alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 104.110 Exemptions. ( a ) This part does not apply to warships, naval auxiliaries, or other vessels owned or operated by a government and used only on government non-commercial service.
( b ) A vessel is not subject to this part while the vessel is laid up, dismantled, or otherwise out of commission.
( c ) Vessels with a minimum manning requirement of 20 or fewer TWIC-holding crewmembers are exempt from the requirements in 33 CFR 101.535(a)(1).
[USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 60513, Oct. 22, 2003, as amended by USCG-2007-28915, 81 FR 57710, Aug. 23, 2016]
§ 105.510 Screening responsibilities of the owner or operator. In addition to the requirements of § 105.200, the owner or operator of a cruise ship terminal must ensure that— ( a ) A TSP is developed in accordance with this subpart, and submitted to and approved by the cognizant Captain of the Port (COTP), as part of the FSP, in accordance with this part;
( b ) Screening is conducted in accordance with this subpart and an approved TSP;
( c ) Specific screening responsibilities are documented in a Declaration of Security (DoS) in accordance with §§ 104.255 and 105.245 of this subchapter;
( d ) Procedures are established for reporting and handling prohibited items that are detected during the screening process;
( e ) All personal screening is conducted in a uniform, courteous, and efficient manner respecting personal rights to the maximum extent practicable; and
( f ) When the MARSEC (Maritime Security) level is increased, additional screening measures are employed in accordance with an approved TSP.
TWA IkttckA o-f "ToAS P.o. 65*. lZt>4r? /Win .71 I%1\\-Ztf1 

### JllIj \<\>2s)i£



### Ul A-ppeAl Mo. bl-\S-bOttD-C& Mr. Kuki CWflt. On l//4//f T mi; -hr/ih^W^d ttcao Cas^hcw Umf *fa d/ewLJ &rrtc4iinal Aunhr % P.O. &>* ftf?j£kft~ 

### Uv\J iTX "ITS2? . On *Hils Attn* day , X ia*u flotrffeJ 4kdr /iwpc&sibk nr m^ V& dbfa/Vi /M rn£feri&.h X A*u/£ Mtrhrs p&ftJiAci in mum*pit daurrSiHut&roft iJ- /tm 

### unsure irvhiU dm <#/?/ lixis psshtultur &rr*sfon<Je<fici., 76cJ~lb\s 

### iyiai/ -foriAJiiniiM *<jsIm If 4 rxfhir hwelu process. S under^ dhtoid rkaf ^\iJ &iirr opwifed in pnttist prccedarej amd 4im& donstrui/ifc> ~Tf\trtrort j if uca n&i/t stiffme an4 dtfrtsptmlthU' 

### U/imfa $t/J> if Hit frAMttX request fA#h Ueti p/e4SC Send 4 CoM or nti thai trio./ yfo my Currtnt address. 

# M) year tf&rhin HuS /n*fcr drt hujMefMprecfakd' Ih^jz jccit ZreSeivedN JUL 2 3 2015 THIRD COURTOFAPPEALS. \ JEFFREYD. KYIEy 

### fapt&ffuf/uj
CL£V£L/tolb CdtZRECTlOUbL CUJTZU Po (io% 107s CL&blfrNb,TZY/B 77 ZZ2(I) i\> in 4.:. 

### t5'^

### f 3 7* ^ 5 c? fy •> Cf. O 5)
c- ^si =3 c^S^ 0<J o 2? *^«. ~\1 r^

' •< | -* nx p I- ^ c^ ?5 *< P ^ "> J? -s> r^ £ re ° C 3

r-

. ' oo ^ >v
<1 o 2 is u
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 393 

Expressing the condolences of the Senate to those affected by the tragic 

events of December 5, 2007, at Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2007 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. HAGEL) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the condolences of the Senate to those affected 

by the tragic events of December 5, 2007, at Westroads 

Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. 

Whereas, on Wednesday, December 5, 2007, the worst mass 

slaying in Nebraska history occurred at Westroads Mall 

in Omaha; 

Whereas lives were tragically lost, and others were wounded; 

Whereas the brave men and women of the Omaha Police Department, Fire Department, and other emergency responders acted valiantly to save lives; 

Whereas the people of Omaha have embraced those affected 

and will continue to offer support to their neighbors who 

have suffered from this tragedy; and 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS_CN
2 

•SRES 393 ATS 

Whereas the community of Omaha will endure the 

aftereffects of this tragedy to emerge stronger than it 

was before: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) expresses its heartfelt condolences to the 

3 friends and families of those who lost their lives in 

4 the tragic shooting on December 5, 2007, at 

5 Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska: Gary Sharf of 

6 Lincoln, Nebraska, John McDonald of Council 

7 Bluffs, Iowa, and Angie Schuster, Maggie Webb, 

8 Janet Jorgensen, Diane Trent, Gary Joy, and Bev9 erly Flynn, all of Omaha; 

10 (2) shares its prayers and best wishes for recov11 ery to those who were wounded; 

12 (3) extends its thanks to the first responders, 

13 police, and medical personnel who responded so 

14 quickly and decisively to provide aid and comfort to 

15 the victims; and 

16 (4) stands with the people of Omaha as they 

17 begin the healing process in the aftermath of this 

18 terrible attack. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS_CN
§ 553.226 Training time. ( a ) The general rules for determining the compensability of training time under the FLSA are set forth in §§ 785.27 through 785.32 of this title.
( b ) While time spent in attending training required by an employer is normally considered compensable hours of work, following are situations where time spent by employees of State and local governments in required training is considered to be noncompensable: ( 1 ) Attendance outside of regular working hours at specialized or follow-up training, which is required by law for certification of public and private sector employees within a particular governmental jurisdiction (e.g., certification of public and private emergency rescue workers), does not constitute compensable hours of work for public employees within that jurisdiction and subordinate jurisdictions.
( 2 ) Attendance outside of regular working hours at specialized or follow-up training, which is required for certification of employees of a governmental jurisdiction by law of a higher level of government (e.g., where a State or county law imposes a training obligation on city employees), does not constitute compensable hours of work.
( 3 ) Time spent in the training described in paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) of this section is not compensable, even if all or part of the costs of the training is borne by the employer.
( c ) Police officers or employees in fire protection activities, who are in attendance at a police or fire academy or other training facility, are not considered to be on duty during those times when they are not in class or at a training session, if they are free to use such time for personal pursuits. Such free time is not compensable.
[52 FR 2032, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 76 FR 18857, Apr. 5, 2011]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40949

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN TORRES-JUAREZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-03-CR-390-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Martin Torres-Juarez has

filed a motion for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). TorresJuarez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this

direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1338

SHAWNTA D. ROYSTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General; MARY KEARNEY, Postmaster; 

CARL W. STARLPIER, Supervisor,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; STEPHEN SCHENNING, 

Acting U.S. Attorney,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cv-02495-GLR)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 24, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawnta D. Royster, Appellant Pro Se. 
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Shawnta Royster, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint setting forth her factual 

allegations. She then filed an “amended complaint,” explaining that she was doing so to 

correct the statement of jurisdiction in the initial complaint, as well as a misspelling of 

one of the defendants’ names. The amended complaint was incomplete on its face, 

consisting solely of the amended jurisdictional statement and Royster’s prefatory note; it 

did not include any factual allegations. In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the 

district court declined to consider the factual allegations in the initial complaint, 

reasoning that it had been superseded by the amended complaint.

The record on a motion to dismiss includes not only the complaint itself, but also 

documents “expressly incorporated into the complaint by reference,” as well as other 

documents “integral” to the complaint whose authenticity is not in dispute. Goines v. 

Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016). And it is fundamental that 

pro se complaints must be construed liberally. Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 170 

(4th Cir. 2018). Here, the stated purpose of the amended complaint was to correct certain 

errors and omissions in the initial complaint; it clearly was not meant to stand alone. The 

district court therefore should have construed it to incorporate by reference the factual 

allegations in the initial complaint. Accordingly, we grant Royster’s motion to appeal in 

forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s dismissal order, and remand so that the district 

court can consider, in the first instance, whether the facts alleged state a claim for relief. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13677]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Jersey Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the New Jersey Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
9:30 a.m. and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 30, 2000, at the 
Delaware River Port Authority, Multipurpose Room, 11th Floor, One Port 
Center, Two River Drive, Camden, New Jersey 08103. The purpose of the 
meeting is to gather information on (1) the State civil rights 
enforcement effort and (2) the racial profiling by law enforcement 
officers in New Jersey. The Committee will also plan and review project 
activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern 
Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC.
Lisa M. Kelly,
Special Assistant to the Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 00-13677 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-F
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Kinloch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Maverick Minerals Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|Dated this 20th day of September, 2004. | /s/ Robert Kinlock                                         
|--------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                                        | Robert Kinloch                                             
|                                        | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





---
#### Gage County v. Robert R. Kyd.

Filed November 8, 1893.

No. 6425.

1. Counties: Liability for Compensation or Jail Guard. An account was filed with the county clerk by one K. as jailer of G. county. From this account the county board deducted $179.50, from which K. appealed to the district court. Pleadings were filed in the district court in which K. claimed as jail guard, and that the account as jailer was a mistake. The court found the issues in favor of K., in effect that he was jail guard and not jailer.

2. -: -. A jail guard, when actually necessary for guarding prisoners, is entitled to $2 per day, to be paid by the county.

Error from the district court of Gage county. Tried below before Bush, J.

*JR. W. Sabin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alfred Hazlett, contra.*

Maxwell, C. J.

The defendant in error filed a claim with the county clerk of Gage county for services as jailer of that county, the sum claimed being $718. The county board allowed him $538.50 and disallowed $179.50. From the order thus made the defendant in error appealed to the district court. In the district court the claim is made for services as jail guard, and upon this issue the action was tried, and the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant in error for the amount sued for, $179.50 and costs.- From this judgment the plaintiff in error brings the case into this court.

Section 5, chapter 28, Compiled Statutes, provides: “ For guarding prisoners, when it is actually necessary, $2 per day, to be paid by the county.” The action in the district *165court was for guarding prisoners, it being alleged on behalf of the defendant in error that the account as jailer was a mistake. However that may be, the only question that can be considered in this court is the right of the defendant in error to compensation as jail guard. If he was such guard, he is entitled to recover for the number of days charged in the account, and he is entitled to compensation at the rate fixed by statute. The court below found that he was jail guard and not jailer,, and this finding seems to conform to the proof. He was, therefore, entitled to $2 per day for the time actually employed as such guard. The judgment of the district court is right and is

Affirmed.
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 Interior Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-IA-2011-N166; 96300-1671-0000-P5]
 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits.
 SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
 ADDRESSES: Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280; or e-mail 
                        *DMAFR@fws.gov.*
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax); 
                        *DMAFR@fws.gov*
                         (e-mail).


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 
                    *et seq.*), as amended, and/or the MMPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 
                    *et seq.*), we issued requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) The granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) The granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Endangered Species
Permit No.
Applicant
Receipt of application 
                            **Federal Register**
                             notice
Permit issuance date43716A
James Bibler
76 FR 32223; June 3, 2011
July 18, 2011.45363A
Leonard Gordon Smith
76 FR 36934; June 23, 2011.
August 1, 2011
 Marine Mammals
Permit No.
Applicant
Receipt of application 
                            **Federal Register**
                             notice
Permit issuance date231088
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
75 FR 12255; March 15, 2010
August 8, 2011.
 Availability of Documents Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.


[FR Doc. 2011-20969 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
§ 503.53 Additional information, if required. Where the ARB has determined to review such decision and order, the ARB will notify the parties of: ( a ) The issue or issues raised;
( b ) The form in which submissions will be made (*i.e.,* briefs, oral argument); and
( c ) The time within which such presentation will be submitted.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.369 Satilla River.

The draw of the Seaboard System Railroad bridge, mile 25.7 at Woodbine, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
§ 95.28 Period of availability of funds. ( a ) Where a funding period is specified, a recipient may charge to the grant only allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the funding period and any pre-award costs authorized by DOL.
( b ) Where an expenditure period is specified, a grantee may charge to the award only the accrued expenditures incurred during the expenditure period.
[72 FR 37104, July 9, 2007]
§ 110.45a Mattapoisett Harbor, Mattapoisett, Mass. ( a ) Area No. 1 beginning at a point on the shore at latitude 41°39′23′′ N., longitude 70°48′50′′ W.; thence 138.5° T. to latitude 41°38′45′′ N., longitude 70°48′02′′ W.; thence 031° T. to latitude 41°39′02′′ N., longitude 70°47′48′′ W.; thence along the shore to the point of beginning.
( b ) Area No. 2 beginning at a point on the shore at latitude 41°39′24′′ N., longitude 70°49′02′′ W.; thence 142.5° T. to latitude 41°38′10′′ N., longitude 70°47′45′′ W.; thence 219° T. to latitude 41°37′54′′ N., longitude 70°48′02′′ W.; thence along the shore to the point of beginning.
[CGD 83-2R, 49 FR 25445, June 21, 1984; 49 FR 27320, July 3, 1984, as amended by USCG-2019-0952, 88 FR 16187, Mar. 16, 2023]
MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER CREDIT CORPORATION

Officer's Certificate

Pursuant to the Servicing  Agreement  between  Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Credit
Corporation,  formerly  known as NOVUS  Financial  Corporation,  as  seller  and
servicer  (referred to herein in such  capacity as the  "Servicer",  and Norwest
Funding, Inc., as Owner, the undersigned, hereby states that:

     (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under
the Servicing  Agreement  during the calendar year ended  December 31, 1999, has
been made under my supervision; and

     (2) To the best of my  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.

MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER CREDIT CORPORATION


By
R L. Vipham

Vice President
Title

Dated as of December 31, 1999

By
J.L. Reading

Senior Vice President
Title

Dated as of December 31, 1999

2500 Lake Cook Road. 3 West. Riverwoods. Illinois 60015
#### § 783.17 “American vessel”.

Section 3(p) of the Act, added by the 1961 Amendments, defines “American vessel” to include “any vessel which is documented or numbered under the laws of the United States.” This definition and its effect with respect to the application of the Act to employment of individuals as seamen are discussed in subsequent sections of this part.