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.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# Date and Time:

 Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 9:30 a.m.-4:45 p.m.

# Place:

 Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237.

# Closed Meeting:

The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will met in closed session to review and discuss a number of issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because if open to likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept  secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6)).

# For Further Information Contact:

 Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Carol Booker at (202) 203-4545.

Dated: December 8, 2006.

Carol Booker, 

Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 06-9658 Filed 12-8-06; 12:03 pm]

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
#### § 902.40 Applicability.

This subpart implements section 552(a)(3) of title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and prescribes regulations governing public inspection and copying of reasonably described records in the Corporation's custody. This subpart shall not apply to material which is covered by subparts C and D of this part, and records exempted under subpart F of this part.
§ 158.340 Process for submitting request for adjustment to the medical loss ratio. ( a ) *Electronic submission.* A State must submit electronically, to an address and in a format prescribed by the Secretary, all of the information required by this subpart in order for its request for an adjustment to the MLR standard for its individual market to be considered by the Secretary.
( b ) *Submission by mail.* A State may also submit by overnight delivery service or by U.S mail, return receipt requested, to an address and in a format prescribed by the Secretary, its request for an adjustment to the MLR standard for its individual market.
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 2 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2023 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. DAINES, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. LEE, 

Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. TUBERVILLE, 

Mr. VANCE, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. HAWLEY) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to limiting the number of terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 2 IS 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 by the Congress: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served 3 terms as 

5 a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House 

6 of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the elec7 tion of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Rep8 resentatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 

9 the number of terms that such person has served as a Rep10 resentative if the person fills the vacancy for more than 

11 1 year. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served 2 terms as 

13 a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to 

14 the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or 

15 appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate 

16 shall be included as 1 term in determining the number 

17 of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the 

18 person fills the vacancy for more than 3 years. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

20 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

21 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

22 this article.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 910 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2023 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMEND4 MENTS. 

5 Section 1(d) of Public Law 100–425 (commonly 

6 known as the ‘‘Grand Ronde Reservation Act’’) (102 Stat. 

7 1594; 108 Stat. 4566) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘lands within 

9 the State of Oregon’’ and inserting ‘‘the 84 acres 

10 known as the Thompson Strip’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 910 IS

1 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para2 graph (3); and 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(2) GAMING PROHIBITION.—Any real property 

6 obtained by the Tribes as part of a land claim settle7 ment approved by the United States, including any 

8 real property purchased with funds granted as part 

9 of any land claim settlement, shall not be eligible, or 

10 used, for any class II gaming or class III gaming 

11 under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

12 2701 et seq.) (as those terms are defined in section 

13 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).’’. 

14 SEC. 2. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED 

15 TRIBES. 

16 Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this 

17 Act, shall be construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, af18 fect, or modify any treaty right of an Indian Tribe (as 

19 defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 

20 Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K N / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J O R G E S A N T O S P E R E Z ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72863 A ge nc yN os . A 029- 378- 516

A 096- 165- 947 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anuary11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jorge S ant os P er ez and h i s s on , bo th n at i ves and ci t i ze ns of G uat em al a, p e titio n f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ o r d e rd is m is s in g h is ap p e a l f r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m . 

# FI LED JAN 21 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK N / Res ea r ch 07- 72863 2 O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. R evi ew i ng for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e , I

N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n. 1 ( 1992) , w e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. P e r e z c ont e nds tha the w i l l be pe r s e c ut e d bye i the rthe gue r i l l a s orthe m il it ary if h e r etu rn s to G u atem ala. S ub stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e a g en cy ’s fi nd i ng thatP er ez fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thata r ea sonabl e per son i n h i s c i rc um st ance s w o u ldf e arp e r s e c u tio n up o n r e tu rn to G u ate m a la . Se e Liv . I NS , 92 F . 3d 985, 987 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ). A cco rd i n g l y, P erez’s asylu m cl ai m fai l s. P er ez do es no tdo es chal l enge the deni alof hi s w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al c la im . Se e M

ar t i nez - Se rrano v . I

N S, 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues no tsupp ort ed by ar gu m entar e dee m ed w ai ved). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Wat son v. Menard , No. 642

- 11

- 17 Wncv ( Teachout, J., July 2, 2018)

.

[ The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the te xt and the

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 642

- 11

- 17 Wncv

JASON WATSON

Petitioner

v.

LISA MENARD &

SHANNON MARCOUX

Respondents

Cross

- Motions for Summary Judgment

Jason Watson, an inmate in the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of

Corrections, seeks Rule 75 review of a disciplinary conviction for the “introduction of any item

that constitutes a danger to the order of the facility.” The items were 12 strips of buprenorphine

intended t o be brought into the facility by a visitor as arranged by Mr. Watson. After the

disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer found him guilty. In Mr. Watson’s motion for summary

judgment, he argues that the conviction should be expunged because the DOC sho uld have

charged him with possession of unprescribed drugs (Major A19) rather than the attempted

introduction of a dangerous item (Major A07). The State argues in its cross

- motion for summary

judgment that (1) the conduct fits either violation and no rule required it to be charged under the

more specific one; (2) Mr. Watson neither exhausted his administrative remedies nor preserved

the issue he is raising now; and (3) he could not be entitled to a remedy of expungement under

any circumstances.

The attem pted smuggling of unprescribed narcotics into a DOC facility reasonably

presents “a danger to the order of the facility.” The presence of contraband in the form of

unauthorized drugs is highly likely to interfere with the orderly administration of a priso n

population. Even if DOC could have charged him with a different disciplinary violation, no rule

required it to do so. On that basis, the State is entitled to summary judgment, and Mr. Watson’s

motion must be denied. It is unnecessary to address the othe r issues raised by the State.

Accordingly,

1. The Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and

2. The Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of June 2018.

_________________________ ____ Mary Miles Teachout

Superior Judge
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2024, AT 10:00 A.M.

PLACE: HYBRID MEETING: 1050 FIRST STREET, N.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. (12TH

FLOOR) AND VIRTUAL. 

NOTE: FOR THOSE ATTENDING THE MEETING IN PERSON, CURRENT COVID-19 

SAFETY PROTOCOLS FOR VISITORS, WHICH ARE BASED ON THE CDC COVID-19 

HOSPITAL ADMISSION LEVEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WILL BE UPDATED ON THE 

COMMISSION’S CONTACT PAGE BY THE MONDAY BEFORE THE MEETING. SEE 

THE CONTACT PAGE AT https://www.fec.gov/contact/. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO 

VIRTUALLY ACCESS THE MEETING, SEE THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW.

STATUS: THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, SUBJECT TO THE 

ABOVE-REFERENCED GUIDANCE REGARDING THE COVID-19 HOSPITAL 

ADMISSION LEVEL AND CORRESPONDING HEALTH AND SAFETY PROCEDURES.

TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY, GO TO THE COMMISSION’S WEBSITE 

www.fec.gov AND CLICK ON THE BANNER TO BE TAKEN TO THE MEETING PAGE.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2024-03: PoliticalMeetings.com LLC

REG 2024-01 (Candidate Security) – Draft Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking

Management and Administrative Matters

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 

This meeting will be cancelled if the Commission is not open due to a funding lapse.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer

Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as 

sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura 

E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040 or secretary@fec.gov, at least 72 

hours prior to the meeting date.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission

Submitted: March 20, 2024
____________ 

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

USCA Case #22-5164 Document #1963880 Filed: 09/14/2022 Page 1 of 2 

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 22-5164 September Term, 2022 

1:20-cv-00809-ABJ 

Filed On: September 14, 2022 

Campaign Legal Center, 

Appellee 

v. 

Federal Election Commission, 

Appellee 

45Committee, Inc., 

Appellant 

Consolidated with 22-5165 

BEFORE: Millett, Rao, and Childs, Circuit Judges 

O R D E R 

Upon consideration of the motion to hold in abeyance, the opposition thereto, 

and the reply; and the motion for summary affirmance and dismissal, the opposition 

thereto, and the reply, it is 

ORDERED that the motion to hold in abeyance be denied. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted in No. 

22-5164 as to the district court’s denial of intervention. The merits of the parties’ 

positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. 

Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to intervene as untimely. See Assoc. 

Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Herman, 166 F.3d 1248, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“A 

motion for intervention after judgment will usually be denied where a clear opportunity 

for pre-judgment intervention was not taken.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is 
 

____________ 

USCA Case #22-5164 Document #1963880 Filed: 09/14/2022 Page 2 of 2 

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 22-5164 September Term, 2022 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss No. 22-5165 be granted. 

“Because a party unsuccessfully appealing a denial of intervention is not a ‘party,’ it 

may not obtain review of any district court holding other than the denial of intervention.” 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (emphasis 

removed). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk 

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution 

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. 

Per Curiam 

Page 2
#### Ada H. Kepley et al., appellants, v. Victor B. Caldwell, appellee.

Filed September 26, 1914.

No. 17,807.

WiUs: Residuary Clause: Validity. Tlie following residuary clause of a will *held*void as too indefinite and uncertain for enforcement: ‘ ‘ All personal property, except money, not otherwise disposed of herein, is to be paid and distributed by my executor as follows: To such persons, respectively, as were my friends in my lifetime, and he may think suitable and appropriate, observing my wishes in regard thereto so far as he may know or have reason to believe what they wei'e. *’ ’*

Appeal from the' district court for Douglas county: Alexander C. Troup, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*W. H.*Thompson, *McKenzie.& Gow*and *H. G. Vail,*for appellants.

*749
      *Arthur C. Wakeley, contra.*

Rose, J.

Plaintiff assails the validity of the following provision of the will of Catherine P. Lacy, deceased: “All personal property, except money, not otherwise disposed of herein, is to be paid and distributed by my executor as follows: To such persons, respectively, as were my friends in my lifetime, and he may think suitable an'd appropriate, observing my wishes in regard thereto so far as he may know or have reason to believe what they were.” In the district court this provision was held valid, and plaintiff has appealed.

The right of plaintiff to maintain the suit is challenged on the ground that she has not shown-any interest in the property in controversy. On the whole record this point is not well taken. The petition attacks the validity of the residuary clause, and alleges that plaintiff is an heir at law of testatrix. The answer states that the executor has already distributed property under that portion of the will quoted, and the evidence fairly shows that some part of the undevised estate belongs to plaintiff, if the residuary clause is void.

To uphold the will in its entirety the executor relies on oral testimony and separate, unsigned memoranda enumerating a number of articles to show that the bequests and the legatees are sufficiently definite to meet the requirements of the law, but under well-recognized rules this cannot be done. Manifestly there was no intent on the part of testatrix to dispense charities. The principles of construction relating to that subject do not apply. The intention of testatrix, the legatees, and the bequests of property are too indefinite and uncertain for enforcement. The residuary clause should not be enforced. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.
Exhibit 35



                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OC6
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OC6


     The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                         Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Exhibit 21.1  LIST OF
SUBSIDIARIESOF  ONEBEACON INSURANCE GROUP, LTD. as of December 31, 2009  Subsidiary
  
  Jurisdiction of IncorporationA. W. G.
  Dewar, Inc.
  
  MassachusettsAdirondack AIF, LLC
  
  New YorkAdirondack Insurance
  Exchange
  
  New YorkAtlantic Specialty
  Insurance Company
  
  New YorkAutoOne Insurance
  Agency, Inc.
  
  DelawareAutoOne Insurance Company
  
  New YorkAutoOne Management
  Company, Inc.
  
  DelawareAutoOne Select Insurance
  Company
  
  New YorkThe Camden Fire Insurance
  Association
  
  New JerseyEBI Claims Services, LLC
  
  DelawareThe Employers Fire
  Insurance Company
  
  MassachusettsEssentia Insurance Company
  
  MissouriHomeland Insurance Company
  of New York
  
  New YorkHouston General Insurance
  Company
  
  TexasHouston General Insurance
  Exchange
  
  TexasHouston General Insurance
  Management Company
  
  TexasMassachusetts Homeland
  Insurance Company
  
  MassachusettsMill Shares Holdings
  (Bermuda) Ltd.
  
  BermudaNational Marine
  Underwriters, Inc.
  
  DelawareNew Jersey Skylands
  Management LLC
  
  MarylandThe Northern Assurance
  Company of America
  
  MassachusettsOneBeacon America
  Insurance Company
  
  MassachusettsOneBeacon Entertainment,
  LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Holdings
  (Gibraltar) Limited
  
  GibraltarOneBeacon Holdings
  (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgOneBeacon Insurance
  Company
  
  PennsylvaniaOneBeacon Insurance Group
  LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Investments
  (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgOneBeacon
  Lloyds, Inc.
  
  TexasOneBeacon Lloyds of Texas
  
  TexasOneBeacon Midwest
  Insurance Company
  
  WisconsinOneBeacon Professional
  Insurance, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Risk
  Management, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Services, LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Sports and
  Leisure, LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon U.S. Enterprises
  Holdings, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon U.S. Financial
  Services, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon U.S.
  Holdings, Inc.
  
  DelawarePennsylvania General
  Insurance Company
  
  PennsylvaniaPotomac Insurance Company
  
  PennsylvaniaTCH Insurance
  Agency, Inc.
  
  MassachusettsTraders & General
  Insurance Company
  
  TexasWM Belvaux (Luxembourg)
  S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgWM Findel (Luxembourg)
  S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgWM Kehlen (Luxembourg)
  S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgWM Queensway (Gibraltar)
  Limited
  
  GibraltarYork Insurance Company of
  Maine
  
  Maine