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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated October 30, 2009, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on November 6, 2009, (74 FR 57522), ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, 238 South Main Street, Assonet, Massachusetts 02702, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
Schedule2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIPhenylacetone (8501)
IIDextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms) (9273)
II
 The company plans to manufacture bulk API, for distribution to its customers. The bulk 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine will be used for conversion into non-controlled substances. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 USC 823(a) and determined that the registration of ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 USC 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: February 25, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-4400 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10541

Summary Calendar

__________________

LINDA S. SHAMMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NEIMAN-MARCUS/NEIMAN-MARCUS 

COMPANY/THE NEIMAN MARCUS

GROUP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

(3:93-CV-636-D)

______________________________________________

July 26, 1996

Before KING, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Linda Shammas appeals a district court judgment

dismissing with prejudice her claims for sexual harassment and

retaliation under Title VII against appellee Neiman Marcus.

Shammas argues that the district court clearly erred in finding

against her on the issues of quid pro quo discrimination, hostile
2

environment sexual harassment, and retaliation. 

With respect to Shammas's appeal from the adverse rulings on

quid pro quo and retaliation, we find the evidence was clearly

sufficient to support the district court's findings. In

particular, the district court did not credit Shammas's testimony

that Bullard gave Shammas a disciplinary warning because she told

him she would no longer endure the sexual harassment. Given that

much of the evidence indicated that Shammas was terminated for

insubordination, the district court did not clearly err in finding

that Shammas's disciplinary warning and subsequent termination were

not the result of her refusal to acquiesce in quid pro quo sexual

harassment or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity

under Title VII.

Shammas also asserts that the district court erred in finding

against her on her claim for hostile environment sexual harassment.

As much as some cases, and this case in particular, may tempt us to

substitute our findings for those of the district court, we adhere

to the doctrine that this type of substitution is improper when the

district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of

the record viewed in its entirety. See Anderson v. City of

Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511,

84 L. Ed.2d 518 (1985). After carefully reviewing the record, we

cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding the

complained-of remarks were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to

establish Shammas's hostile environment sexual harassment claim.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
June 1, 2015 

Mr. Alex Lazzarinetti 

Dragonfly Visuals, LLC 

619 Moss Circle 

Placentia, CA 92870 

Dear Mr. Lazzarinetti: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 30, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1372), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended June 27, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




                                            /s/ Richard M. Frank
                                            -------------------------
                                            Richard M. Frank
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            August 5, 2004



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. and will be retained by CEC Entertainment,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD I. FINE; MARYELLEN OLMAN

- FINE,

Petitioners

- Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 17

- 71042

Tax Ct. No. 23553

- 15L

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Richard I. Fine and Maryellen Olman

- Fine appeal pro se from the Tax

Court’s summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s

determination sustaining a proposed collection action for tax years 2010, 2011, and

2012

. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo.

* 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). 

# F ILED

MAR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71042

Sollberger v. Comm’ r , 691 F.3d 1119 , 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). W e affirm.

Because the record shows that the appeals officer did not abuse his

discretion in sustaining the proposed coll ection action for tax years 2010, 2011,

and 2012 , the Tax Court properly granted summary judgment for the government

.

See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an appeals officer must consider

in making a determination to sustai n a proposed collection action).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Fines’ motion to

set aside the order and decision because the Fines failed to demonstrate any ground

for relief. See Parkinson v. Comm’ r , 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting

forth standard o f review) ; see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v.

ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 12 6 2

- 6 3 (9th Cir. 1993) ( setting forth grounds for relief

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b))

. We rej ect as without merit the Fines’ contentions regarding due process
,

fraud upon the Tax Court
, their entitlement to take depositions, evidentiary

objections, tax years o ther than the ones at issue in this action, Richard Fine’s

whistleblower claims
, and purported credibility determinations

. We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised

and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
§ 740.18 Coal tar hair dyes posing a risk of cancer. ( a ) The principal display panel of the label and any labeling accompanying a coal tar hair dye containing any ingredient listed in paragraph (b) of this section shall bear, in accordance with the requirements of § 740.2, the following: *Warning*—Contains an ingredient that can penetrate your skin and has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
( b ) Hair dyes containing any of the following ingredients shall comply with the requirements of this section: (1) 4-methoxy-*m*-phenylenediamine (2,4-diaminoanisole) and (2) 4-methoxy-*m*-phenylenediamine sulfate (2,4-diaminoanisole sulfate).
[44 FR 59522, Oct. 16, 1979] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 47 FR 7829, Feb. 23, 1982, § 740.18 was stayed until further notice, effective Sept. 18, 1980.
§ 522.1081 Chorionic gonadotropin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each vial contains 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 USP units of lyophilized powder for constitution with accompanying diluent to a 10-milliliter solution.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter for use as in paragraph (d) of this section. ( 1 ) No. 054771 for use as in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A), (d)(1)(i)(B) and (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) No. 000061 for use as in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.304 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Cattle* — ( i ) *Amount.* As a single dose. Dosage may be repeated in 14 days if the animal's behavior or examination of the ovaries *per rectum* indicates retreatment. ( A ) 10,000 USP units by intramuscular injection.
( B ) 500 to 2,500 USP units by intrafollicular injection.
( C ) 2,500 to 5,000 USP units by intravenous injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For parenteral use in cows for treatment of nymphomania (frequent or constant heat) due to cystic ovaries.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Finfish* — ( i ) *Amount.* 50 to 510 IU per pound of body weight for males, 67 to 1,816 IU per pound of body weight for females, by intramuscular injection. Up to three doses may be administered.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* An aid in improving spawning function in male and female brood finfish.
( iii ) *Limitations.* In fish intended for human consumption, the total dose administered per fish (all injections combined) should not exceed 25,000 IU chorionic gonadotropin. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[74 FR 61516, Nov. 25, 2009, as amended at 76 FR 17778, Mar. 31, 2011; 77 FR 55414, Sept. 10, 2012; 79 FR 16189, Mar. 25, 2014; 83 FR 13635, Mar. 30, 2018]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9436-9437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,041]


Aleris Blanking and Rim Products, Inc., a Division of Aleris 
International, Inc., Terre Haute, IN; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated January 29, 2010, the petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
determination was issued on December 10, 2009 and the Notice of 
Determination was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2010 
(75 FR 3932).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the findings that imports of aluminum blanks and hoops did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no 
shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding customers of the subject firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is

[[Page 9437]]

of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department 
of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of February, 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-4247 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# C_2016222EN.01004902.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/49

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Mota Alves and Others v Commission

(Case F-63/14) (1)

(2016/C 222/75)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24/11/2014, p. 61.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7589 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7589

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, to conduct a 
study of the national security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, 
  and devices that combine a modem and router, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Our Unsecure Technologies 
to Ensure Reliability and Security Act'' or the ``ROUTERS Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS POSED BY CERTAIN ROUTERS AND 
              MODEMS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 
national security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and devices 
that combine a modem and router that are designed, developed, 
manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or 
subject to the influence of a covered country.
    (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 
report on the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered country.--The term ``covered country'' means a 
        country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United 
        States Code.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
        for Communications and Information.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7589

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, to conduct a 
study of the national security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, 
  and devices that combine a modem and router, and for other purposes.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             AUG-29-1998
<CASH>                                                  16,550
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          852,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                            837,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,850,688
<PP&E>                                               3,463,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (190,130)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       5,371,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                4,812,653
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                15,433
<OTHER-SE>                                           2,902,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         5,371,299
<SALES>                                              3,404,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     3,404,428
<CGS>                                                2,682,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,646,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       (34,513)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      45,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (252,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (252,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (252,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

PAUL A. RANGALA W, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

MAR - 9 2010 

Cleerk, u.s. District anCi 

ankruptcy Courts 

10 ~3i4 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 

pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. 

While plaintiff was in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he was 

transferred from the Hampton Roads Regional Jail to the Rappahannock Regional Jail. Because 

the Rappahannock Regional Jail did not accept detainees' property, plaintiffs property was taken 

to ICE's Washington Field Office for storage. According to plaintiff, ICE has lost his property, 

and he now demands compensation. 

It appears that plaintiffs sale means of recovery comes under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act ("FCTA"), see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FTC A provides that the "United States shall be 

liable [for tort claims] in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under 

like circumstances." 28 U.S.C. § 2674(a). It requires that a claimant present his claim to the 

appropriate federal agency prior to filing a civil action in a federal district court. McNeil v. 

United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (requiring claimant to present 

claim "for money damages for injury or loss of property ... caused by the negligent or wrongful 

act or omission of any employee ofthe Government while acting within the scope of his office or 

3 
employment ... to the appropriate Federal agency" from which written notice of the denial of the 

claim has been forwarded to the claimant before a suit may be filed). It does not appear that 

plaintiffhas exhausted of his administrative remedies by having presented his claim first to the 

appropriate agency and, absent exhaustion, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 

McNeil, 508 U.S. at 113. 

The Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order 

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date. 

DATE: .,2,4;' ... ~/~/:JDrl>
§ 582.6285 Dipotassium phosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Dipotassium phosphate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2019358EN.01002101.xml

| 22.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 358/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 358/21

---

Corrigendum to Council Recommendation of 10 October 2019 on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 351 of 17 October 2019
  )

(2019/C 358/11)

On page 1, place and date of adoption:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 10 October 2019.’,

read:

‘Done at Luxembourg, 10 October 2019.’.

---