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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

          - [Announcement Number 00066] 

                    A notice announcing the availability of Fiscal Year 2000 funds to fund a cooperative agreement program with national private provider organizations which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 1, 2000, [Vol. 65, No. 84, Pages 25334-25336]. The notice is amended as follows:                 

On page 25335, Third Column, under Section F. Submission and Deadline, the submission due date is revised to read on or before July 18, 2000. 

Dated: June 2, 2000. 

John L. Williams, 

Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

[FR Doc. 00-14426 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
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 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 of AMERCO
      and
      U-Haul International, Inc. (together, the “Company”), as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Edward
      J. Shoen, Chairman of the Board and President of the Company, certify, 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.







AMERCO,


a Nevada corporation


/s/
      Edward J. Shoen


Edward J. Shoen


President and Chairman of the Board


Date:
      August 8, 2006








U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,


a Nevada corporation




/s/
      Edward J. Shoen


Edward J. Shoen


President and Chairman of the Board


Date:
      August 8, 2006
§ 25.505 Claimants excluded. ( a ) Civilian employees of the United States and members of the armed services of the United States and their dependents, who are in a foreign country primarily because of their own or their sponsor's duty status.
( b ) Other citizens of the United States, its territories, commonwealths, or possessions, unless they can establish their status as inhabitants of the foreign country.
( c ) An insurer or other subrogee.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 29, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 29, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0515. MARQUISE ALI ROBBINS v. HAYS STATE PRISON MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CA42
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00414-CR

NO. 03-02-00415-CR

Alan Watson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 9024047 & 9024048, HONORABLE FRED A. MOORE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In both causes, a jury found appellant Alan Watson guilty of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.02 (West 1994). The district court assessed punishment in 

each cause, enhanced by previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for twenty-five years.

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous 

and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Copies of 
2

counsel=s briefs were delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate 

record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the records and counsel=s briefs and agree that the appeals are frivolous 

and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel=s 

motions to withdraw are granted.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: March 13, 2003

Do Not Publish
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 18, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 18, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0062. FORREST ALAN PETTAY v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 180R00131
§ 83.26 Fishing vessels (Rule 26). ( a ) A vessel engaged in fishing, whether underway or at anchor, shall exhibit only the lights and shapes prescribed in this Rule. ( b ) A vessel when engaged in trawling, by which is meant the dragging through the water of a dredge net or other apparatus used as a fishing appliance, shall exhibit: ( i ) Two all-round lights in a vertical line, the upper being green and the lower white, or a shape consisting of two cones with their apexes together in a vertical line one above the other; ( ii ) A masthead light abaft of and higher than the all-round green light; a vessel of less than 50 meters in length shall not be obliged to exhibit such a light but may do so; ( iii ) When making way through the water, in addition to the lights prescribed in this paragraph, sidelights and a sternlight. ( c ) A vessel engaged in fishing, other than trawling, shall exhibit: ( i ) Two all-round lights in a vertical line, the upper being red and the lower white, or a shape consisting of two cones with apexes together in a vertical line one above the other; ( ii ) When there is outlying gear extending more than 150 meters horizontally from the vessel, an all-round white light or a cone apex upward in the direction of the gear; ( iii ) When making way through the water, in addition to the lights prescribed in this paragraph, sidelights and a sternlight. ( d ) [Reserved] ( e ) A vessel when not engaged in fishing shall not exhibit the lights or shapes prescribed in this Rule, but only those prescribed for a vessel of her length. ( f ) Additional signals for fishing vessels fishing in close proximity: ( i ) The lights mentioned herein shall be placed where they can best be seen. They shall be at least 0.9 meters apart but at a lower level than lights prescribed in this Rule. The lights shall be visible all round the horizon at a distance of at least 1 mile but at a lesser distance from the lights prescribed by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Rule for fishing vessels. ( ii ) *Signals for trawlers.* (1) Vessels when engaged in trawling, whether using demersal or pelagic gear, may exhibit: ( A ) When shooting their nets: Two white lights in a vertical line; ( B ) When hauling their nets: One white light over one red light in a vertical line; ( C ) When a net has come fast upon an obstruction: Two red lights in a vertical line. (2) Each vessel engaged in pair trawling may exhibit: ( A ) By night, a searchlight directed forward and in the direction of the other vessel of the pair; ( B ) When shooting or hauling their nets or when their nets have come fast upon an obstruction, the lights prescribed in paragraph (f)(ii)(1) of this Rule. (iii) *Signals for purse seiners.* ( 1 ) Vessels engaged in fishing with purse seine gear may exhibit two yellow lights in a vertical line. These lights shall flash alternately every second and with equal light and occultation duration. These lights may be exhibited only when the vessel is hampered by its fishing gear. ( 2 ) [Reserved] [USCG-2012-0102, 79 FR 37912, July 2, 2014, as amended by USCG-2018-0874, 84 FR 30878, June 28, 2019]
§ 385.23 Dispute resolution. ( a ) Disputes with the non-Federal sponsor concerning a Project Cooperation Agreement shall be resolved under the specific dispute resolution procedures of that Project Cooperation Agreement.
( b ) Disputes with the non-Federal sponsor concerning design activities shall be resolved under the specific dispute resolution procedures of the design agreement.
( c ) All other unresolved issues with the non-Federal sponsor and disputes with the State associated with the implementation of the Plan shall be resolved according to the terms of the Dispute Resolution Agreement executed on September 9, 2002 pursuant to section 601(i) of WRDA 2000.
( d ) For disputes with parties not covered by the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section, the Corps of Engineers shall attempt to resolve the dispute in accordance with applicable statutory requirements and/or the following procedures: ( 1 ) The parties will attempt to resolve disputes at the lowest organizational level before seeking to elevate a dispute.
( 2 ) Any disputed matter shall first be elevated to the District Engineer and the equivalent official of the other agency, or their designees. The parties may decide to continue to elevate the dispute to higher levels within each agency.
( 3 ) The parties to a dispute may agree to participate in mediation.
( 4 ) When a dispute is resolved the parties shall memorialize the resolution in writing.
9/8/23, 9:44 AM PereGonza The Attorneys Mail - EL20-02414 Jorge Monteagudo

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=e9372dcc5a&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1683262117576878622%7Cmsg-f:1683262117576878622&simpl=msg-... 1/2

Nathaly Saavedra <nathaly@peregonza.com>

EL20-02414 Jorge Monteagudo

1 message

CELSA DEJESUS <CELSA.DEJESUS@eeoc.gov> Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:10 AM

To: "nathaly@peregonza.com" <nathaly@peregonza.com>

November 13, 2020

Nathaly Saavedra

Peregonza The Attorneys PLLC

nathaly@peregonza.com

Re: Jorge Monteagudo

Dear Ms. Saavedra:

Please be advised that your recent correspondence of employment discrimination has been transferred to the Miami-Dade

County Commission on Human Rights

.

Should you have any questions, please contact them at:

Miami-Dade County Commission on Human Rights

Stephen P. Clark Center

111 N.W. 1st Street, 21st Floor

Miami, Florida 33128

Telephone: (305) 375-5272

Sincerely,

Linda Byars

Linda Byars, CRTIU Supervisor

US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION – Miami District Office

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 111-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 1 of 2
9/8/23, 9:44 AM PereGonza The Attorneys Mail - EL20-02414 Jorge Monteagudo

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=e9372dcc5a&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1683262117576878622%7Cmsg-f:1683262117576878622&simpl=msg-... 2/2

Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM Document 111-17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2023 Page 2 of 2
Nashua District Court

No. 7374

#### State of New Hampshire v. Paul Carraher

July 27, 1976

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Edward N. Damon,*attorney *(Mr. Damon*orally), for the State.

*James A. Connor,*by brief, for the defendant.

Per curiam.

The sole issue involved in this transfer is whether a hearing before the Nashua District Court held in the aldermanic chamber in the city hall violated the defendant’s constitutional rights.

Defendant was found guilty after trial of a charge of possession *420of marijuana. Prior to the trial, defendant had moved that the case be dismissed on the ground that he had a constitutional right to have a hearing in a regularly constituted courtroom, and that a hearing held in the aldermanic chamber in the city hall was not the usual and ordinary place for consideration of the charges. The issue was reserved and transferred by *Pantelas,*J.

Under the circumstances of this case, no error resulted when the trial was held outside the regularly authorized courthouse. The locus of a hearing is within the discretion of the court, guided by its primary concern for the achievement of ultimate justice. *United States v. Haderlein,*118 F. Supp. 346 (N.D. Ill. 1953); Annot., 18 A.L.R.3d 572, 580 (1968).

Defendant has failed to show how he was prejudiced by the hearing held in the aldermanic chamber. We cannot say that the refusal to dismiss the case was improper where no prejudice resulted from conducting the proceeding outside the usual courtroom. *Harris v. United States,*261 F.2d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 1958), *cert. denied,*360 U.S. 933 (1959); *Tischmacher v. State,*146 Tex. Crim. 464, 176 S.W.2d 188 (1943); 20 Am. Jur. 2d *Courts*§ 40 (1965). Nothing in this opinion however relieves the city of Nashua from its duty to furnish adequate facilities for the court. *See In re Jones,*No. 7292, decided this date.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Griffith, J., did not sit.
#### § 4.6 Secretary of the Board.

The Secretary of the Board of Governors is appointed by the Governors and serves at the pleasure of the Governors. The Secretary shall be responsible for carrying out the functions of the Office of the Board of Governors, under the direction of the Chairman of the Board. The Secretary shall also issue notices of meetings of the Board and its committees, keep minutes of these meetings, and take steps necessary for compliance with all statutes and regulations dealing with public observation of meetings. The Secretary shall perform all those duties incident to this office, including those duties assigned by the Board or by the Chairman of the Board. With the concurrence of the Board, the Chairman may designate the number and general qualifications of such assistant secretaries or other staff as may be necessary to perform any of the duties of the Secretary.

[86 FR 10013, Feb. 18, 2021]
§ 74.20-1 Buoy and vessel use costs. ( a ) The buoy and vessel use costs for establishing, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or removing an aid to navigation under the requirements of this part are contained in COMDTINST 7310 (series) which is available from the District Budget Office of the appropriate Coast Guard District Commander.
( b ) Buoy and vessel use charges under this part are made for the cost or value of time, in hours, consumed by the Government vessel, including ship's complement, employed in marking the obstruction. No charge for time and expense of Coast Guard vessels is made when the marking of the obstruction causes only minimal interruption of routinely scheduled ship's duty.
[CGD 81-051, 48 FR 15468, Apr. 11, 1983, as amended by USCG-2000-7223, 65 FR 40055, June 29, 2000]
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 a Notice dated April 28, 2011, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on May 4, 2011 76 FR 25374, Rhodes Technologies, 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Drug
ScheduleRaw Opium (9600)
IIConcentrate of Poppy Straw (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in order to bulk manufacture controlled substances in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) form. The company distributes the manufactured API's in bulk form only to its customers. As explained in the Correction to Notice of Application pertaining to Rhodes Technologies, 72 FR 3417 (2007), comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Rhodes Technologies to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Rhodes Technologies 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 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: August 11, 2011. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2011-21076 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
### SERVED: March 21, 2016 U.S.· DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH RAY RUMBERGER

Docket No. F AA-2015

- 0639 (Civil Penalty Action)



### ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin has transferred to the Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to Administrative LawJudge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing orprehearing conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect absent further order. 

### SO ORDERED.

Attachment-Service List

### SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. 

### MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 10001 

### ONE COPY
Kenneth Ray Rumberger, Respondent 2451 Church Lane, SPC 38 San Pablo, CA 94806-5945 Negar Pirzadeh,**Re.~pondent** 's Counsel Tenax Law Group PC 145 Park Place, Suite A Point Richmond, VA 94801 TEL: 510-234-2808 FAX: 510-234-6009 Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7.6 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P. 0. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-711 7 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536



### -2- Docket No. F AA-2015-0639 (Civil Penalty Action)
### Mississippian rocks in Kentucky

By: E.G. SableG. R. Dever Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1503

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHANNING JAMES, DOC #S12872, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-5156

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed December 21, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee

County; Susan Maulucci, Judge.

Channing James, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.83

                                    AGREEMENT

      Effective as of January 4, 2000, Alliance Gaming Corporation and Anthony
L. DiCesare, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of
which are acknowledged, hereby extend and renew their July 1, 1997 Employment
Agreement (the "Agreement") as follows:

      Alliance shall not give notice of non-extension required by Paragraph 2 of
      the Agreement so as to cause the Agreement to expire before June 30, 2004.
      However, the parties agree that this document shall constitute notice, as
      required by the Agreement, that the Agreement shall not be extended beyond
      June 30, 2004.

      This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original. This Agreement is dated as set forth below.


Alliance Gaming Corporation

By  /s/ ROBERT L. MIODUNSKI               By  /s/  ANTHONY L. DICESARE
  -----------------------------------       -----------------------------------
        Robert L. Miodunski,                       Anthony L. DiCesare
        Chief Operating Officer
        & Senior Vice-President