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.                  

###### Agency for International Development

# AGENCY:

Agency for International Development (USAID).

# ACTION:

Availability of survey.

# SUMMARY:

Quality control survey to allow the USAID Office of Security Field Investigations program to obtain feedback on its background investigator workforce from members of the general public who are interviewed by USAID background investigators.

# DATES:

                        Comments are due within 60 days after date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# ADDRESSES:

USAID, SEC/FI, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20523.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Brian Shemonsky, (202) 712-1734,                         *bshemonsky@usaid.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

USAID currently conducts this quality control process via U.S. Mail and telephone calls. The agency is seeking to both modernize and simplify this process.

Brian Shemonsky,

Background Investigations Program Manager.

[FR Doc. 2023-19694 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
No. 369, Misc.

#### Ballard *v.*Cochran, Corrections Director.

Supreme Court of Florida. Certiorari denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. . IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50036 Conference Calendar

LAWRENCE DUNBAR SMALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; R.V. FRANCO; JOSÉ SERRANO, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-96-CV-262

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lawrence Smalley (federal inmate number 60623-065) appeals the dismissal of his action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Smalley contends that Warden R.V. Franco and Dr. José Serrano were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court did not err in dismissing Smalley’s action. Smalley has not alleged facts showing that Franco andNo. 97-50036 -2- Serrano were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition. In his complaint, Smalley admitted that he was given Benadryl and Atterax for his itching and that blood and stool samples were taken to help determine the cause of his itching. Although this treatment did not improve his condition, Smalley has not alleged that he was denied medical treatment or that his complaints were ignored. See Johnson v. Treen , 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985). Smalley’s allegations amounted to nothing more than unsuccessful medical treatment. Unsuccessful medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
No. 419, Misc.

#### Lloyd *v.*Fay, Warden.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
From: Bluebirdinc@bresnan.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:58:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am concerned that once again those who despise our Constitution are denying God given rights in

favor of socialism - the enemy of freedom. These services should be put into a rider where individuals

of child bearing age (females) can pay for them - not all males, children, and women post-menopausal.

Belief in birth control is an individual choice - this is not Communist China, yet.

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Daniel Davis

La Junta, CO 81050
United States
Securities and Exhange Commission
Washington, D.C.   20549

Form 12b-25

Notification of Late Filing

(Check one):
___ Form 10-K    __ Form 20-F   __ Form 11-K    ___ Form 10-Q    X  Form N-SAR

For the Period Ended:

12/31/96          

Part I - Registrant Information

Full Name of Registrant

Scudder Global Fund, Inc.
  International Bond
        
Former Name if Applicable


Address of Principal Executive Office (Street & Number)

345 Park Avenue
New York City, NY 
        

Part II - Rules 12b-25(b) and (c)

If the subject report could not be filed without  unreasonable effort or expense
and the registrant seeks relief pursuant to Rule 12b-25(b), the following should
be completed.

(a)  the resons  described in  reasonable  detail in Part III of this form could
     not be eliminated without unreasonable effort or expense.
                                           
(b)  The subject annual report,  semi-annual  report,  transition report on Form
     10-K, Form 20-F, 11-K, Form N-SAR, or portion thereof,  will be filed on or
     before the fifteenth calendar day following the prescribed due date; or the
     subject quarterly report transition report on form 10-Q, or portion thereof
     will be filed on or before the fifth  calendar day following the prescribed
     due date (XX)

(c)  The accountant's  statement or other exhibit required by Rule 12b-25(c) has
     been attached if applicable

Part III - Narrative

State below in  reasonable  detail the reasons  why the Form 10-K,  11-K,  10-Q,
N-SAR, or the transition  report or portion  thereof,  could not be filed within
the prescribed time period.

The registrant requests additional time to file form NSAR so that it can compile
the necessary information to file a complete and accurate document. (XX)

Part IV - Other Information

(1)  Name  and  telephone  number  of  person  to  contact  in  regard  to  this
     notification

     Thomas F. McDonough, Assistant Secretary
     (617) 295-2567

       
(2)  Have all other periodic  reports  required under Section 13 or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Section 30 of the Investment Company Act
     of 1940 during the preceeding 12 months been filed?

     Yes   


(3)  Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from
     the corresponding  period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the
     earnings  statements  to be  included  in the  subject  report  or  portion
     thereof?

     No 



(Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter) Scudder Global Fund, Inc.

has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned 
hereunto duly authorized.

Date:   2/5/97                                  By: John Lumbard
                                                /s/:John Lumbard
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT MURDY
, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 97, 2018 § § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 1 102005997 ( S ) § §

Su bmitted: March 19, 2018 Decided: March 28 , 201 8

Before S TRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VA UGHN
, Justices.

O R D E R

This 28 th day of March 2018 , it appears that:
(1) On February 22, 2018 , the Court received the appellant’s notice of
appeal from a violation of probation (VOP) sentence imposed by the Superior Court

on January 19, 2018. Under Supreme Court Rule 6 (a)(i ii ) , a timely notice of appeal

should have been filed on or before February 19, 2018

. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. 1 The appellant filed a
response to the notice to show cause on March 19, 2018

. The appellant’s response

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b)

.2

states that he place d his notice of appeal in the prison mail in sufficient time for it to

reach the Court before the expiration of the 30

- day deadline. He asserts that it did
not reach the Court in time because the prison does not process mail on the weekends

and because of the President’s Day federal holiday. He argues that he should not be
held responsible for the delay.
( 3 ) T ime is a jurisdictional requirement, 2 and this Court has never adopted
a prisoner mailbox rule. 3 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the
Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period to be effective. 4 An appellant ’ s

pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. 5 U nless an appellant can demonstrate that
the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court

- related personnel,
an untimely appeal cannot be considered. 6 Prison personnel are not court

- related
personnel. Thus, the untimely appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

NO W, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

2 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 486

- 87 (Del. 2012)

. 4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (emphasis added)

. 5 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 486

- 87 (Del. 2012)

. 6 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
Case No. 8,169.

#### LEAGUE v. SMITH.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,704
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               133,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    223,068
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          42,560
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            42,861
<LOANS>                                        434,330
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 873,466
<DEPOSITS>                                     494,942
<SHORT-TERM>                                    30,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,172
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           363
<OTHER-SE>                                     340,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 873,466
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,297
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,436
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,607
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,340
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,137
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,593
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,747
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      361
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  50
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,530
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,530
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,499
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.81
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,800
<LOANS-PAST>                                       287
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   477
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,371
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,562
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       62
<RECOVERIES>                                       103
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,965
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,965
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            223
        

</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

January 25, 1956

No. 59674.

#### S. S. Kresge Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 7958-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of animal or human figures, composed wholly or in chief value of papier máche, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 56975, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

January 5, 1967

No. P67/4.

#### Ataka California, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/21805, etc. (Los Angeles).

*858FoRd, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hinge-hanger bolts, carriage bolts, etc., similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Winter, Wolff & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 173, C.D. 2528), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

1

 Retired June 24, 1967.

2

 Additional assignment to participate in all first division cases as of December S, 1966, extending through March 13, 1967.

3

 Entered on duty March 14, 1967.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  218				Trade Date: 09/05/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  09/10/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement September 6, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QKB6   4.25%	09/15/08	     100%	        .9%                Semi-Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$2,216,000.00	$2,196,056.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	   03/15/03		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $704.440 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
Additionally, the total principal amount of PowerNotes(SM) offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001 has been increased from $500.0mm to $750.0mm.  $250.0mm principal amount of debt securities registered pursuant to Registration Statement No. 333-59540 originally offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement dated June 15, 2001 and related Prospectus dated May 25, 2001 are being offered as PowerNotes(SM) by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
No. 393, Misc.

#### Walker *v.*New York.

Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department. Certiorari denied.
From: DarylSHorton@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:45 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Daryl Horton

Upland, CA 91786
From: bogeylife@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joann Burchfield

Olathe, KS 66061