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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

          - [I.D. 052400G] 

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Issuance of photography permit No. 980-1570. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that Lonsdale Productions, 113 Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh, Norfolk NR21 7AQ, United Kingdom, has been issued a permit to take by Level B harassment two species, gray whale (                        *Eschrichtius**robustus*) and killer whale (                        *Orcinus**orca*) of non-threatened, non-endangered marine mammals for purposes of commercial photography.                     

# ADDRESSES:

The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: 

Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and 

                        Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, 709 W. 9th                         Street, Federal Building Room 461, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 (907/586-7235).                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On April 25, 2000, notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     (65 FR 24185) that the above-named applicant had submitted a request for a permit to take two species of marine mammals by Level B harassment during the course of commercial photographic activities in Alaska waters. The requested permit has been issued, under the authority of section 104(c)(6) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361*et**seq*.).                 

Dated: June 21, 2000. 

Ann D. Terbush, 

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 00-16226 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
U-Vend, Inc. 8-K


 


Exhibit 10.49


 


February 1, 2017


 


Board of Directors 


U-Vend, Inc. 


1507 7th Street, Suite 425 


Santa Monica, CA 90401


 


Re: Letter of Resignation


 


Board of Directors:


 


I am writing to officially tender my resignation effective February
1, 2017 as U-Vend’s Chief Executive Officer, President, and acting Chief Financial Officer.


 


I enjoyed my time over the past 3 years leading the Company and I wish
you continued success in the future. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please feel free to contact me.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Raymond Meyers


 


Raymond Meyers
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60071

Summary Calendar

 

ERIC JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DIANE PARKER, Executrix of the Estate of Barry Parker, deceased,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-1-P-A

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

Before: BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Jones, Mississippi prisoner # 45265, appeals from the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the basis that the

estate of Barry Parker has been closed and lacks assets from

which Jones may recover damages. The ability of a plaintiff to

recover under state law does not determine whether the

plaintiff’s action may proceed in federal court. Ransom v.

Brennan, 437 F.2d 513, 520 (5th Cir. 1971). Moreover, it is
unclear whether Jones is precluded from reopening the estate and

recovering damages should he prevail on his substantive claims. 

See Smith v. Estate of King, 501 So. 2d 1120, 1122-23 (Miss.

1987); Powell v. Buchanan, 147 So.2d 110, 111-12 (Miss. 1962).

VACATED AND REMANDED.
§ 50-205.8 Reports of inspections. The State agency shall furnish the Department of Labor with a report of its inspection when the following circumstances exist: ( a ) The inspection was requested by the Department of Labor;
( b ) The inspection discloses serious violations of the safety and health requirements of part 50-204 of this chapter by an employer apparently subject to the Act;
( c ) The inspection discloses minor violations of the safety and health requirements of part 50-204 of this chapter by an employer apparently subject to the Act which are not corrected promptly when such apparent violations are brought to the attention of the employer or as to which fully reliable assurances of future compliance are not or cannot be obtained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
THE REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE  SIX-MONTH  PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 31, 1996 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.


                                 Exhibit 27.2
                              ANDERSEN GROUP, INC.
                         AMENDED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                       COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

</LEGEND>


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>                          
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                          2,908
<SECURITIES>                                    4,335
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (178)
<INVENTORY>                                     7,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,332
<PP&E>                                         17,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,303)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,768
<BONDS>                                         7,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                     5,309
<COMMON>                                        2,103
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,610
<SALES>                                        13,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,592
<CGS>                                           8,592
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,184
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   408
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (163)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               245
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        3
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.00
                                                                   
                                                        


        

</TABLE>
§ 109-38.800 General. ( a ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) The Office of Management and Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) for their respective organizations shall be responsible for establishing procedures to provide for the administrative control of fleet credit cards. Administrative control shall include, as a minimum: ( 1 ) A reconciliation of on-hand credit cards with the inventory list provided by GSA,
( 2 ) Providing motor vehicle operators with appropriate instructions regarding the use and protection of credit cards against theft and misuse,
( 3 ) The taking of reasonable precautions in the event a fleet credit card is lost or stolen to minimize the opportunity of purchases being made by unauthorized persons, including notification to the paying office of the loss or theft,
( 4 ) Validation of credit card charges to ensure they are for official use only items, and
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

54 

CAF 11-01684 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF LOKI C. 

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

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ORDER

SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

RONNIE C., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.) 

CARR SAGLIMBEN LLP, OLEAN (JAY D. CARR OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

STEPHEN J. RILEY, OLEAN, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

SCHAVON R. MORGAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, MACHIAS, FOR LOKI C. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County

(Larry M. Himelein, J.), entered July 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant

to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental

rights of respondent. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
§ 302-15.11 If my agency authorized, and I elected to receive, payment for property management expenses, may I later elect to sell my residence at Government expense? Yes, you may change your selection from receiving property management expenses to selling your residence at Government expense provided: ( a ) Your agency allows you to change your election of payment from property management expenses to the sale of your residence at Government expense; and
( b ) Payment for sale of your residence at Government expense is offset in accordance with your agency's policy established under § 302-15.70(d).
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 20.4


                         [ERNST & YOUNG LLP LETTERHEAD]


                         Report of Independent Auditors

Board of Directors
WFS Financial Inc


We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
consolidated statement of financial condition of WFS Financial Inc and
Subsidiaries (WFS) as of December 31, 1996 and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended, and have issued our report thereon dated January 28, 1997.

In connection with our audit nothing came to our attention that caused us to
believe that WFS failed to comply with the terms, covenants, provisions or
conditions of either the Pooling and Servicing Agreements for WFS Financial
Auto Loans, Inc. dated June 1, 1993, September 1, 1993, December 1, 1993,
March 1, 1994, May 1, 1994, August 1, 1994, October 1, 1994, January 1, 1995,
March 1, 1995, June 1, 1995, September 1, 1995 or December 1, 1995, or the Sale
and Servicing Agreements for WFS Financial Auto Loans, Inc. dated March 1,
1996, June 1, 1996, September 1, 1996 or December 1, 1996 between Bankers Trust
Company and WFS insofar as they relate to accounting and auditing matters.
However, it should be noted that our audit was not directed primarily toward
obtaining a knowledge of noncompliance.

This report is intended for the use and information of the Board of Directors,
management and Bankers Trust Company and should not be used for any other
purpose.



                                      /S/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

January 28, 1997
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-1118 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AUSTRALIA 

Signed at Washington and Canberra 

November 5 and 18, 2004 

with 

Annexes 

 and 

Agreement Amending and Extending the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Signed at Washington and Canberra 

October 7 and 28, 2009 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 AUSTRALIA 

 

 Defense: Cooperation 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Washington and Canberra 

 November 5 and 18, 2004; 

 Entered into force November 18, 2004. 

 With annexes. 

 And agreement amending and extending the 

 memorandum of understanding. 

 Signed at Washington and Canberra 

 October 7 and 28, 2009; 

 Entered into force October 28, 2009. 

NOTE: Introduction of this Memorandum of Understanding appears to begin on Page 4.
No. 11-9239.

#### Trindade *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
#### § 102-83.115 Are Federal agencies required to consider whether the CBA or other areas recommended by local officials will provide for adequate competition when acquiring leased space?

Yes. In accordance with CICA, Federal agencies must consider whether restricting the delineated area for obtaining leased space to CBAs or other areas recommended by local officials will provide for adequate competition when acquiring space. If a Federal agency determines that the delineated area must be expanded beyond the preferred areas to provide adequate competition, the agency may expand the delineated area in consultation and engagement with local officials. Federal agencies must continue to include the preferred area in such expanded areas.
§ 105-70.009 Answer. ( a ) The defendant may request a hearing by filing an answer with the reviewing official within 30 days of service of the complaint. An answer shall be deemed to be a request for hearing.
( b ) In the answer, the defendant— ( 1 ) Shall admit or deny each of the allegations of liability made in the complaint;
( 2 ) Shall state any defense on which the defendant intends to rely;
( 3 ) May state any reasons why the defendant contends that the penalties and assessments should be less than the statutory maximum; and
( 4 ) Shall state the name, address, and telephone number of the person authorized by the defendant to act as defendant's representative, if any.
( c ) If the defendant is unable to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section within the time provided, the defendant may, before the expiration of 30 days from service of the complaint, file with the reviewing official a general answer denying liability and requesting a hearing, and a request for an extension of time within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. The reviewing official shall file promptly with the ALJ the complaint, the general answer denying liability, and the request for an extension of time as provided in § 105-70.011. For good cause shown, the ALJ may grant the defendant up to 30 additional days within which to file an answer meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6841

WILLIAM K. COWARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-226-HC-5-BO)

Submitted: August 10, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William K. Coward, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We recently held in United States v. Angle, Nos. 96-4662,

96-4672, 99-4187, 2001 WL 732124 (4th Cir. June 29, 2001), at *3,

that no Apprendi error existed when the sentence for conspiring to

commit an offense that involved an unspecified quantity of drugs

was under twenty years. Coward received a 100 month sentence, less

than the twenty year maximum sentence. Accordingly, he has no

Apprendi claim.

2

PER CURIAM:

William K. Coward appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of

the district court.* See Coward v. United States, No. CA-01-226-

HC-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 301-70.701 Who has the authority to grant exemptions to mandatory use of Government contractor-issued travel charge card for official travel? ( a ) The Administrator of General Services will exempt any payment, person, type or class of payments, or type or class of personnel in any case in which— ( 1 ) It is in the best interest of the United States to do so;
( 2 ) Payment through a travel charge card is impractical or imposes unreasonable burdens or costs on Federal employees or Federal agencies; or
( 3 ) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security (for the Coast Guard) requests an exemption for the members of their uniformed services.
( b ) The head of a Federal agency or their designee(s) may exempt any payment, person, type or class of payments, or type or class of agency personnel if the exemption is determined to be necessary in the interest of the agency.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15971, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-05, 72 FR 61539, Oct. 31, 2007; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12252, Feb. 16, 2024]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24175-JAL

NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA 

PORTFOLIO) LLC D/B/A BIRD 

LUDLAM, GABLES AH, LLC D/B/A 

CAROLINA ALE HOUSE, WINNDIXIE STORES, INC. D/B/A WINNDIXIE #249 and ORSILLO 

ENTERPRISES INC D/B/A BIRD 

ROAD DAIRY QUEEN,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION OF FINAL DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant,

EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned 

counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby STIPULATE 

AND AGREE that this matter has been settled and to the immediate dismissal of this action with 

prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs except as indicated in the 

settlement agreement. 

STIPULATED AND AGREED by Counsel for the Parties on the dates below written.

Respectfully submitted on May 16, 2023.

/s/ Anthony J. Perez

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No. 535451

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200

Coral Gables, Fl 33134

/s/ Alejandro I. Leiva_____ 

Alejandro I. Leiva

Florida Bar No. 118309

GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 

200 East Broward Boulevard 

Suite 1800 

Case 1:22-cv-24175-JAL Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the 

Court's electronic filing system upon all parties of record on May 16, 2023.

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200

Coral Gables, Fl 33134

Telephone: (305) 553-3464

Facsimile: (305) 553-3031

Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

Secondary E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com; 

dramos@lawgmp.com

By: ___/s/_Anthony J. Perez________

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No.: 535451

Telephone: (305) 553- 3464

Email: ajperez@lawgmp.com 

Counsel for Plaintifs

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Tel. (954) 491-1120

Email: Peter.Siegel@gmlaw.com;

Alex.Leiva@gmlaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Equity One (Florida 

Portfolio) LLC

Case 1:22-cv-24175-JAL Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/16/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 102-85.195 Does GSA provide special services? Yes, GSA provides special services on a cost-reimbursable basis: ( a ) In GSA-controlled space, GSA may provide for special services that cannot be separated from the building or space costs (inseparable services, such as utilities, which are not individually metered). GSA's estimate of the special service cost is the basis for the bill amount. The bill amount for separable special services is either based on a previously agreed upon fixed price or the actual cost, including a fee for GSA's services.
( b ) GSA can also provide special services to other Federal agencies in agency-controlled and operated space on a cost-reimbursable basis.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1051

RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a

Pennsylvania corporation,

Plaintiff,

versus

WILLIAM RAY MILLER, II,

Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

J. L. HICKMAN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a/k/a

IFA Insurance Services, Incorporated, a Texas

corporation; JOHN L. HICKMAN,

Defendants,

and

DONNA MANNINO,

Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff,

versus

UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Third Party Defendant - Appellee.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97-

3194-MJG)

Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 15, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ray Miller, II, Appellant Pro Se. Lon Arthur Berk, SHAW

PITTMAN, Washington, D.C.; Paula Lynn Primost, SHAW PITTMAN,

McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

William Ray Miller, II, appeals the district court’s orders

granting Utica’s motion for summary judgment on his third party

complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Miller v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., No.

CA-97-3194-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 22 & Nov. 24, 1999). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED