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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before July 26, 2000 to be assured of consideration.

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1541.                

*Revenue Procedure Number:*                     Revenue Procedure 97-27.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                

*Title:*                     Changes in Methods of Accounting.                

*Description:*                     The information requested in sections 6, 8, and 13 of Revenue Procedure 97-27 is required in order for the Commissioner to determine whether the taxpayer is properly requesting to change its method of accounting and the terms and conditions of that change.                 

*Respondents:*                     Business or other for-profit, Individuals or households, Not-for-profit institutions, Farms.                

*Estimated Number of Respondents:*                     3,000.                 

*Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent:*                     3 hours, 13 minutes.                 

*Frequency of Response:*                     On occasion.                 

*Estimated Total Reporting Burden:*                     9,633 hours.                

*Clearance Officer:*                     Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.                

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                 

Mary A. Able, 

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-16018 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### § 301-70.702 Must we notify the Administrator of General Services when we grant an exemption?

Yes, you must notify the Administrator of General Services, Office of Government-wide Policy, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, in writing within 30 days after granting the exemption, stating the reasons for the exemption.

[FTR Amdt. 90, 65 FR 3056, Jan. 19, 2000, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2016-01, 81 FR 63138, Sept. 14, 2016; 85 FR 39849, July 2, 2020]
No. 11-9435.

#### Lopez-Pena *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
               EXTRACTED FROM THE ARMCO INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
               SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND 
               ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
               REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
<CIK>          0000007383
<NAME>         ARMCO INC.
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
<CURRENCY>     U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                            145,500
<SECURITIES>                       10,700
<RECEIVABLES>                     190,900
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       264,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  623,600
<PP&E>                          1,341,700
<DEPRECIATION>                    730,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,807,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             309,500
<BONDS>                           250,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                       185,900
<COMMON>                            1,100
<OTHER-SE>                         12,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,807,800
<SALES>                           407,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  407,900
<CGS>                             353,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     353,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  5,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    29,600
<INCOME-TAX>                        4,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                25,200
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    (2,800)
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       22,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.16
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: 2021-1635: American Patents LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC
No. D-2638.

#### In re Baldwin.

James E. Baldwin, of Lebanon, Mo., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys permitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on April 16, 2012 *[ante,*p. 932], is discharged.
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40312 Summary Calendar

__________________ PATRICK G. HENRY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus KATHLEEN HAWK, in her official capacity as Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; EDWARD F. REILLY, in his official capacity as Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission; U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:94-CV-105

- - - - - - - - - - November 13, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Patrick G. Henry appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition concerning the Parole Commission reopening the determination of Henry's parole date for consideration of new adverse information. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f). Henry argues that the Commission exceeded its authority to reopen because the information relied upon by the Commission to reopen was not new adverse information under § 2.28(f). Henry contends that the information was before the Commission, through the PSR, whenNo. 95-40312 -2- the original parole determination was made. The record indicates that the packet of information, sent by the former state prosecutor and containing details of Henry's state conviction, Henry's method of preparation for violent acts, and explanation of the items discovered during the federal investigation, was not before the Commission during the initial determination. Therefore, the Commission properly reopened the case pursuant to § 2.28(f). See Frassetto v. Perrill , 955 F.2d 176, 178 (2d Cir. 1992). Henry challenges the Commissioner's determination which effectively denied parole to him. Although the Commission’s decision must have a factual basis, judicial review of a decision is limited to whether there is “some evidence” in the record to support the decision, Maddox v United States Parole Commission , 821 F.2d 997, 999 (5th Cir.1987). A review of this record indicates that there is “some evidence” to support the Commission’s decision. AFFIRMED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

VIOLET SEVEN

, Appellant,

v.

BROWARD GENERAL HOSPITAL

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2059

[ February 1, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; John B. Bowman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 021284

.

Violet Seven, Pompano Beach, pro se.

Reid A. Cocalis of Tripp Scott, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., T AYLOR and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 302-4.600 May I request an advance of funds for per diem and mileage allowances for PCS travel?

You may request advance of funds for per diem and mileage allowances for PCS travel, except for overseas tour renewal agreement travel.
#### § 300-70.2 What information must we report?

Information on agency reporting requirements is available at *https://www.gsa.gov/trip*.

[FTR Amdt. 2017-01, 83 FR 604, Jan. 5, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 39848, July 2, 2020]
EXHIBIT
31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2008 of Impax Laboratories, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    [Intentionally omitted];(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
 March 12, 2009
    By:

/s/ Larry Hsu, Ph.D.Larry Hsu, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive
Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE>         5
  <LEGEND>
  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
  consolidated statement of financial condition at September 30, 1999
  (unaudited) and the consolidated statement of income for the nine months
  ended September 30, 1999 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by
  reference to such financial statements.
  </LEGEND>
  <MULTIPLIER>      1

  <S>                         <C>        <C>
  <PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-2000
  <PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-2000
  <PERIOD-END>                            Mar-31-2000
  <CASH>                                       37,472
  <SECURITIES>                                    -0-
  <RECEIVABLES>                                   -0-
  <ALLOWANCES>                                    -0-
  <INVENTORY>                                     -0-
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                             37,472
  <PP&E>                                          -0-
  <DEPRECIATION>                                  -0-
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                               83,059
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           -0-
  <BONDS>                                         -0-
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           -0-
  <PREFERRED>                                     -0-
  <COMMON>                                    314,080
  <OTHER-SE>                                 <231,021>
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 83,059
  <SALES>                                         -0-
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                -0-
  <CGS>                                           -0-
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                                   -0-
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                             18,399
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                                -0-
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              -0-
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                                 -0-
  <INCOME-TAX>                                    -0-
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>                             -0-
  <DISCONTINUED>                              <18,399>
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                                 -0-
  <CHANGES>                                       -0-
  <NET-INCOME>                                <18,399>
  <EPS-BASIC>                                  0.00
  <EPS-DILUTED>                                   -0-


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

 /

CONSENT JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Consent 

Judgment and Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 196). Therein, Plaintiffs GRACE, Inc., Engage 

Miami, Inc., South Dade Branch of the NAACP, Miami-Dade Branch of the NAACP, Clarice 

Cooper, Yanelis Valdes, Jared Johnson, Alexandra Contreras and Steven Miro, and Defendant 

City of Miami (collectively, the “Parties”) request that the Court approve the Settlement 

Agreement between the Parties and enter a consent judgment embodying the Parties’ agreed-upon 

settlement terms. See id. at 1; (“Settlement Agreement”) (ECF No. 196-1). For the reasons set 

forth in the Order granting the Parties’ Motion to Approve Consent Judgment and Settlement 

Agreement, (ECF No. 197), entered separately, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 196-1) is APPROVED;

2. it is hereby ORDERED that (a) the City shall implement “P5” as its redistricting 

plan as provided by Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement; (b) no special election 

shall be required due to the change in district boundaries caused by the 

implementation of “P5”; (c) the City shall not redistrict until after the 2030 Census 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2024 Page 1 of 2
2 

data is released, unless the number of commission districts changes or subject to a 

subsequent court order; and (d) no change in district boundaries caused by the 

implementation of “P5” shall affect the qualifications of any incumbent 

commissioner under Section 4(c) of the City Charter or Chapter 16 of the City Code 

that would disqualify such incumbent commissioner during the remainder of the 

incumbent commissioner’s current term to which they were elected;

3. it is hereby ORDERED that the City shall place a charter amendment on the

November 2025 ballot as provided by Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement;

4. it is hereby ORDERED that the City shall pay Plaintiffs’ damages as provided by

Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement;

5. it is hereby ORDERED that the City shall pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs

as provided by Section 6 of the Settlement Agreement, with each party to bear its

own attorneys’ fees and costs except as expressly provided in that Section;

6. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), this action is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE;

7. the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Settlement Agreement;

8. the Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this case; and

9. all pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of July, 2024. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record 

1st

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2024 Page 2 of 2
----

| Dated:      May 9, 2008 | By:    |  /s/ Elmer N.      Baldwin                   |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Elmer      N. Balwin                              |
|                    |   | Chief      Executive Officer                      |
|                    |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)                |
|                    |   |                                              |
| Dated:      May 9, 2008 | By:    |  /s/ Walter P.      Michels                  |
|                    |   | Walter      P. Michels                            |
|                    |   | Interim      Chief Financial Officer              |
|                    |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-62242-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

JUAN C. JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ENVISION PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice 

(the “Notice”) [DE 13], filed herein on February 8, 2023. The Court has carefully reviewed the 

Notice and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Notice [DE 13] is hereby APPROVED. 

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

3. The Clerk is directed to DENY any pending motions as moot and CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 

8th day of February, 2023.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of record

Case 0:22-cv-62242-WPD Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### §§ 302-12.107-302-12.108 [Reserved]
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  N ATIONALM EAT A SSOCIATION ,

Plaintiff-Appellee, and A MERICAN M EAT I NSTITUTE ,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v. K AMALA D. H ARRIS , in her official capacity as Attorney General of No. 09-15483 California; E DMUND G. B ROWN J R ., D.C. No. in his official capacity as 

#  1:08-cv-01963- Governor of California; S TATE OF LJO-DLB C ALIFORNIA , Defendants-Appellants,

and T HE H UMANE S OCIETY OFT HE U NITED S TATES ; F ARM S ANCTUARY , I NC .; H UMANE F ARMING A SSOCIATION ; A NIMALL EGAL D EFENSE F UND ,

Defendant-Intervenors. 

# 

6563

#  N ATIONALM EAT A SSOCIATION ,

Plaintiff-Appellee, and A MERICAN M EAT I NSTITUTE ,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v. K AMALA D. H ARRIS , in her official capacity as Attorney General of No. 09-15486 California; E DMUND G. B ROWN J R ., D.C. No. in his official capacity as 1:08-cv-01963-



#  Governor of California; S TATE OF LJO-DLB C ALIFORNIA , Defendants, ORDER

and T HE H UMANE S OCIETY OFT HE U NITED S TATES ; F ARM S ANCTUARY , I NC .; H UMANE F ARMING A SSOCIATION ; A NIMALL EGAL D EFENSE F UND ,

Defendants-IntervenorsAppellants. 

# 
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed June 8, 2012
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt and

Barry G. Silverman, Circuit Judges.

ORDER In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in National Meat Ass’n v. Harris , 132 S. Ct. 965 (2012), we 6564 N ATIONALM EAT A SS ’ N v. B ROWNvacate our prior opinion in National Meat Ass’n v. Brown , 599 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2010), and affirm the judgment of the district court.
The mandate shall issue forthwith. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b). 6565

N ATIONALM EAT A SS ’ N v. B ROWNPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2012 Thomson Reuters.
#### § 302-3.506 May we pay relocation expenses if the employee violates their service agreement?

If an employee does not fulfill the terms of the service agreement, the employee is indebted to the Government for all relocation expenses that have been reimbursed to the employee or that have been paid directly by the Government. However, if the reasons for not fulfilling the terms of the service agreement are beyond the employee's control and acceptable to the agency, you may release the employee from the service agreement and waive any indebtedness.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12254, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### § 302-16.105 What standard of care must I use in incurring miscellaneous expenses?

You must exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if relocating at personal expense.
455P14-4

#### State v. Reginald Fullard

1. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

1. Allowed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Appeal Seeking Recusal

2. Dismissed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Compel Constitutional Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence

3. Dismissed

4. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Withdraw unconstitutionally Construed Instrument that Violates Due Process

4. Dismissed

5. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for *Writ of Mandamus*

5. Dismissed

6. Def’s Pro *Se*Motion for Case Calendaring

6. Dismissed

7. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Evidence Hearing

7. Dismissed

8. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Appointment of Competent Criminal Attorney

8. Dismissed

9. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Jury Trial

9. Dismissed
No. 11-111.

#### Kobobel et al. *v.*Colorado et al.

Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.