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 Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 12:01 p.m. on Friday, June 16, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's resolution activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board determined on motion of Vice ChairmanAndrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), concurred in by Ms. Leann G. Britton, acting in the place and stead of Director John D. Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Donna Tanoue, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to the public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).

The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Dated: June 16, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Valerie J. Best,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15765  Filed 6-19-00; 12:59 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.2 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-6 appear at 68 FR 51373, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 101-6.213-1 Decision by person other than the responsible GSA official.

If the hearing is held by a hearing examiner such hearing examiner shall either make an initial decision, if so authorized, or certify the entire record including his recommended findings and proposed decision to the responsible GSA official for a final decision, and a copy of such initial decision or certification shall be mailed to the applicant or recipient. Where the initial decision is made by the hearing examiner the applicant or recipient may within 30 days of the mailing of such notice of initial decision file with the responsible GSA official his exceptions to the initial decision, with his reasons therefor. In the absence of exceptions, the responsible GSA official may on his own motion within 45 days after the initial decision serve on the applicant or recipient a notice that he will review the decision. Upon the filing of such exceptions or of such notice of review the responsible GSA official shall review the initial decision and issue his own decision thereon including the reasons therefor. In the absence of either exceptions or a notice of review the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the responsible GSA official.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000005656
<NAME>                        American Precious Metals, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         10,818
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,968
<PP&E>                                         11,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,492)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          72,914
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,942
<OTHER-SE>                                     (59,813)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,043
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,535)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)



</TABLE>
§ 102-33.325 What documentation must we furnish with excess, surplus or replaced parts when they are transferred, donated, or exchanged/sold? When you transfer, donate, or exchange/sell excess, surplus or replaced parts, you must— ( a ) Furnish all applicable labels, tags, and historical and modification records for serviceable aircraft parts;
( b ) Mark mutilated parts as unsalvageable (mutilated parts may be sold only for scrap; see § 102-33.315); and
( c ) Ensure that all available tags, labels, applicable historical data, life-histories, and maintenance records accompany FSCAP and life-limited parts and that FSCAP criticality codes (see § 102-33.375) are perpetuated on documentation (see § 102-33.330 for additional requirements).
§ 105-54.307 Termination of advisory committees. ( a ) The sponsoring HSSO terminates an advisory committee that has fulfilled the purpose stated in its charter. The official takes action to rescind any existing orders relating to the committee and to notify committee members, the GSA Committee Management Officer, and the Committee Management Secretariat of the termination.
( b ) Failing to continue an advisory committee by the 2-year anniversary date terminates the committee, unless its duration is provided for by law.
3 4

5

1

2

Miami
International
Airport

Morningside

Grapeland
Heights

Coconut
Grove

Little
Havana Dodge
Island

Shenandoah

Virginia


Liberty
City

Silver
Bluff

Little
River

Downtown

Edgewater

The
Roads

Allapattah

Little
Haiti

Overtown

Flagami

Brickell

Omni

2003	Plan
#### § 105-55.029 Exception to termination.

When a significant enforcement policy is involved, or recovery of a judgment is a prerequisite to the imposition of administrative sanctions, the General Services Administration may refer debts for litigation even though termination of collection activity may otherwise be appropriate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

EDWIN GARRISON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS

Tyler Evan Ulrich, Esq., of the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, hereby enters an 

appearance as counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs in this matter and requests that copies of all 

documents filed or served in this matter be served on them via CM/ECF or at the address listed 

below, as appropriate.

Date: February 2, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2800

Miami, Florida 33150

By: /s/ Tyler Ulrich 

Florida Bar No.: 94705

Tel.: (305) 539-8400

Fax: (305) 539-1307

tulrich@bsfllp.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2023 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 2, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by using the CM/ECF 

system, which sent notification of such filing to all CM/ECF participants. 

By: /s/ Tyler Ulrich 

Tyler Ulrich, Esq.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-74.300 How must space available for employee parking be allocated among occupant agencies?

The Federal agency buildings manager must allocate space available for employee parking among occupant agencies on an equitable basis, such as by allocating such parking in proportion to each agency's share of building space, office space or total employee population, as appropriate. In certain cases, Federal agencies may allow a third party, such as a board composed of representatives of agencies sharing space, to determine proper parking allocations among the occupant agencies.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6599
THOMAS FRANCIS NYLAND, a/k/a Thomas Nyland, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-96-3721-3-23BC) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Francis Nyland, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Francis Nyland seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Nyland v. Moore , No. CA-96-3721-3-23BC (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
603 P.2d 585

#### Lynn PEARSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The Honorable Robert WHITEMAN, Magistrate, Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13026.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Nov. 29, 1979.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Eugene A. Ritti, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for defendant-appellant.

John K. Gatchel, Payette, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before DONALDSON, C. J., McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., and SCHROEDER and WARD, JJ. Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented on appeal is whether the district court erred in determining that there was an insufficient record to sustain a finding of contempt by a judge of the magistrates division of the district court upon the basis that the tape recorded record of the proceedings held at trial had been lost at the time the case was reviewed by the district court. A review of the record indicates that the issue is moot and that, therefore, the order of the district court will stand.

Lynn Pearson assisted his son in a trial before a judge of the magistrates division. During the course of the trial, he made remarks that the magistrate found to constitute contempt. Thereafter, a sentencing hearing was held at which time the magistrate recited the statements of Mr. Pearson upon which he relied in determining that contempt had been committed. Mr. Pearson did not challenge this statement. Subsequently, Mr. Pearson filed a .Writ of Review to the district court, challenging the finding of contempt. At the time the hearing was held before the district judge, the tape recorded record of the trial had been lost. As a consequence, the district judge reversed the order of contempt and remanded the case to the magistrate upon the basis that a record was not available to determine whether the magistrate’s action was proper or improper. Thereafter, prior to the filing of this appeal, the magistrate dismissed the contempt order. Apparently no reconstruction of the record was made in the magistrates division upon the remand. By virtue of the dismissal that took place in the magistrates division prior to the filing of this appeal, the appeal is moot and the decision of the district court should stand by reason of that mootness.1

*631Based upon the foregoing review of the record, it appears that the issue presented is moot and that the appeal is dismissed.

1

. This ruling should not be interpreted as an affirmation of the basis for reversal by the district judge. The magistrate’s verbatim recitation at the sentencing hearing may well have been adequate to establish the record upon which he relied and that there may well be instances in which reconstruction of a record is possible, though the formal record is lost. It should not be assumed that the absence of the tape recorded record must always result in reversal of an order such as that entered by the magistrate. It simply appears in this case that upon the remand there was no further effort made to reconstruct the record in those areas that may have been wanting and that instead the case was dismissed by the magistrate prior to this appeal.
Thiacloprid Human Health Risk Assessment DP No. D407179 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

MEMORANDUM 

Date: 29 November 2012 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: Thiacloprid- Corrections to Crop Group 12 Tolerance Recommendations in the 

Human Health Risk Assessment (DP No. D376178) 

FROM: 

PC Code: 014019 DP Barcode: 0407179 

Decision No.: 430158,430159 Registration No.: 264-805,264-806 

Petition No.: OF7706 Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration 

Risk Assessment Type: Single-Chemical, Aggregate Case No.: 7622 

TXR No.: NA CAS No.: 111988-49-9 

Risk 

:~~:~:AN;oherty, Assessment Branch Ph.D., 

II 

Chemist ~ ~ Health Effects Division (7509P) 

THROUGH: Christina Swartz, Branch Chief 

Risk Assessment Branch II 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

TO: Andrew Ertman!Barbara Madden (Team 05) 

Risk Integration, Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch 

Registration Division (7505P) 

Marianne LewisNenus Eagle (Team 01) 

Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch 

Registration Division (7505P) 

HED recently completed a human health aggregate risk assessment for the active ingredient 

thiacloprid (0376178, M. Doherty et al., 31 October 2012). The purpose of this document is to 

provide corrections to the recommended commodity listings related to Crop Group 12 - Stone 

Fruits. In order to take advantage of the subgroup listings in Crop Group 12-12 and avoid 

potential confusion that is inherent in the originally recommended tolerance listings, HED is 

recommending establishing tolerances for the subgroups in Group 12-12 as follows: 

• Cherry subgroup 12-12A .. ........ ...... 0.5 ppm, 

• Peach subgroup 12-12B ............ ...... 0.5 ppm, 

• Plum subgroup 12-12C ................... 0.05 ppm. 

These changes have no impact on the risk estimates in the aggregate risk assessment. 

Page 1 of 1
Merrimack District Court

No. 78-245

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Patrick Fleming

April 13, 1979

*246
      *Thomas D. Rath,*attorney general *(Peter W. Mosseau*orally), for the State.

*Wiggin & Nourie,*of Manchester *(Stephen J. Patterson*orally), for the defendant.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, in violation of RSA 262-A:62. He moved to dismiss on the ground of prejudice because the complaint, as required by the statute, included the prior conviction as an element of the offense.

The questions raised by defendant’s motion were transferred in advance of trial without ruling by *Michael,*S.J. This issue should not have been transferred in advance of trial. *State v. Doyle,*117 N.H. 789, 378 A.2d 1379 (1977). Evidence of a prior offense may be admissible when introduced as “an element in the crime,” *State v. Labranche,*118 N.H. 176, 178, 385 A.2d 108, 109 (1978); *see Spencer v. Texas,*385 U.S. 554 (1967). No prejudice will result to the defendant in a trial before the district court without a jury. *State v. Aubert,*118 N.H. 739, 393 A.2d 567 (1978). If defendant is convicted and appeals to the superior court, he may there take steps, such as stipulations, to guard against any alleged prejudice that may result from the jury’s being informed of the prior offense. *See generally*ABA STANDARDS FOR TRIAL BY JURY § 4.4 (Approved Draft, 1968); *cf. Novosel v. Helgemoe,*118 N.H. 115, 384 A.2d 124 (1978) (trial bifurcation); *State v. Barker,*117 N.H. 543, 374 A.2d 1179 (1977) (limiting instruction regarding evidence of prior offense).

*Remanded for trial.*
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 0295
#### § 102-75.1120 Does the property have to be Federally screened?

No, screening is not required because it would accomplish no useful purpose, since the property subject to transfer or retransfer will continue to be used in the administration of any functions relating to Native Americans.
§ 102-39.65 What conditions apply to the exchange/sale of personal property? You may use the exchange/sale authority only if you meet all of the following conditions: ( a ) The property exchanged or sold is similar to the property acquired;
( b ) The property exchanged or sold is not excess or surplus and you have a continuing need for similar property;
( c ) The property exchanged or sold was not acquired for the principal purpose of exchange or sale;
( d ) When replacing personal property, the exchange allowance or sales proceeds from the disposition of that property may only be used to offset the cost of the replacement property, not services;
( e ) Your agency documents at the time of exchange or sale (or at the time of acquiring the replacement property if acquisition precedes the exchange or sale) that the exchange allowance or sale proceeds will be applied to the acquisition of replacement property; and
( f ) Except for transactions involving books and periodicals in your libraries, you document the basic facts associated with each exchange/sale transaction. At a minimum, the documentation must include: ( 1 ) The FSC Group of the items exchanged or sold, and the items acquired;
( 2 ) The number of items exchanged or sold, and the number of items acquired;
( 3 ) The acquisition cost and exchange allowance or net sales proceeds of the items exchanged or sold, and the acquisition cost of the items acquired;
( 4 ) The date of the transaction(s);
( 5 ) The parties involved; and
( 6 ) A statement that the transactions comply with the requirements of this part 102-39.
Note to § 102-39.65 :
In acquiring items for historical preservation or display at Federal museums, you may exchange historic items in the museum property account without regard to the FSC group, provided the exchange transaction is documented and certified by the head of your agency to be in the best interests of the Government and all other provisions of this part are met. The documentation must contain a determination that the item exchanged and the item acquired are historic items.
[73 FR 50881, Aug. 29, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 25511, Apr. 27, 2023]
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 172-20   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32


American
Airlines, Inc.


Certification


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)








Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of American Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





Date:  April
18, 2008     /s/ Gerard J.
Arpey


Gerard J. Arpey


Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer





Date:  April
18, 2008     /s/ Thomas W.
Horton


Thomas W. Horton


Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer











The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure document.