alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-66-2018]

On May 1, 2018 the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Louisville & Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 29, on behalf of Amcor Flexibles LLC, in Shelbyville, Kentucky.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (83 FR 20034, May 7, 2018). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 29N was approved on June 26, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 29's 2,000-acre activation limit.                

Dated: June 26, 2018.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-14027 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14027]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-66-2018]


Approval of Subzone Status; Amcor Flexibles LLC; Shelbyville, 
Kentucky

    On May 1, 2018 the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones 
(FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Louisville & 
Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, requesting 
subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 29, on 
behalf of Amcor Flexibles LLC, in Shelbyville, Kentucky.
    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and 
Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public 
comment (83 FR 20034, May 7, 2018). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the 
application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. 
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive 
Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 29N 
was approved on June 26, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 29's 
2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: June 26, 2018.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14027 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### OPINION OF THE CLERK, SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.

No. 8.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 21, 1977.

SENTELL, Clerk.

RULE 1, ALABAMA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION BONDING OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HANDLING PUBLIC FUNDS

Mr. Charles Y. Cameron, Administrative Director of Courts, has submitted to me, as Clerk of the Supreme Court of Alabama, pursuant to Section 6-105, Act No. 1205, Acts of Alabama, 1975 Regular Session, the following inquiry concerning Rule 1, Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration:

> Does Rule 1 restrict bonding to employees of the judicial system who are charged by law with the responsibility of handling public funds, or, in the alternative, does the rule provide for the bonding of personnel in the offices which are charged with the responsibility of handling public funds?

It is my opinion that Rule 1 restricts bonding to magistrates, clerks, registers and employees of the judicial system who are charged by law with the responsibility of handling public funds. Rule 1, Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, is as follows:

> BONDING OF ALL MAGISTRATES, CLERKS, REGISTERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THOSE OFFICES CHARGED WITH HANDLING PUBLIC FUNDS

> The administrative director of courts (ADC) shall procure from a qualified and responsible company or companies a fidelity position bond or bonds in amount or amounts to be determined by the ADC with the approval of the supreme court, covering all magistrates, clerks, registers and employees of those offices charged by law with the responsibility of handling *1022public funds. Such bonds shall protect the state in regard to the honesty and faithful performance of official duties by persons in all positions covered.

The first sentence in the comment to Rule 1, referred to in the inquiry, reads as follows:

> Coverage by the fidelity position bond or bonds shall be restricted to those employees of the judicial system charged by law with the responsibility of handling public funds.

In my opinion, the words, “those offices,” in Rule 1 refer to the offices of magistrates, clerks and registers; and the words, “charged by law with the responsibility of handling public funds,” refer to and qualify the word, “employees.”
[No. 410-2.

Division Two.

January 19, 1972.]

#### Walter M. Duncan, *Respondent,*v. Abraham J. Botnick *et al., Appellants.*
Exhibit 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Secured Digital Applications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Chee Hong Leong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Chee Hong Leong

Chee Hong Leong
Chief Financial Officer
April 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  837,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,000
<INVENTORY>                                     50,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,067,800
<PP&E>                                       9,767,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,478,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,509,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,129,600
<BONDS>                                      1,771,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,200
<PREFERRED>                                     15,200
<COMMON>                                       978,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     710,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,509,200
<SALES>                                      2,366,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,366,700
<CGS>                                          739,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,472,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             121,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                775,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                   293,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            481,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   481,700
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lawrence BAPTISTE v. Warren A. CORMIER, Warden, Louisiana Correctional and Industrial School.

No. 53885.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Lawrence Baptiste applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our jursdiction.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-15-2018]

On February 27, 2018, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC (BMW) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 38A, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (83 FR 9828, March 8, 2018). On June 27, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and further subject to a restriction requiring that polyester band, acrylic coated cloth tape, warp knit fabric, and seat protectors be admitted in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).                

Dated: June 27, 2018.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-14181 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### CHARLES VAUGHAN and ELIJAH CANNON *vs.*JONATHAN WEBSTER.

The law of bailment with, and without compensation.

Non delivery on demand is a conversion of a thing bailed.

Measure of damages.

Trover and conversion. Pleas, not guilty and limitation.

*257The plaintiffs were travelling; and their horse gave out on the road and was left with defendant, as they alledged, to keep for hire. When called for he was not delivered, having escaped from defendant’s premises. The plaintiffs had paid four dollars on account of his keep. The defence was, that the horse ivas only turned in the field for pasture; and escaped, without any fault on the part of defendant.

*Cullen,*for plaintiffs.

*Houston,*for defendant.

*The Court*

charged:—1. That if this was a bailment *for hire,*with an *express*undertaking too *keep safely;*the defendant was liable in all events for the safe keeping of the property. A contract of bailment is where one delivers his property to another to keep for hire.

2. If it was a bailment for hire, without an express undertaking to keep safely, the defendant would still be liable for neglect; but would not be liable at all events.

. 3. In case of a bailment to keep, without compensation, the defendant was bound to use only such common care of the horse as a prudent man would take of his own property. A refusal to re-deliver the property bailed on demand, is a *conversion ;*unless the defendant can excuse himself by showing that the property was lost or destroyed, without *any*neglect on his part. The measure of damages is the value of the property at the time of its conversion, with interest.

Verdict for plaintiffs $52 58.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 272 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 272

   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to create the 
          Committee on the Investigation of Corrupt Practices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1993

 Mr. Walker submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to create the 
          Committee on the Investigation of Corrupt Practices.

    Resolved, That clause 1 of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by redesignating paragraphs (l) through (v) 
as paragraphs (m) through (w), respectively, and by inserting after 
paragraph (k) the following new paragraph:
    ``(l)(1) Committee on the Investigation of Corrupt Practices, 
consisting of the following Members:
            ``(A) 6 Members who are not members of the same political 
        party as the President, to be appointed by the majority leader 
        or minority leader, as the case may be, and 1 of whom he shall 
        designate as chairman; and
            ``(B) 5 Members who are members of the same political party 
        as the President, to be appointed by the majority leader or 
        minority leader, as the case may be.
    ``(2) The committee shall have the duty--
            ``(A) to investigate, at the instigation of its chairman or 
        upon receipt of a written request made by at least 50 Members 
        of the House and transmitted to the committee by 1 such Member, 
        corrupt practices in the executive branch of the Government; 
        and
            ``(B) to report to the House the results of its 
        investigations; and
            ``(C) to recommend to the House such legislative or 
        administrative actions as it deems appropriate.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### S. D. ANSIN and Bar-Mike Investments, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. The LAKE WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 2542.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 7, 1969.

Joe N. Unger, of Smith & Mandler, Miami Beach, for appellants.

James W. Nowlin, Jr., of Nowlin & Adams, Delray Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no harmful error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, McCAIN, and REED, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  253,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,720
<INVENTORY>                                     27,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,674
<PP&E>                                       3,369,462
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,128,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,626,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          365,770
<BONDS>                                        682,997
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       448,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,626,818
<SALES>                                        829,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               829,589
<CGS>                                          265,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  540,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                254,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                    90,978
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            163,289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   163,289
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
GPO Home
                Inspector General
                
            Report Fraud, Waste and Abuse
            
        
            Overview
            
        
            OIG Leadership
            
        
            Investigations
            
        
            Audits
            
        
            Inspections
            
        
            Semiannual Reports to Congress
            
        
            Plans and Reports
            
        
            Recommendations
            
        
            Whistleblower Protection Program
            
        
            FAQs about the OIG
            
        
            Complaint Form 
  GPO Home Inspector General
 Report Fraud, Waste and Abuse
                        
                    
                        Overview
                        
                    
                        OIG Leadership
                        
                    
                        Investigations
                        
                    
                        Audits
                        
                    
                        Inspections
                        
                    
                        Semiannual Reports to Congress
                        
                    
                        Plans and Reports
                        
                    
                        Recommendations
                        
                    
                        Whistleblower Protection Program
                        
                    
                        FAQs about the OIG
 Stay Informed - New OIG Reports Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Inspections The Inspections Division conducts proactive inspections of GPO programs and operations to identify opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness. These inspections are systematic and independent assessments of the design, implementation, and/or results of GPO's operations programs, or policies. They provide information that is timely, credible, and useful for agency managers, policymakers, and others. The GPO OIG's inspections are performed in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).
 Indoor Air Quality Inspection
February 14, 2024
 Top 10 Safety Hazards Program Inspection
September 28, 2023
 Environmental Program Inspection
June 21, 2023
 GPO OIG Union Study Final Report 
April 25, 2023
 Limited Scope Inquiry Report 
February 24, 2023
 GPO's Privacy Program Inspection 
July 29, 2022
 Archives
 Fiscal Year 2022Fiscal Year 2021Fiscal Year 2020
 Facebook
    **
    Twitter
    **
    Instagram
    **
    You Tube
    **
    Pinterest
    **
    Linkedin
    **U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
Accessibility | Privacy | COOP  | Inspector General
#### Curtis WELCH, Bodan Welch, Ronald Welch and Henry Welch, by and through their mother and next friend, C. Etta Welch, Appellants, v. The CITY OF SOUTH BAY, Florida, a municipal corporation, and Dalton Alford, Appellees. Edward ROGERS, as Curator of the Estate of J. C. Welch, Deceased, Appellant, v. The CITY OF SOUTH BAY, Florida, a municipal corporation, and Dalton Alford, Appellees.

Nos. 700, 701.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Aug. 24, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 1967.

Robert Orseck, of Podhurst & Orseck and Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson, Spence & Hicks, Miami, for appellants.

John R. Beranek, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, Vero Beach, and John A. Gentry III, of Beverly & Moyle, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants (plaintiffs), in two cases consolidated for trial due to the fact that the primary question of law presented in each case was basically identical and now consolidated for appeal, appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of the appellees (defendants) in a survival action and from an order granting appellees’ motion for a new trial in a wrongful death action.

The-cause of action arose from the shooting of one J. C. Welch by a policeman, Defendant-Dalton Alford, an employee of the Defendant-City of South Bay.

The primary thrust of the plaintiffs’ appeal questions the correctness of the trial court’s granting defendants’ motion for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the survival action and of granting defendants’ motion for a new trial in the wrongful death action.

We affirm by authority of Martin v. Thompson, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 744, on the survival action and affirm by the authority of Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669, on the wrongful death action.

Affirmed.

ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., and WEISSING, LOUIS, Associate Judge, concur.