alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Assignment of Functions Relating to the Information Sharing Environment

# Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, the functions of the President under section 1016(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) (the “Act”) are hereby assigned to the Director of National Intelligence (Director).

The Director shall perform such functions in a manner consistent with direction and guidance issued by the President, including (1) the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of June 2, 2005, entitled “Strengthening Information Sharing, Access, and Integration—Organizational, Management, and Policy Development Structures for Creating the Terrorism Information Sharing Environment,” and (2) the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of December 16, 2005, entitled “Guidelines and Requirements in Support of the Information Sharing Environment;” provided that the Director shall ensure that the official within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence previously designated as the program manager responsible for information sharing across the Federal Government pursuant to the Act shall be the assistant to the Director in carrying out the functions delegated by this memorandum.

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 07-1875

Billing code 3910-A7-M
§ 121.602 Internal communications systems. ( a ) A vessel equipped with pilothouse control must have a fixed means of two-way communications from the operating station to the location where the means of controlling the propulsion machinery, required by § 121.620(a), is located. Twin screw vessels with pilothouse control for both engines are not required to have a fixed communications system.
( b ) A vessel equipped with auxiliary means of steering, required by § 119.600 of this chapter, must have a fixed means of two-way communications from the operating station to the location where the auxiliary means of steering is controlled.
( c ) When the propulsion machinery of a vessel cannot be controlled from the operating station, an efficient communications system must be provided between the operating station and the propulsion machinery space.
( d ) When the locations addressed in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section are sufficiently close together, direct voice communications satisfactory to the cognizant OCMI is acceptable instead of the required fixed means of communications.
( e ) The OCMI may accept hand held portable radios as satisfying the communications system requirement of this section.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.979 Gauging with a sounding tube. ( a ) No person may remove the cover of a sounding tube unless he has authorization from the person in charge of cargo transfer.
( b ) The person in charge of cargo transfer may not authorize removal of the cover from a sounding tube gauge unless all tank pressure has been relieved through the tank's venting system.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DERRICK EDWARDS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 308 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Does the reasoning and rationale contained within this 

Honorable Court’s recent decision (May 19, 2020) in 

Commonwealth v. [] Johnson, [231 A.3d 807 (Pa. 2020)], 

apply to a Batson violation, thereby precluding a retrial based 

upon double jeopardy principles?
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2012 —
Italy v Commission

(Case C‐200/11 P)**

Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — State aid — Incompatibility with the common market — Commission decision — Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(c) — Alteration of existing aid — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Article 4(1) — Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding

1.                     *State aid — Commission decision finding a national measure compatible with Article 87(1) EC — Determining the scope of the
decision — Account taken not only of the wording of the decision, but also of the content notified (Art. 87(1) EC) (see para.
27)*

2.                     *State aid — Existing aid and new aid — Measure amending an existing aid scheme — Treated as new aid (Council Regulation No
659/1999, Art. 1(c)); Commission Regulation No 794/2004, Art. 4(1)) (see paras 30, 31)*

3.                     *State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Application of the rules of substantive law in force when the Commission
took its decision (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 1177/2002, Art. 5) (see paras 37-39, 43)*

4.                     *State aid — Planned aid — Notifying the Commission — Scope of the obligation — Necessary for notification to include estimates
of the total amounts of the aid planned on account of their impact on that aid (Art. 88(3), EC; Council Regulation No 1177/2002)
(see paras 47-49)*

5.                     *Appeals — Setting out in the application of the pleas in law and legal arguments — Plea in law not clear enough — Whether
inadmissible (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 52-54)*

6.                     *State aid — Commission decision finding a national measure compatible with Article 87(1) EC — No legitimate expectations in
the case of alteration to the aid scheme going beyond the bounds of the authorisation decision (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras
65-68)*

7.                     *Union law — Principles — Equal treatment — Meaning — Unequal treatment as a result of the temporal limitation of authorisation
to grant State aid in a given sector of the market — Whether objectively justified (Council Regulation No 1177/2002, Art.
5) (see paras 74-76)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T‐3/09 | Italy | v | Commission | , by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re:

SALVATORE CIPRIANO, CASE NO. 14-14826

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

 Debtor,

_____________________________________/

R.A.M. PRODUCE DISTRIBUTORS, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

SALVATORE CIPRIANO,

Appellee.

(Bankr. Case No. 14-48527) 

_____________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On December 19, 2014, R.A.M. Produce Distributors, LLC (“Appellant”), filed a Notice of

Appeal [dkt. 1], purportedly to appeal the December 4, 2014, Supplemental Opinion to Bench

Opinion Issued on November 25, 2014, and Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts

III and IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Also on December 19, 2014, this Court docketed a Notice of

Receipt of Bankruptcy Appeal [dkt. 2]. Pursuant to Rule 8018(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedure, Appellant was obligated to file its appellant brief with this Court no later

than January 20, 2015. Appellant has not, however, filed anything with the Court since filing its

Notice of Appeal.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Appellant TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later

than 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2015, as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. Appellant’s response shall contain specific and accurate legal support, including pinpoint

citations to authority relied upon, and shall be limited to ten pages and comply with E.D. Mich. L.R.

5.1. If Appellant does not respond to the Order to Show Cause prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 4,

2015, the Court shall dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

2:14-cv-14826-LPZ-DRG Doc # 3 Filed 01/21/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 19
In addition, to the extent that Appellant desires to pursue its appeal, the Court hereby

ORDERS Appellant to file its appellant brief with the Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 4,

2015. In the event Appellant fails to file its appellant brief prior to 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2015,

the Court shall dismiss Appellant’s appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018 (a)(4) (“If an appellant fails to

file a brief on time . . . the district court or BAP, after notice, may dismiss the appeal on its own

motion.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

Date: January 21, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:14-cv-14826-LPZ-DRG Doc # 3 Filed 01/21/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 20
#### Charles Ramsey, *Plaintiff, v.*Edward Ramsey, *as Administrator, etc., Defendant*.

Orders affirmed, with costs against appellants on the appeal from the appointment of administrator.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7498

DONALD LEE BARRICK, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-03-2685) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: December 2, 2004 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Donald Lee Barrick, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
------------    OF SARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Long Island Financial Corp., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
Buonaiuto, Vice President & Secretary-Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                      /s/ Thomas Buonaiuto
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Thomas Buonaiuto
                                      Vice President & Secretary - Treasurer
                                      August 15, 2005
# C_2008240EN.01000301.xml

| 19.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 25 January 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/B-1/39.326 — E.ON: Breach of seals (2)

Rapporteur: Belgium

(2008/C 240/04)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the factors that were taken into account when calculating the level of the fine for E.ON Energie AG pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the factors that were taken into account when calculating the level of the fine for E.ON Energie AG pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the actual level of the fine proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the actual level of the fine proposed by the Commission.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.13-1 General.

This subpart prescribes the requirements for cargo segregation for cargo tanks. These requirements are based on considerations of cargo reactivity, stability, and contamination of the surroundings and other cargoes.

[CGD 88-100. 54 FR 40029, Sept. 29, 1989, as amended by CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50731, Sept. 27, 1996]
# C_2013156EN.01003803.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Aecops v Commission

(Case T-51/11) (1)

1

(ESF - Training operations - Reduction in financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Time-bar - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence - Reasonable period - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 156/69

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented initially by: J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro and subsequently by: L. Pinto Monteiro, P. Farinha Alves and N. Morais Sarmento, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 setting the final amount of the expenditure eligible for assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to the applicant for training operations by Decision C(88) 831 of 29 April 1988 for the funding of training operations (file 88 0369 P1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s Report and 

Recommendation. (Dkt. 18.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate 

Judge Stafford notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen 

days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of 

Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of 

any further right of appeal.” (Report & Recommendation at 12.) No objections were filed. 

In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit 

established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party shall file objections with the district 

court or else waive right to appeal” and that “a party shall be informed by the magistrate [judge] 

that objections must be filed within ten days or further appeal is waived.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court held that this rule violates neither the Federal 

Magistrates Act nor the federal constitution. Thus, the Court finds that the parties’ failure to 

object is a procedural default, waiving review of the magistrate judge’s findings by this Court. 

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (explaining that Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-appellate-review rule 

DENNIS SPITERI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-14140 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15] 

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17] 

2:14-cv-14140-LJM-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 12/11/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 843
2 

rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving 

review even at the district court level”); Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 

2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the 

portions of the report to which no objection was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)). 

The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Report and 

accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. It follows that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Dkt. 15) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 

17) is GRANTED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: December 11, 2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on December 11, 2015. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:14-cv-14140-LJM-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 12/11/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 844
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 Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                     Grant Application Data Summary (GADS) Form. *OMB No.:*
                     New Collection. *Description:*
                     The Grant Application Data Summary (GADS) collects information from applicants seeking grants from the Administration for Native Americans (ANA). ANA awards annual grants in three competitive areas. Previously, ANA collected information using a separate form for each competitive area (OMB No. 0970-0261, OMB No. 0970-0263, and OMB No. 0970-0265). ANA has consolidated the three previous information collections into the single GADS instrument. *Respondents:*
                     Tribal Governments, Native Non-profits, Tribal Colleges and Universities. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of respondents
Number of responses per respondent
Average burden hours per response
Total burden hoursGrant Application Summary
500
1
.5
250
 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 250. *Additional Information:*
                     Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: 
                    *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov*. *OMB Comment:*
                     OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Fax: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: April 16, 2007. Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 07-1965  Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M