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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting of the aforementioned Special Emphasis Panel.

*Times and Dates:*                         8 a.m.-5 p.m., April 10, 2007 (Closed).  8 a.m.-12 p.m., April 11, 2007 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Renaissance Hotel, 107 6th Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, telephone (412) 562-1200.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters to be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of research grant applications in                               ( print page 9951)                            response to PAR 06-057, “Agricultural Center Review.”                    

*For Further Information Contact:*                         Stephen Olenchock, Scientific Review Administrator, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26506, telephone (304) 285-6271.                    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Elaine L. Baker,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E7-3852 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 47350.

#### Protest 29211-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with the agreement of counsel for the-respective parties and following Abstract 44605 the protest was sustained.
April 23, 1958

No. 61867.

#### Electric & Musical Industries (US), Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 296208-K.

C. D. 1973. Motion of Government for rehearing granted.
No. 46723.

#### Protests 809058-G, etc., of T. D. Downing & Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40493 the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**
          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (theReport), I, Christopher J. Zyda, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Date: August 9, 2004     By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER J. ZYDA       Christopher J. Zyda   Chief Financial Officer   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  
          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and will be retained byLuminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3346]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-12514-000, Indiana]


Norway-Oakdale Project; Northern Indiana Public Service Company; 
Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

February 16, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969, as amended, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 
regulations (18 CFR part 380), Commission staff has reviewed the 
application for license for the Norway-Oakdale Project and have 
prepared a final environmental assessment (FEA) for the project. The 
project is located on the Tippecanoe River in Carroll and White 
counties, Indiana.
    In this FEA, Commission staff analyzes the probable environmental 
effects of implementing the project and conclude that approval of the 
project, with appropriate staff-recommended environmental measures, 
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the FEA are available for review in Public Reference Room 
2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, 
DC. The FEA also may be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site 
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Additional 
information about the project is available from the Commission's Office 
of External Affairs at (202) 502-6088, or on the Commission's website 
using the ``eLibrary'' link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e3a5a6b1a0ac8d8f8a8d86b09693938c9197a385869180cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ebadaeb9a8a4858782858eb89e9b9b84999fab8d8e9988c58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>; call toll-free at (866) 208-3676; or, for 
TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.
    For further information, please contact Sergiu Serban (202) 502-
6211 or at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f2c3a2d38362a712c3a2d3d3e311f393a2d3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb889e899c928ed5889e89999a95bb9d9e8998d59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3346 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 6513.

#### STATE, EX REL., JOS. A. BOURGEOIS vs. L. H. MARRERO, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

Opinion and decree, November 9th, 1915.

Rehearing granted, November 24th, 1915.

Appeal from the 28th. Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. Honorable P. E. Edrington, Judge.

■St. Clair Adams, F. A. Middleton, H. N. Gautier, for relators.

L. H. Marrero, Jr., in p. p.

P. H. Mentz, for respondent.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The character of this proceeding and the questions presented.are the same as those involved in the case of State, ex rel., C. Centani vs. L. H. Marrero, Jr., District Attorney, No. 6512 of our docket, this day decided, and the opinion and ruling in that case are controlling here.

It is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled,- avoided and reversed, and that relator’s suit be dismissed at his costs in both Courts.

*198Opinion and decree, December 20th, 1915.

On Rehearing.

His Honor, CHARLES F. CLAIBORNE,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

For the reasons given in State, ex rel. Centani, our judgment herein remains undisturbed, and is hereby reinstated.

Judgment reinstated.
No. 46124.

#### Protests 656402-G, etc., of S. Schapiro & Sons et al. (St. Louis, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                  41,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0                   3,202
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                 249,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 310,321
<PP&E>                                               0                  63,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  35,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 424,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  88,923
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   7,163
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 326,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 424,307
<SALES>                                        285,465                 782,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  237,795                 656,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   243                     487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 159                     161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,314                 129,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,065                  56,283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,249                  72,733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38                    1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38                    1.01
        

</TABLE>
Eight Danger Zones For Teens Behind The Wheel

Eight teens a day are killed in car crashes. Make sure your young

driver is aware of the leading causes of teen crashes, and put rules

in place to help your teen stay safe.

No. 1: Driver inexperience. Most crashes happen during the first

year a teen has a license. Provide at least 30 to 50 hours of

supervised driving practice over at least six months. Make sure to

practice on a variety of roads, at different times of day, and in

varied weather and traffic conditions. This will help your teen gain

the skills he or she needs to be safe.

No. 2: Driving with teen passengers. Crash risk goes up when

teens drive with other teens in the car. Follow your state’s teen

driving law for passenger restrictions. If your state doesn’t have

such a rule, limit the number of teen passengers your child can

have to zero or one. Keep this rule for at least the first six months.

No. 3: Nighttime driving. For all ages, fatal crashes are more likely

to occur at night; but the risk is highest for teens. Make sure your

teen is off the road by 9 or 10 p.m. for at least the first six months

of licensed driving.

No. 4: Not using seat belts. The simplest way to prevent car crash

deaths is to buckle up. Require your teen to wear a seat belt on

every trip. This simple step can reduce your teen’s risk of dying or

being badly injured in a crash by about half.
                       

                     

                             

                       

                           

                               

               

                   

                       

     

                       

          

                   

                       

               

               

                           

                               

           

                       

No. 5: Distracted driving. Distractions increase your teen’s risk of being in a

crash. Don’t allow activities that may take your teen’s attention away from

driving, such as talking on a cell phone, texting, eating, or playing with the radio.

No. 6: Drowsy driving. Young drivers are at highest risk for drowsy driving, which

causes thousands of crashes every year. Teens are most tired and at risk when

driving in the early morning or late at night. Be sure your teen is fully rested

before he or she gets behind the wheel.

No. 7: Reckless driving. Research shows that teens lack the experience,

judgment, and maturity to assess risky situations. Help your teen avoid the

following unsafe behaviors.

o	 Speeding: Make sure your teen knows to follow the speed limit and

adjust speed to road conditions.

o	 Tailgating: Remind your teen to maintain enough space behind the

vehicle ahead to avoid a crash in case of a sudden stop.

o	 Insufficient scanning: Stress the importance of always knowing the

location of other vehicles on the road.

No. 8: Impaired driving. Even one drink will impair your teen’s driving ability and

increase the risk of a crash. Be a good role model: don’t drink and drive, and

reinforce this message with your teen.

Take the next step by sharing this information on Facebook and Twitter.
No. 47855.

#### Protests 643682-G, etc., of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Certain of the cotton rags in question were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1750 following *United States*v. *Schapiro*(24 C. C. P. A. 343, T. D. 48771) and in accordance with the percentages of paper stock rags contained therein, as stipulated between counsel.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REX CHAPPELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C.K. PLILER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:04-cv-1183 TLN AC (TEMP) P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court has granted plaintiff two extensions of 

time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion. Most recently, on January 27, 2016, the court 

granted plaintiff a final fifteen-day extension of time. The time for filing his opposition has now 

expired, but plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to defendants’ motion. 

 Local Rule 230(l) requires plaintiff to file an opposition not more than twenty-one (21) 

days after the date of service of a motion. “Failure of the responding party to file written 

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 

the granting of the motion . . . .” Plaintiff is reminded that Local Rule 110 provides that failure to 

comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized 

by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB Document 97 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 In the interest of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the 

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b). Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action he may file a request to 

voluntarily dismiss this case. 

DATED: April 22, 2016 

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB Document 97 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1674

___________________________

Krystal Megan Delima

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Walmart Stores Arkansas, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

 ____________

 Submitted: February 3, 2020

Filed: February 6, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Krystal Delima appeals after the jury returned an adverse verdict in her pro se

civil action and the district court1

 denied her motion for a new trial. After careful

1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.
review of the record and consideration of the issues properly before us, we find no

basis for reversal.2 We conclude that there is no merit to Delima’s arguments

challenging the district court’s rulings concerning a surveillance video tape produced

during pretrial discovery, see Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 2004)

(rulings on discovery matters are reviewed for gross abuse of discretion), the

admissibility of an exhibit at trial, see Cavataio v. City of Bella Villa, 570 F.3d 1015,

1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court has broad discretion in its evidentiary rulings at

trial), and the jury instructions, see Otting v. J.C. Penney Co., 223 F.3d 704, 712-13

(8th Cir.2000) (refusal to submit jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

2We conclude the district court’s ruling on Delima’s motion for a new trial is

not properly before us because she did not file a new or amended notice of appeal

after the district court denied that motion. See Miles v. GMC, 262 F.3d 720, 722-23

(8th Cir. 2001). We also decline to consider the arguments she raised for the first

time on appeal. See Mau v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 910 F.3d. 388, 391 (8th Cir.

2018).

-2-
Before the Second Division,

October 23, 1951

No. 55934.

protest 130994-K (New York).

#### William A. Force & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of fount sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. A. Force & Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 140, C. D. 1222). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, it was held that the items in question are not entireties but are properly dutiable at the rates applicable to the various components comprising each set, to wit: The 112 steel type pieces at 30 percent under paragraph 388 as new types; the holder at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as articles or wares not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of metal; the metal wrench at 45 percent under the *eo nomine*provision therefor in paragraph 396; and the wooden box at *33*4*percent under *331paragraph 412 as manufactures of wood, not specially provided for. As to the tweezers included in the fount sets, the claim in the protest, having been abandoned, was dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BRUCE M. ASHLEY, First Lieutenant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

No. 27,956

June 14, 1974

*William H Allison, Jr.,*Esquire, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel William E. Cordingly*and *Lieutenant Colonel James LaBar.*

*Colonel C. F. Bennett*argued the cause for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Quinn, Judge:

We granted review to consider whether proceedings in the United States District Court required abatement of court-martial proceedings against the accused on two specifications of willful disobedience of orders.

A second application by the accused, a medical doctor, for separation from the service on the ground that he was a conscientious objector was denied. The reason for the denial was that the application was based on the same matter as had been presented in the first application. The accused then applied to a United States District Court for relief, contending that the second application for separation was different from the first. The District Court passed an order providing for grant of a writ of habeas corpus "unless the Secretary of the Air Force . . . completes the processing of petitioner’s second application in accordance” with regulations, and "either grants ... an honorable discharge” or denies the application; if the application was denied, a written statement of reasons was to be filed with the court. Later, the District Court denied a motion by the accused to stay the court-martial proceedings pending against him. The court indicated that the duties required of the áccused as a doctor did not conflict with his asserted scruples against war. The court further observed that, in effect, the accused was seeking "to become the sole arbiter of what duties he shall and shall not perform as a doctor.” The order was not before this Court at the time of our grant of review.

On the basis of the information now before us, it clearly appears that no order of the United States District Court is inconsistent with the court-martial proceedings against the accused, and no order of the court directed accused’s final discharge from the Air Force. *Cf.*
      *128United States v Goguen, 20 USCMA 527, 43 CMR 367 (1971). The accused contends that the action on his application for separation as a conscientious objector taken by the Secretary of the Air Force is "in direct and continued violation” of the District Court’s order. If that be true, relief against the terms of the Secretary’s action lies with the District Court. As to the conviction before us, there was no impediment to the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over him, as in the *Goguen*case, and no prejudicial error in the proceedings against him.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Duncan and Senior Judge FeRGUSON concur.
No. 60834.

#### Dunnington & Arnold, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 270275-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.