncontested as there is no dispute between the parties as to the merits of the appellant’s application. *See*Part VII(a) of the Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 10 VetApp. LXXIII, Part VII(a) (1997)(“The Clerk disposes of uncontested or routine procedural motions as determined by the Court.”). Accordingly, the *19Secretary’s motion for an Order awarding the appellant attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) in the amount of $8,648.64 is granted.

It is so ORDERED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 203 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 203

    Of inquiry requesting the President, and directing the Attorney 
 General, to transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of 
Representatives relating to certain communications by the President of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2017

Mr. Quigley (for himself, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. 
   Speier, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Swalwell of California) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Of inquiry requesting the President, and directing the Attorney 
 General, to transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of 
Representatives relating to certain communications by the President of 
                           the United States.

    Resolved, That the President is requested, and the Attorney General 
of the United States is directed, to transmit, respectively (in a 
manner appropriate to classified information, if the President or the 
Attorney General determines appropriate), to the House of 
Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption 
of this resolution, copies of any document, record, memo, 
correspondence, or other communication in their possessions, or any 
portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to the 
following:
            (1) President Donald J. Trump's statement, communicated via 
        Twitter on March 4, 2017, at 3:35 a.m.: ``Terrible! Just found 
        out that Obama had my `wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before 
        the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism.''.
            (2) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter 
        on March 4, 2017, at 3:49 a.m.: ``Is it legal for a sitting 
        President to be `wire tapping' a race for president prior to an 
        election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!''.
            (3) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter 
        on March 4, 2017, at 3:52 a.m.: ``I'd bet a good lawyer could 
        make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was 
        tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!''.
            (4) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter 
        on March 4, 2017, at 4:02 a.m.: ``How low has President Obama 
        gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election 
        process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 31994D0184 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994D0184

**94/184/EC: Council Decision of 24 January 1994 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine **

*
Official Journal L 086 , 31/03/1994 P. 0001 - 0002 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 56 P. 0146 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 56 P. 0146 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 24 January 1994 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine (94/184/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the conclusion of the Agreement negotiated between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine will facilitate and promote trade in wine between the Contracting Parties; whereas it is therefore desirable to approve the said Agreement;

Whereas, in order to facilitate the implementation of certain provisions of the Agreement, the Commission should be authorized to make the necessary technical adjustments in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 83 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine(1) ;

Whereas, since the provisions of this Agreement are directly linked to measures covered by the common agricultural policy, and specifically by the Community rules on wine and winegrowing, this Agreement must be established at Community level,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine and the Protocol and exchanges of letters annexed thereto are hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.

The text of the acts referred to in the first paragraph is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community and to deposit the instrument of approval by the Community.

The President of the Council shall make the notification provided for in Article 28 (1) of the Agreement.

Article 3

For the purposes of Article 17 (2) of the Agreement, the Commission is hereby authorized to conclude the necessary acts amending the Agreement, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 83 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87.

Article 4

The Commission, assisted by the representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee set up by Article 18 of the Agreement.

Article 5

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 24 January 1994.

For the Council

The President

G. MORAITIS

(1) OJ No L 84, 27. 3. 1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1566/93 (OJ No L 154, 25. 6. 1993, p. 39).
#### § 910.506 Audit costs.

See 2 CFR 200.425 Audit services.
§ 2205.306 Cost sharing or matching. ( a ) Shared costs or matching funds must meet the criteria of 2 CFR 200.306(b), with the exception of 2 CFR 200.306(b)(5). Federal funds from other agencies may be used as match or cost sharing as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 12571(e) under the national service laws.
<PAGE>
 
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

                                  __________


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Seer Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-97856 and 33-97858) of our
reports dated November 7, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Seer Technologies, Inc., as of September 30, 1996, and for the
years ended September 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which reports are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                              /s/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Washington, D.C.
December 30, 1996

                                     E-25
#### § 2429.500 Who in HUD determines that a recipient other than an individual violated the requirements of this part?

The Secretary or designee is the official authorized to make the determination under 2 CFR 182.500.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3323]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Unblockable Drains/Public Accommodations--Virginia Graeme Baker 
Pool and Spa Safety Act/Minimum State Requirements for Grants.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: February 12, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3323 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
From: Rogers, Bob

To: "Lakeman, Sean"; Marc Corrigan; Benjamin, Lynorae; barry.stephens@tn.gov; Quincy Styke; Dilts, Adam;

Steven Stout; Davis, Scott; Johnson, Brenda C.

Cc: Gray, Carter; Srivastava, Pragati; Fritchie, Denis; Holt, Jim; Zerwekh, Tyler

Subject: Update on Maintenance Plan Revision

Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 3:58:17 PM

Thanks to everyone who participated in last week’s conference call. After considering the

discussion during the call as well as doing more research, we here in Memphis have decided the

draft plan needs more work to be acceptable. The nature of the plan is sound, but we agree it will

be necessary to update the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in the existing ozone maintenance

plan. In addition, along with language and format changes, we believe the clearest way for this to

work is to use the current draft document as a technical review of modifications of the existing

plan. Eventually, the submittal will include a revised version of the Feb., 2009 Maintenance Plan

with a request to EPA to replace the existing plan with the revision. Along with the technical

document and other required documentation, we will prepare a ‘redline’ version of the 2009 plan.

Pulling the numbers together to update the MVEB will add a little more time to preparing the

update. We have had an initial meeting with local transportation officials to get this process

started. We will be contacting some of you individually and plan to schedule a conference call in

the near future to arrive at a consensus on approach details for updating the budget.

Thanks again for you input as well as your patience. Please share this with anyone you think

should be informed but is not on the distribution list.

Bob Rogers, Manager

Pollution Control

Shelby County Health Department

814 Jefferson Ave.

Memphis TN 38105

(901)222-9599
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 21 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk June 21 , 2017

15 5 626 ( 79 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

, SC: 155 62 6

v COA: 3 28737

Wa yne CC: 14

- 010589

- FC

EMMANUEL LEROY BROWN

, Defendant

- Appellant

. __________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on May 26 , 2017 , is accepted for

filing

.