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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before October 28, 2009 to be assured of consideration.

## Office of Foreign Portfolio Investment

*OMB Number:*                     1505-0146.                

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                

*Title:*                     Survey of U.S. Ownership of Foreign Securities                    *.*

*Description:*                     The survey will collect information on U.S. holdings of foreign securities. The information will be used in the computation of the U.S. balance of payments accounts and international investments position, as well as in the formulation of U.S. financial and monetary policies. This survey is also part of an international effort coordinated by the IMF to improve worldwide balance of payments statistics. Respondents are primarily the largest banks, securities dealers, and investors.                

*Respondents:*                     Businesses or other for-profit institutions.                

*Estimated Total Reporting Burden:*                     40,740 hours.                

*Clearance Officer:*                     Dwight Wolkow, (202) 622-2176, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, Room 2064D, Washington, DC 20220.                

*OMB Reviewer:*                     OIRA Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503,                     *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.*

Robert Dahl,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9-23272 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2285

___________________________

Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd

Plaintiff Appellee

v.

Jet Midwest Group, LLC; Paul Kraus; Karen Kraus

Defendants

F. Paul Ohadi, in his capacity as trustee and legal representative of the F. Paul

Ohadi Trust dated December 15, 1999 and in his individual capacity; F. Paul

Ohadi Trust, dated December 15, 1999; Kenneth M. Woolley

Defendants Appellants

Jet Midwest Inc.

Defendant

KMW Business Jets, LLC; Alta Airlines Holdings, LLC

Defendants Appellants

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph

 ____________
 Submitted: January 11, 2022

Filed: March 15, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

F. Paul Ohadi, as Trustee of F. Paul Ohadi Trust dated December 15, 1999, and

in his individual capacity; Kenneth M. Woolley; KMW Business Jets, LLC; and Alta

Airlines Holdings, LLC appeal the district court’s1 entry of judgment in favor of Jet

Midwest International Co., Ltd on its fraudulent transfer claim, following a bench

trial. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find

no basis for reversal. See Muhammad v. Mayfield, 933 F.3d 993, 1000 (8th Cir. 2019)

(reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo for appeal

from bench trial). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Morgan Keegan, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 1998, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,495
<RECEIVABLES>                                  446,074
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            345,185
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           15,293
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            307,052
<PP&E>                                          22,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,209,029
<SHORT-TERM>                                   121,100
<PAYABLES>                                     660,300
<REPOS-SOLD>                                     4,132
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              2,971
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              58,822
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,586
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,209,029
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               26,521
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            17,847
<COMMISSIONS>                                   23,632
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   19,707
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    8,865
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,957
<COMPENSATION>                                  47,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,002
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      18,002
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-920 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR SAFETY 

 Arrangement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GERMANY 

Signed at Vienna September 20, 2011 

with 

Addenda 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
GERMANY 

Nuclear Safety 

 Arrangement signed at Vienna September 20, 2011; 

 Entered into force September 20, 2011. 

 With addenda. 

 







Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the German text of this Arrangement. If the German text becomes available, it will be added to this publication.
§ 1.488 Research activities. Subject to the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5701, 38 CFR 1.500-1.527, the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), 38 CFR 1.575-1.584 and the following paragraphs, patient medical record information covered by §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part may be disclosed for the purpose of conducting scientific research. ( a ) Information in individually identifiable form may be disclosed from records covered by §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part for the purpose of conducting scientific research if the Under Secretary for Health or designee makes a determination that the recipient of the patient identifying information: ( 1 ) Is qualified to conduct the research.
( 2 ) Has a research protocol under which the information: ( i ) Will be maintained in accordance with the security requirements of § 1.466 of this part (or more stringent requirements); and
( ii ) Will not be redisclosed except as permitted under paragraph (b) of this section.
( 3 ) Has furnished a written statement that the research protocol has been reviewed by an independent group of three or more individuals who found that the rights of patients would be adequately protected and that the potential benefits of the research outweigh any potential risks to patient confidentiality posed by the disclosure of records.
( b ) A person conducting research may disclose information obtained under paragraph (a) of this section only back to VA and may not identify any individual patient in any report of that research or otherwise disclose patient identities.
[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
§ 18.12 Effect on other regulations, forms and instructions. ( a ) *Effect on other regulations.* All regulations, orders, or like directions issued before the effective date of this part by any officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs which impose requirements designed to prohibit any discrimination against individuals on the grounds of race, color or national origin under any program to which this part applies, and which authorize the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance to any applicant for or recipient of such assistance for failure to comply with such requirements, are hereby superseded to the extent that such discrimination is prohibited by this part, except that nothing in this part shall be deemed to relieve any person of any obligation assumed or imposed under any such superseded regulation, order, instruction, or like direction prior to the effective date of this part. Nothing in this part, however, shall be deemed to supersede any of the following (including future amendments thereof): ( 1 ) Executive Orders 10925 (3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 448), 11114 (3 CFR, 1959-1963, p. 774), and 11246 (3 CFR, 1965 Supp., p. 167) and regulations issued thereunder, or
( 2 ) Executive Order 11063 (3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 652) and regulations issued thereunder, or any other orders, regulations or instructions, insofar as such orders, regulations, or instructions prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, color or national origin in any program or situation to which this part is inapplicable, or prohibit discrimination on any other ground.
( b ) *Forms and instructions.* Each responsible agency officials shall issue and promptly make available to interested persons forms and detailed instructions and procedures for effectuating this part as applied to programs to which this part applies and for which he is responsible.
( c ) *Supervision and coordination.* The Secretary may from time to time assign to officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs or to officials of other departments or agencies of the Government with the consent of such departments or agencies, responsibilities in connection with the effectuation of the purposes of Title VI of the Act and this part (other than responsibility for final decision as provided in § 18.10) including the achievement of effective coordination and maximum uniformity within the Department of Veterans Affairs and within the executive branch of the Government in the application of Title VI and this part to similar programs and in similar situations. Any action taken, determination made, or requirement imposed by an official of another department or agency acting pursuant to an assignment of responsibility under this paragraph shall have the same effect as though such action has been taken by the responsible official of this Agency.
[29 FR 19301, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended at 38 FR 17967, July 5, 1973. Redesignated at 45 FR 63268, Sept. 24, 1980; 68 FR 51369, Aug. 26, 2003]
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BG-568

IN RE SCOTT B. GILLY,

Respondent. DDN: 355-16

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 442356

BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell, Senior 

Judges.

O R D E R

(FILED – November 2, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order of the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of New York suspending respondent from the practice of law

with leave to petition for reinstatement after one year; this court’s June 9, 2017,

order temporarily suspending respondent in this case and directing him to show 

cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of 

Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and respondent’s response to 

the show cause order in which he does not oppose identical reciprocal discipline but 

requests the reciprocal suspension run nunc pro tunc from September 12, 2016, 

when he was suspended by the District Court; and it appearing that respondent filed 

the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit in this case on July 7, 2017, but has 

not practiced law in the District of Columbia since the filing of the affidavit for his 

prior suspension in this jurisdiction, it is 

ORDERED that Scott B. Gilly is hereby suspended from the practice of law in 

the District of Columbia for one year nunc pro tunc to September 12, 2016, with 

reinstatement subject to a fitness requirement. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 

487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical discipline in D.C. 

Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 

1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed reciprocal matters the 

“imposition of identical discipline should be close to automatic”). 

PER CURIAM
§ 382.1 Definitions. In this subpart: *Collective* means the collection and distribution organization that is designated by the Copyright Royalty Judges.
*Copyright Owners* means sound recording copyright owners, and rights owners under 17 U.S.C. 1401(l)(2), who are entitled to royalty payments made under this part pursuant to the statutory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114.
*Digital Audio Transmission* has the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(5).
*Eligible Transmission* means a Digital Audio Transmission made by a Licensee that is subject to licensing under 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2) and the payment of royalties under 37 CFR part 382.
*Ephemeral Recording* has the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 112.
*GAAP* means generally accepted accounting principles in effect in the United States on the date payment is due.
*Licensee* means the provider of an Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) or Preexisting Subscription Service (PSS) that has obtained a license under 17 U.S.C. 114 to make eligible transmissions and a license under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) to make Ephemeral Recordings to facilitate those Eligible Transmissions.
*Payor* means the entity required to make royalty payments to the Collective or the entity required to distribute royalty fees collected, depending on context. The Payor is: ( 1 ) A Licensee, in relation to the Collective; and
( 2 ) The Collective in relation to a Copyright Owner or Performer.
*Performers* means the independent administrators identified in 17 U.S.C. 114(g)(2)(B) and (C) and the parties identified in 17 U.S.C. 114(g)(2)(D).
*Preexisting Subscription Service* (*PSS*) has the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(11). A service's offering on the internet that is available to a subscriber outside the subscriber's residence is not a Preexisting Subscription Service for purposes of this part.
*Qualified Auditor* means a Certified Public Accountant independent within the meaning of the American Institute Certified Public Accountants Code of Professional Conduct.
*Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service* (*SDARS)* means the preexisting satellite digital audio radio services as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(10).
*Transmission* has the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(15).
*Verifying Entity* means the party requesting an audit and giving notice of intent to audit. For audits of SDARS and PSS, the Verifying Entity is SoundExchange, Inc. For audits of SoundExchange, Inc. the Verifying Entity is any Copyright Owner or its authorized representative.
[83 FR 65265, Dec. 19, 2018, as amended at 84 FR 32313, July 8, 2019]
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

14DIV-C-107 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:58 AM Sheet 141 of 232 
P.2 

y^0SU%. l3l 'C-/ 0 7 

t A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

\P*0<* 

OFFICE OF 

APR 2 5 \988 * AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Sam Leonard 

Auto Emission Control 

Environmental Activities Staff 

General Motors Corporation 

30400 Mound Road 

Warren, MI 48090-9015 

Dear Mr. Leonard: ^ 

Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1988 providing 

further analysis of the questions which we have raised 

concerning the video tape of the vapor ignition testing which 

you had done by Failure Analysis Associates. While your 

response does not resolve all of the issues we have raised, the 

information is valuable. 

In your response you include the test report by Failure 

Analysis Associates done to evaluate the concern which we 

raised over the potential for fire with current evaporative 

controls under tampered conditions similar to the tampering 

portrayed in your video tape. Those tests showed that an 

underhood fire would result after only moderate warming of the 

fuel in the tank associated with idling the vehicle engine. We 

consider this result to be significant, especially considering 

the fact that there are many other engine operating conditions 

likely to produce much higher tank pressures and vapor flow 

rates than those chosen for your testing. These could easily 

exceed those from the onboard tests of your original work, 

since, according to Failure Analysis Associates, the vapors are 

being released from the fuel tank through the evaporative bleed 

orifice in both cases. As documented by Failure Analysis 

Associates, the refueling event itself leaves only minimal 

residual pressurization (less than 2 inches of water pressure). 
V 

% % 

% 

Xv 

*v°0* 

* > , **. 

^ * ' 

P.3 
P.4 

The Failure Analysis Testing "wo'rk has identified a 

potential underhood fire hazar,d which applies to current and 

past production General Motors vehicles. Therefore, we are 

writing to request a response from General Motors as to what 

actions you intend to take to eliminate this potential 

problem. Please include possible changes to production 

practices for new vehicles and any steps you plan for vehicles 

already in use. Particularly address the question of whether 

you will be leaving the evaporative canister under the hood or 

will attempt to identify a safer location. 

Due to the urgency of this situation, we request an 

immediate response. We are sure that General Motors shares our 

concerns that a high level of vehicle safety be maintained, and 

we look forward to being advised as to the steps which you will 

be taking to deal with this problem. 

Sincerely yours, 

Charles L. Gray, Jr. 

Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Dr. J.J. Liu, NHTSA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.S.L.M., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: T.S., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 107 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.K.A.M., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: T.S., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 108 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Order issued September iq , 2012 

In The 

(Court of Appeals 

lriftil EliMrirt of a'rxas at 'Dallas 

No. 05-12-00078-CV 

KENNETH HENNING, Appellant 

V. 

ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Appellee 

ORDER 

We GRANT appellant's September 11, 2012 motion for an extension of time to file a reply 

brief. Appellant shall file his reply brief on or before September 21, 2012.
#### The Catholic University of America, Respondent, *v.*Edward E. Conrad, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

April, 1899.)

Supplementary proceedings — Service of notice of application for a • receiver.

The personal service, upon a judgment debtor of a notice of an application for the appointment of a receiver of his property, required by section 2464 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not satisfied by the service of such notice upon the attorneys for the judgment debtor in the action in which judgment was recovered against him.

Appeal from a Special Term order denying motion to vacate an order appointing a receiver in supplementary proceedings.

Wells & Andrews (Edward Wells, Jr., of counsel),- for appellant.

Abram Kling, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal from an order of the Special Term, entered herein July 6, 1898, denying defendant’s motion to vacate an order- appointing a receiver of defendant in supplementary proceedings, on the ground that said last order was irregular in having been granted without personal notice to the defendant.

Section 2464 of the Code requires personal service of the application for the appointment of a receiver to be served on the judgment debtor, unless, dispensed with by the judge for reasons shown.

Ho such application was made in this case, nor is it claimed *327-that the notice of application was served on the judgment debtor, but it is claimed that the notice was served on the attorneys of record for defendant in the action in which the judgment was obtained, and that such service was equivalent to the service on the debtor personally. We do not think so.

The attorneys of record could have appeared on the motion and waived personal service, as in the case of Moore v. Empie, 17 App. Div. 218. But they did not do so, but elected to treat the service as a nullity; this they had a right to do, and it follows that the service was not such as is required by the Code, and the order entered thereon must be reversed, with costs.

Present: McCarthy and O’Dwyer, JJ.

Order reversed, with costs.
Sanitized

Memo on Employee Exposure Results
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 22, 2019

No. 04-19-00501-CV

IN THE MATTER OF M.M.C.D.-E.

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01118

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted. We 

order counsel for appellant, Amanda Wilhelm, to file the appellant’s brief by October 28, 2019. 

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which must 

be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX. R. 

JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further 

request for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of October, 2019.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada,

Chief Deputy Clerk