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 Labor

###### Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

          - 29 CFR Part 1952 

# AGENCY:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Labor. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Occupational Safety and Health Administration published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on June 9, 2000 (65 FR 36617), a document amending its regulations on State Plans to reflect Federal coverage of the United States Postal Service and other coverage issues. In subpart Q, Kentucky, § 1952.236, where the plan may be inspected, was inadvertently designated as § 1952.96. This document corrects that designation.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE :

 June 9, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, Room N3637, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-1999. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction of Publication 

                    In the final rule (FR Doc. 00-14150) published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 9, 2000 (65 FR 36617), make the following correction:                 

# PART 1952—[CORRECTED] 

§ 1952.236 

On page 36625, in the first column, following amendatory instruction 31, correctly designate § 1952.96 as § 1952.236. 

Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Signed at Washington, D.C. the 14th day of June, 2000. 

Charles N. Jeffress, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-15558 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          41,012
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,363
<INVENTORY>                                     47,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,763
<PP&E>                                         202,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 347,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,227
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,224
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   347,341
<SALES>                                        472,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               472,394
<CGS>                                          332,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  437,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Frank 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2015

No. 04-14-00792-CV

BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,

Appellant

v.

Frank HERNANDEZ,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-14755

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief in this accelerated appeal was originally due on January 30, 2015. 

Appellant has been granted one extension of time, until February 19, 2015. On March 4, 2015, 

appellant’s attorney, Mr. Troy Meinke, advised this court that appellant would file a motion to 

dismiss the appeal by March 5, 2015. Subsequent calls from the Clerk of this court to counsel 

have not been returned.

It is therefore ORDERED that Mr. Meinke file appellant’s brief no later than March 30, 

2015. If appellant’s brief is not filed by this date, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a).

The Clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Meinke by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United States mail. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 19th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38292-38293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15431]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration

[[Page 38293]]

(FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Biological Response Modifiers Advisory 
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 13, 2000, 8:30 a.m. 
to 6 p.m. and July 14, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Hotel, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Gail Dapolito or Rosanna Harvey (HFM-71), Food and 
Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-
0314, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-
443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12389. Please call the 
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: On July 13 and 14, 2000, the committee will discuss product 
development issues related to human stem cells as cellular replacement 
therapies for neurological disorders.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by June 30, 2000. 
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between 
approximately 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on July 14, 2000. Time allotted for 
each presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral 
presentations should notify the contact person before June 30, 2000, 
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or 
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed 
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to 
make their presentation.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 9, 2000.
Linda A. Suydam,
Senior Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 00-15431 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### § 101-5.104-6 Conduct of feasibility studies.

An initial meeting of the representatives of prospective occupying agencies will be held to discuss the objectives and detailed procedures to be followed in the conduct of each feasibility study. Arrangements will be made at this meeting for securing all necessary data in accordance with § 101-5.104-3.
<Page>

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY




       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Donald E. Steen, Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik and each of
them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution
and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his
behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of United
Surgical Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2001, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents
and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or
substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.








                                            /s/ Dave A. Alexander, Jr., M.D.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Dave A. Alexander, Jr., M.D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7458

CALVIN RUFFIN MALLORY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00466-JRS) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Calvin Ruffin Mallory, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Calvin Ruffin Mallory seeks to appeal the district 

court’s dismissal of his complaint without prejudice because he 

failed to comply with the district court’s October 4, 2002, 

order enjoining him from filing pleadings that do not comport 

with certain requirements, such as legibility and submission on 

the proper forms. 

 Generally, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint 

without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. 

Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 

1993) (holding that “a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of 

his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal 

clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure 

the defects in the plaintiff’s case”) (alteration in original) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “if the grounds of 

the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the 

defects in the plaintiff's case, the order dismissing the 

complaint is final in fact and [appellate jurisdiction exists].” 

Id. at 1066 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

 In this case, Mallory may be able to save his action 

by amending his complaint to comply with the district court’s 

October 4, 2002, order. Therefore, the district court’s 
3 

dismissal of Mallory’s complaint without prejudice is not an 

appealable final order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not air the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
000003/01486692_1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-62054-CIV-SINGHAL

JANINE ZAMORA, , individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEMERT BRANDS, LLC,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs, JANINE ZAMORA, MINDY COLLETTE, JESSICA SCHOENROCK, 

EMILY EVANS, STEPHANIE COHEN SHALIT, CONDALISA LEGRAND, JILL KERNS and 

ALEXIS MORGAN, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby 

voluntarily dismiss all claims in this action against Defendant, DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, with 

prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs.

Date: November 28, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeff Ostrow 

Jeff Ostrow (FBN 121452)

Kristen Lake Cardoso (FBN 44401)

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON

WEISELBERG GILBERT

One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954) 525-4100

ostrow@kolawyers.com

cardoso@kolawyes.com

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2023 Page 1 of 2
000003/01486692_1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 28, 2023 I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification 

to all counsel of record.

/s/ Jeff Ostrow

Jeff Ostrow

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 3011.303 Sanctions for violating protective conditions. ( a ) If a person who has been granted access to non-public materials under § 3011.301 violates the terms of the order granting access, the Commission may impose sanctions on the person who violated the order, the persons or entities on whose behalf the person was acting, or both. The sanctions may include any or all of the following: ( 1 ) Dismissing the proceeding in whole or in part;
( 2 ) Ruling by default against the person who violated the order or the persons or entities on whose behalf the person was acting;
( 3 ) Revoking access to non-public materials;
( 4 ) Restricting access to non-public materials in the future; or
( 5 ) Such other sanctions, as deemed appropriate by the Commission.
( b ) This rule does not prevent any person, including the Postal Service, whose interests are damaged by the violation of an order granting access subject to protective conditions, from pursuing any remedies available under the law against the person who violated the order, the persons or entities on whose behalf the person was acting, or both.
[83 FR 31281, July 3, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 9642, Feb. 19, 2020]
#### § 101-25.001 Scope of part.

This part provides policies and guidelines pertaining to subject matter in the general area of supply management which is not appropriate for coverage in other parts of this subchapter E.

[29 FR 13256, Sept. 24, 1964]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-80173-CR-CANNON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM MICHAEL SPEARMAN,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL REPLY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Seal Reply in Support 

of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 106]. Being fully advised, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Seal [ECF No. 106] is GRANTED. 

2. Defendant’s Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress shall remain 

permanently under seal or until further order of the Court.

3. This Order shall not be filed under seal.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Pierce, Florida, this 3rd day of May 2023.

_________________________________

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cr-80173-AMC Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2023 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5442 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5442

 To provide for a pilot program to enhance military recruiting through 
     the use of recently retired enlisted personnel as recruiters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2000

Mr. Hefley (for himself and Mr. McInnis) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a pilot program to enhance military recruiting through 
     the use of recently retired enlisted personnel as recruiters.

    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 ``Military Recruiting Enhancement Act 
of 2000''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE MILITARY RECRUITING.

    (a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall carry out 
during fiscal years 2002 and 2003 a pilot program to determine the 
effectiveness of using as military recruiters recently retired enlisted 
members of the Air Force who volunteer to be recalled to active duty to 
serve for that purpose and who are determined appropriate for that 
purpose by the Secretary.
    (b) Scope of Program.--Not more than 200 retired members of the Air 
Force may be recalled to active duty for purposes of the pilot program 
at any time. The period of a recall to active duty under the pilot 
program may not exceed two years or extend beyond September 30, 2004.
    (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the end of 
the pilot program, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives a report on the pilot program. 
The report shall--
            (1) describe the experience under the pilot program;
            (2) set forth the Secretary's assessment of (A) the 
        efficacy of the program for military recruiting, and (B) the 
        effect of the program on career patterns for junior active-duty 
        enlisted personnel who, but for the pilot program, would have 
        been assigned to military recruiting duty; and
            (3) include the Secretary's recommendations as to 
        continuation or expansion of the program.
                                 <all>
```
CONFIDENTIAL

{

1of 1
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION 

### F OR 

### R EHEARING 

### E N 

### B ANC

Case number: 01

- 1 1

- 0 0 9 69

- C V

Style: Alan McGilbery v. Doris Felix McGilbery

Date motion filed : December 21, 2012

Part y filing motion: Appellant, Alan McGilbery

A majority of the Court having voted against rehearing en banc, it is ordered that the motion for

rehearing en banc is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the Court

Before: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp, Massengale

, Brown , and Huddle.

Date: February 8 , 201 3

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 2, 2012 

d0425 

Order 

 

May 2, 2012 

144310 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144310 

 COA: 305464 

Antrim CC: 10-004362-FC 

TIMOTHY EARL WILLSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 101-27.103 Acquisition of excess property. Except for inventories eligible for return to GSA for credit pursuant to the provisions of § 101-27.501 and for inventories for which an economic retention limit has been established in accordance with the provisions of subpart 101-27.3 of this part, inventory levels may be adjusted upward when items of stock are to be acquired from excess sources. Such adjustments should be tempered by caution and arrived at after careful consideration. Generally, acquisitions of items for inventory from excess sources shall not exceed a 2-year supply except when: ( a ) A greater quantity is needed to meet known requirements for an authorized planned program.
( b ) The item is not available without special manufacture and a predictable requirement exists.
( c ) Administrative determination has been made that in application of the EOQ principle of stock replenishment within an agency an inventory level in excess of 2 years is appropriate for low dollar-volume items.
( d ) The items are being transferred into authorized stock funds for resale to other Government agencies.
[34 FR 200, Jan. 7, 1969, as amended at 41 FR 3858, Jan. 27, 1976]