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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

*Agreement No.:*                    011691-001.                 

*Title:*                    The COSCON/KL/YMUK Mediterranean/U.S. East and Gulf Coast Vessel Sharing Agreement.                 

*Parties:*

Cosco Container Lines 

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. 

Yangming (U.K.)Ltd. 

*Synopsis:*                     The proposed modification specifically authorized Cosco to subcharter space it receives from the other two parties to Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd. The parties request expedited review.                

*Agreement No.:*                    011708.                

*Title:*                    Zim/COSCON Slot Charter Agreement.                 

*Parties:*

Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd. 

COSCO Container Lines Co. Ltd. 

*Synopsis:*                     The proposed Agreement would permit the parties to charter space to one another and enter into related cooperative arrangements in the trade between United States East Coast ports and ports in countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea and inland points via all of the above ports. The parties request expedited review.                 

Dated: May 5, 2000. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-11713 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### Thomas Dunlap et al. *v.*Executor of John A. Wiseman et al.

(No. 6,896.)

1. When interest is payable by the terms of a contract, at stated periods, it becomes principal from the time of payment, and may be recovered as such, with interest from the time it became due; but at no higher rate than six per cent, per annum, although the interest-arising on the contract was at the rate of ten per centum per annum, under the statute. It would be otherwise, if under that statute,.the interest on the interest had been stipulated for, at the highest rate authorized.

Special Term. — This is an action by Thomas Dunlap and others to foreclose a mortgage given by John A. Wiseman. *399Charles Stewart and Thomas Webb, executors, etc., of John Walker, deceased, are made parties, and they set up in their answer a mortgage on the same premises, from Wiseman to Walker.

The question in the case is whether interest shall be allowed, and what shall be the rate of interest upon interest as it matured, on a promissory note, which reads as follows :

“ $1,500. Cincinnati, April 14,1853.

“ On or before the 14th day of Api’il, 1856, for value received, I promise to pay John Walker, or order, fifteen hundred dollars with 10 per cent, interest yearly from date, to be paid at the end of each six months.

JOHN A. WISEMAN.”

*Clinton*Kirby, for plaintiffs.

*W. B. Caldwell,*for executor, etc., of Wiseman.

*Tilden & Rairden,*for executors, etc., of Walker.

Spencer, J.

It has been decided in the case of *Watkinson*v. *Root,*4 Ohio, 373, that on a note drawn in this way, the interest would be allowed on the interest, as it matured from time to time; that was an action brought for the recovery of the interest alone, the principal not having yet become due, and it was held that where a note was drawn in that way, the interest, when it should be paid, becomes principal, and draws interest.

The present case falls within this ruling. The plaintiffs are entitled to interest on these installments of interest, as they matured, at the end of every six months. But where interest is thus made principal, the question is what rate of interest does it draw ? The statute provides that on all sums of money, after the same shall become due, the interest shall be allowed at the rate of six per cent, and no more. • By virtue of that provision, then, this installment of interest *400would only draw six per cent.; but it provides that parties may agree, in writing, to pay interest at a rate not exceeding ten per cent. ¥e are disposed to give that statute a strict construction. If the parties had agreed, by the terms of the contract, to pay interest at the rate of ten per cent, on the interest as it matured, it would be a contract for that sum; but they agreed to pay ten per cent, only on the principal sum, so that the contract, if the law were embodied into it, entitles the party to interest on the installments of interest, as they matured, at the rate of six per cent.

Decree accordingly.
#### § 259.2 Applicability.

This part applies to all the flights of a certificated or commuter air carrier if the carrier operates scheduled passenger service or public charter service using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats, and to all flights to and from the U.S. of a foreign air carrier if the carrier operates scheduled passenger service or public charter service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats, except as otherwise provided in this part. This part does not apply to foreign air carrier charters that operate to and from the United States if no new passengers are picked up in the United States. Section 259.4 does not apply to a flight that diverts to the United States when the flight is operated by a foreign air carrier and scheduled to operate between two foreign points.

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2019-0144, 86 FR 23270, May 3, 2021]
DISMISS; Opinion Filed February 4, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 01045
- CV WILLIAM C. TITUS , Appellant V. KIMBERLY A. KELLY , Appellee
On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 13
- 10004 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Myers, and Justice Evans Opinion by Justice Evans The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated July 11, 2014 we notified appellant the $1 9 5 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to
do so would result in dis missal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated July 11, 2014, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do s o might result in dismissal of this appeal. By letter dated September 16, 2014, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to pro vide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant had been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would– 2

– result in the dismissa l of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we di smiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

141045F.P05 / David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
WILLIAM C. TITUS, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 01045

- CV V. KIMBERLY A. KELLY, Appellee On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 13

- 10004. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Myers participating.
In accordance with this Cou rt’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee KIMBERLY A. KELLY recover her costs of this appeal from appellant WILLIAM C. TITUS.
Judgment entered this 4th day of February, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          4,407
<SECURITIES>                                    2,242
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (15)
<INVENTORY>                                     2,322
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  305
<PP&E>                                          9,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,592)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,272
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            7
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,467
<SALES>                                         2,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,174
<CGS>                                          (1,556)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (1,556)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,635)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (88)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (14)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,032)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 25.1449 Means for determining use of oxygen.

There must be a means to allow the crew to determine whether oxygen is being delivered to the dispensing equipment.
[Confidential Business Information has been removed from this document]
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.206 Verification.

Any pleading filed under this subpart shall include a certification as provided in § 302.4(b).
#### LONG v. COLUMBIA COFFEE COMPANY.

(Decided December 14, 1915.)

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

No counsel marked for appellant. Dana Phillips, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 25.819 Lower deck service compartments (including galleys). For airplanes with a service compartment located below the main deck, which may be occupied during taxi or flight but not during takeoff or landing, the following apply: ( a ) There must be at least two emergency evacuation routes, one at each end of each lower deck service compartment or two having sufficient separation within each compartment, which could be used by each occupant of the lower deck service compartment to rapidly evacuate to the main deck under normal and emergency lighting conditions. The routes must provide for the evacuation of incapacitated persons, with assistance. The use of the evacuation routes may not be dependent on any powered device. The routes must be designed to minimize the possibility of blockage which might result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons standing on top of or against the escape routes. In the event the airplane's main power system or compartment main lighting system should fail, emergency illumination for each lower deck service compartment must be automatically provided.
( b ) There must be a means for two-way voice communication between the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment, which remains available following loss of normal electrical power generating system.
( c ) There must be an aural emergency alarm system, audible during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the flight deck and at each required floor level emergency exit to alert occupants of each lower deck service compartment of an emergency situation.
( d ) There must be a means, readily detectable by occupants of each lower deck service compartment, that indicates when seat belts should be fastened.
( e ) If a public address system is installed in the airplane, speakers must be provided in each lower deck service compartment.
( f ) For each occupant permitted in a lower deck service compartment, there must be a forward or aft facing seat which meets the requirements of § 25.785(d), and must be able to withstand maximum flight loads when occupied.
( g ) For each powered lift system installed between a lower deck service compartment and the main deck for the carriage of persons or equipment, or both, the system must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Each lift control switch outside the lift, except emergency stop buttons, must be designed to prevent the activation of the life if the lift door, or the hatch required by paragraph (g)(3) of this section, or both are open.
( 2 ) An emergency stop button, that when activated will immediately stop the lift, must be installed within the lift and at each entrance to the lift.
( 3 ) There must be a hatch capable of being used for evacuating persons from the lift that is openable from inside and outside the lift without tools, with the lift in any position.
[Amdt. 25-53, 45 FR 41593, June 19, 1980; 45 FR 43154, June 26, 1980; Amdt. 25-110; 68 FR 36883, June 19, 2003]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3446

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Timothy J. Lange, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2010

Filed: May 4, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Timothy J. Lange challenges the 51-month prison

sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in departing upward by three criminal

history categories under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) (understatement of criminal history), and

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa. 
that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In his pro se supplemental brief,

Lange argues that the court erred in departing upward under section 4A1.3. For the

following reasons, we affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward. The court

adequately explained its decision and considered appropriate factors in concluding

that Lange was a recidivist whose criminal history category did not accurately reflect

his recidivism and who had received relatively lenient sentences throughout his

extensive criminal history. See United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 605-07 (8th

Cir. 2009) (no abuse of discretion in departing upward under § 4A1.3(a) where court

considered appropriate factors and adequately explained decision). We also conclude

that the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence: the

court noted that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically

discussed several of the factors, and entertained defense arguments for a lower

sentence. We find no indication in the record that the court overlooked a relevant

factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or misapplied the

factors. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

______________________________

-2-
1

Perez, Idalia

From: Steckel, Andrew

Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:29 AM

To: Sutkus, Carol@ARB

Cc: Whitney, Daniel@ARB; Sheraz Gill (Sheraz.Gill@valleyair.org); Perez, Idalia; Hong, 

Jeanhee; Drake, Kerry; Mays, Rory

Subject: Information request to support final action on ARB Incentive Report

Attachments: Earthjustice Comments on Emission Reductions from incentive programs.pdf

Hi Carol; 

We received the attached comments during our comment period on our proposed approval of the ARB Incentive 

Report, stating “based on the information presented in the Emission Reduction Report, citizens would not even 

be able to obtain the information necessary to quantify and verify emission reductions.” The comment cites the 

information needed for stationary and portable agricultural engines as an example. 

To help us to respond to this comment, we are requesting information for the following 11 projects, which 

represent a cross section of the different categories: 

From Appendix H.1 

Project Number 

G-0014-A 

S-1301 

C-2570 

C-14205 

From Appendix H.2 

Equipment Project ID 

G08GMCT1_03079 

G08GMCT1_00642 

G08GMCT1_02930 

G07GMCT3_01246 

G07GMCT3_00301 

G07GMCT3_00437 

G07GMCT3_00377 

The information requested, which SJV includes in the Annual Demonstration Report “Data Sheet” per Rule 

9610, includes: 

· For projects funded pursuant to Carl Moyer Guidelines: 

o Off-Road Equipment Repower, Replacement, and Retrofit Projects 

ß Percent Operation SJV 

ß Annual Hours (or other usage such as fuel) 

ß Old and new Engine Year 

ß Old and new Horsepower 

ß Old and new engine tier 
2

o Portable and Stationary Agricultural Source Repower Projects 

ß Information listed above 

ß Information needed to determine compliance deadline, such as fleet-wide emissions or 

other information needed to use the Carl Moyer Guidelines “Fleet Rule Implementation 

Charts”. 

· For projects funded pursuant to Proposition 1B Guidelines 

o Relevant emission reduction calculators (excel files) 

o Drayage truck: y/n 

o Old and new engine model year 

o Old and new gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 

o New and old fuel type 

o Old unit DPF Installed: Level 1 PM, Level 2 PM, Level 3 PM, Level 3 PM + Mark 1 NOx 

o % CA operation (VMT) 

o New engine NOx cert level 

We would appreciate if you can respond by Friday, November 13. 

We would be happy to schedule a conference call in the next few weeks to explain these issues further, if that 

would help. Please note that this e-mail exchange will be posted on our public rulemaking docket for this action, 

and that a brief, written record of any phone conversations concerning these issues will also be posted on the 

docket at www.regulations.gov. 

Thanks. 

Andy Steckel 

Chief, Rules Office 

(415) 947-4115
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 419 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 419

 To require the Food and Drug Administration to revoke the approval of 
    one opioid pain medication for each new opioid pain medication 
                               approved.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2019

  Mr. Manchin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Food and Drug Administration to revoke the approval of 
    one opioid pain medication for each new opioid pain medication 
                               approved.

    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 ``Protecting Americans from Dangerous 
Opioids Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds as follows:
            (1) Opioids killed more than 33,000 people in the United 
        States in 2015, more than any year on record. Nearly half of 
        all opioid overdose deaths involve a prescription opioid.
            (2) According to the Centers for Disease Control, 3 out of 
        4 new heroin users abused prescription opioids before moving to 
        heroin.
            (3) The United States makes up only 4.6 percent of the 
        world's population, but consumes 80 percent of its opioid pain 
        medications.
            (4) In 2012, health care providers wrote 259,000,000 
        prescriptions for painkillers, enough for every individual in 
        the United States to have a bottle of pills.
            (5) The amount of prescription opioids sold in the United 
        States has nearly quadrupled since 1999 without a reported 
        increase in pain. At the same time overdose deaths involving 
        opioids have also quadrupled since 1999.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO REVOKE APPROVAL.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as 
the ``Secretary'') approves an application under subsection (b) or (j) 
of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355) for an opioid drug, the Secretary shall revoke the approval of 
another opioid drug previously approved under such subsection (b) or 
(j).
    (b) Considerations.--In determining the drug for which the 
Secretary will revoke approval pursuant to subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall--
            (1) prioritize revocation of non-abuse deterrent 
        formulations of opioid drugs; and
            (2) consider the public health impact of the opioid drug 
        being on the market.
                                 <all>
```