alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 12033]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Tennessee, dated 02/16/2010. *Incident:*
                         Polk County Rock Slide. *Incident Period:*
                         11/10/2009 and continuing.
 Effective Date: 02/16/2010. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/16/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 
                        ( print page 8415)
                        U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Polk. *Contiguous Counties: Tennessee:*
                     Bradley, McMinn, Monroe. Georgia: Fannin, Murray. North Carolina: Cherokee. The Interest Rates are: PercentBusinesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 120330. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Dated: February 16, 2010. Karen G. Mills, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2010-3615 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# L_2022041EN.01003701.xml

| 22.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 41/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/37

---

Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 328 of 21 December 2018
  )

On page 139, Article 35(3):

for:

‘3.   The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of two years from 24 December 2018.’,

read:

‘3.   The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(3) shall be conferred on the Commission until 31 December 2021.’.

---
```

[House Document 112-49]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 112-49

 
     CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

   A CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL 
               REGULATIONS, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d)

  August 16, 2011.--Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 
                         ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 
1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national 
emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its 
declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register 
and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the 
emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. 
In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal 
Register for publication the enclosed notice, stating that the 
emergency caused by the lapse of the Export Administration Act 
of 1979, as amended, is to continue in effect for 1 year beyond 
August 17, 2011.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, August 12, 2011.
                                 Notice

                              ----------                              

     Continuation of Emergency Regarding Export Control Regulations

    On August 17, 2001, consistent with the authority provided 
to the President under the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the President issued 
Executive Order 13222. In that order, he declared a national 
emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat 
to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
United States in light of the expiration of the Export 
Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et 
seq.). Because the Export Administration Act has not been 
renewed by the Congress, the national emergency declared on 
August 17, 2001, must continue in effect beyond August 17, 
2011. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the 
National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 
for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 
13222.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and 
transmitted to the Congress.
                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, August 12, 2011.

                                  

```
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1428 Magnesium hydroxide. ( a ) Magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2, CAS Reg. No. 1309-42-8) occurs naturally as the colorless, crystalline mineral brucite. It is prepared as a white precipitate by the addition of sodium hydroxide to a water soluble magnesium salt or by hydration of reactive grades of magnesium oxide.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), p. 178, which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. The affirmation of this ingredient as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use: ( 1 ) The ingredient is used as a nutrient supplement as defined in § 170.3(o)(20) of this chapter; a pH control agent as defined in § 170.3(o)(23) of this chapter; and a processing aid as defined in § 170.3(o)(24) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in foods at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[50 FR 13559, Apr. 5, 1985, as amended at 64 FR 405, Jan. 5, 1999]
FACT SHEET

For more information, visit the CBP.gov website 

or contact the Offi ce of Public Aff airs at 202–344–1770.

In 2007, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) established Import Safety as a Priority 

Trade Issue (PTI) in order to prevent unsafe 

products from entering the U.S. commerce.

Th e implementation of the Import Safety PTI 

permits CBP to focus its resources on the 

prevention of unsafe products into the United 

States while at the same time permitting 

the facilitation of legitimate cargo.

To fulfi ll its mission, the Import Safety 

PTI outlines three key objectives: 

• Create nationwide uniformity on the 

detention, seizure, destruction and/or other 

required enforcement measures to control 

any potential import safety concerns; 

• Create an automated system permitting 

information gathering and sharing among 

participating government agencies; and 

• Coordinate and communicate intra-agency 

and inter-agency risk assessment, targeting 

and response to import safety concerns, 

particularly concerning the potential 

exposure and harm to the American public.

CBP is often required to examine and hold 

merchandise on behalf of other government 

agencies that have the regulatory authority to 

determine the admissibility of these products. 

CBP works collaboratively and collectively 

with the other agencies tasked with import 

safety to maintain the highest level of 

security and safety for our nation. 

Th e foundation of interagency eff orts in the 

area of import safety is active participation in 

workgroups, such as the Import Safety Interagency 

Workgroup and the Food Safety Working Group. 

In addition to participation in these working 

groups, the Import Safety PTI is dedicated to:

• Providing leadership to Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE)/

International Trade Data System (ITDS) 

process by working with the participating 

government agencies to develop and refi ne 

their requirements for Cargo Release.

• Providing policy recommendations in 

the area of Import Safety by evaluating 

legislative and regulatory packages, while 

striving to implement new processes and 

procedures to maximize all agencies’ 

resources and implementing new legislation.

• Expand the use of risk assessment 

methodologies to maximize our resources 

and strengthen our import safety expertise.

Import Safety

11/10
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-3047

___________________________

Janet Hill, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant ,

v. Bank of America, formerly known as Countrywide; America’s Wholesale Lender; Bank of New York Mellon; MERS Inc.; Bony-TX/CT Government; Real Time Resolutions, Inc.; Bayview Loan Servicing, also known as Bayview Financial,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ,

Does 1-100, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

____________ Submitted: May 21, 2021 Filed: June 9, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________PER CURIAM.

Janet Hill appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing her action seeking to confirm a purported arbitration award. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the action. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-1385

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

 ALTON SHERMAN, 

Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this Court issued on December 22, 2008, is

amended as follows:

On page 12, line 4, change "differs" to "differ".
**EXHIBIT23.1**

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.333-137073) of Hospitality Properties Trust and in the related Prospectuses ofour reports dated February 23, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Hospitality Properties Trust, Hospitality PropertiesTrust management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Hospitality Properties Trust, included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP                                         

Boston, MassachusettsFebruary 23, 2007

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              68                     227
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      68                     227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,600                   6,100
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        15,000                  15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,532)                (20,873)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        68                     227
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    29                     310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (29)                   (310)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (29)                   (310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
38113.

#### MILAM v. ADAMS *et al.*

Decided December 2, 1960.

*James Maddox,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wright, Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Clinton J. Morgan,*contra.

Townsend, Presiding Judge.

This court having, in *Milam v. Adams,*101 Ga. App. 880 (115 S. E. 2d 252) affirmed the judgment of the trial court overruling the general demurrer to the petition, and that judgment having been reversed in *Milam v. Adams,*216 Ga. 440 (117 S. E. 2d 343), the judgment of this court in *Milam v. Adams,*101 Ga. App. 880, supra, is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the trial court overruling the general demurrer to the petition is reversed in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carlisle, Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
[No. 20718-4-II.

Division Two.

January 16, 1998.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eric Simonson, et al., *Appellants,*Pierce County, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-2-08251-9, Vicki L. Hogan, J., entered April 22, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Hunt, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 729 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation Memorial 

from Lincoln Park in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. HUFFMAN, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. 

BLUMENAUER, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Emancipation Memorial from Lincoln Park in the District 

of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emancipation Statue 

5 Removal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF EMANCIPATION MEMORIAL. 

7 (a) REMOVAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall 

8 remove the Emancipation Memorial from Lincoln Park in 

9 the District of Columbia. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 729 IH

1 (b) DONATION.—The Secretary shall donate the 

2 Emancipation Memorial to a museum or other similar en3 tity. The recipient of the Emancipation Memorial may not 

4 store, display, or exhibit the Emancipation Memorial out5 side. If the Emancipation Memorial is stored, displayed, 

6 or exhibited outside, ownership of the Emancipation Me7 morial will revert back to the Federal Government. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 10, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00500-CV 

CGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant 

V. 

VV SERVICES LP D/B/A PIVOT BUILDING SERVICES, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-16221 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

180500F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CGI CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant 

No. 05-18-00500-CV V. 

VV SERVICES LP D/B/A PIVOT 

BUILDING SERVICES, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-16221. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Evans and Brown participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee VV SERVICES LP D/B/A PIVOT BUILDING SERVICES 

recover its costs of this appeal from appellant CGI CONSTRUCTION, INC. 

Judgment entered July 10, 2018.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7127
KENDELL C. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 99-7540
KENDELL C. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-298-PJM) Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: February 8, 20002 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Kendell C. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Appellant Kendell C. Alexander appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. See Alexander v. United States , No. CA-99-298-PJM (D. Md. July 27 & Sept. 30, 1999). We deny Alexander’s motion to remand filed in No. 99-7127. Furthermore, we deny Alexander’s motions captioned “Motion of Expedite of Appeals” and “Motion to Strike Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Pro Se Informal Brief.” 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