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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision.

# SUMMARY:

The United States Air Force signed the Record of Decision for the Proposal to Improve F-22 Operational Efficency at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska on August 8, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

For further information contact: Ms. Melissa Markell, AFCEC/CZN, 2261 Hughes Ave., Ste. 155, JBSA Lackland, TX 78236, ph: (210) 925-2728.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Record of Decision reflects the Air Force decision to implement the Final Environmental Impact Statement Preferred Alternative, Alternative F, which consists of extending Runway 16/34 to the north. During the time that all prepatory actions, including funding, agency coordination, and construction are being implemented for Alternative F, the Air Force will implement Alternative A for more efficient flight operations.

                    The decision was based on matters discussed in the Proposal to Improve F-22 Operational Efficency at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, Final Environmental Impact Statement, contributions from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on February 23, 2018 through a Notice of Availability published in the                     **Federal Register**                     (Volume 83, Number 37, page 8074) with a 30-day wait period that ended on March 25, 2018.                

Authority:                        This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.. 4321                         *et seq.*) and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR parts 989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7)).                    

Henry Williams,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-18274 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
----

----

I Tiedonantoja

Komissio

----

Euron kurssi (1)

31. tammikuuta 2005

(2005/C 25/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Lähde: Euroopan keskuspankin ilmoittama viitekurssi.

----

----

KOMISSION TIEDONANTO

Ilmoitus maahantuojille: Yhdysvaltojen ulkomaisiin myyntiyrityksiin (Foreign Sales Corporations) soveltamaa verokohtelua koskeva WTO:n riitojenratkaisumenettely — lisätullien palauttaminen tai peruuttaminen

(2005/C 25/02)

Maailman kauppajärjestön (WTO) riitojenratkaisuelin antoi 7. toukokuuta 2003 yhteisölle luvan ottaa käyttöön 4 043 miljoonan Yhdysvaltojen dollarin suuruiset vastatoimenpiteet tiettyjen Amerikan yhdysvalloista peräisin olevien tuotteiden tuonnissa arvon perusteella kannettavien 100 prosentin lisätullien muodossa. Yhteisö hyväksyi 8. joulukuuta 2003 lisätullien käyttöön ottamisesta tiettyjen Amerikan yhdysvalloista peräisin olevien tuotteiden tuonnissa annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 2193/2003 (1).

Amerikan yhdysvaltojen annettua The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 -lain yhteisö hyväksyi neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 171/2005, jolla keskeytetään neuvoston asetuksella (EY) N:o 2193/2003 käyttöön otettujen lisätullien soveltaminen. Asetus (EY) N:o 171/2005 tulee voimaan päivänä, jona se julkaistaan Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä, mutta sitä sovelletaan lisätullien soveltamisen keskeyttämisen osalta 1. tammikuuta 2005 alkaen.

Tästä syystä neuvoston asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2193/2003 käyttöön otettuja lisätulleja ei lain mukaan tarvitse kantaa 1. tammikuuta 2005 alkaen. Asianomaisille ilmoitetaankin, että he voivat anoa näiden tullien palauttamista tai peruuttamista kansallisilta tulliviranomaisilta, joille tulli on maksettu tai määrä maksaa yhteisön tullikoodeksin (2) 236 artiklan mukaisesti.

----

(1)EUVL L 328, 17.12.2003, s. 3.

(2)  Neuvoston asetus (ETY) N:o 2913/92, annettu 12 päivänä lokakuuta 1992, EYVL L 253, 11.10.1993, s. 1, asetus sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna Tšekin tasavallan, Viron tasavallan, Kyproksen tasavallan, Unkarin tasavallan, Latvian tasavallan, Liettuan tasavallan, Maltan tasavallan, Puolan tasavallan, Slovenian tasavallan ja Slovakian tasavallan liittymisehtoja ja niiden sopimusten mukautuksia, joihin Euroopan unioni perustuu, koskevalla asiakirjalla (EUVL L 236, 23.9.2003, s. 33).

----

III Tiedotteita

Neuvosto

----

Avointen kilpailujen neuvosto/LA/364, neuvosto/LA/365, neuvosto/LA/381, neuvosto/LA/384, neuvosto/LA/385, neuvosto/LA/386, neuvosto/LA/398, neuvosto/LA/399, neuvosto/C/389 ja EUR/C/120 perusteella vahvistettujen soveltuvien hakijoiden luetteloiden voimassaoloajan pidentäminen

(2005/C 25/03)

Euroopan unionin neuvoston varapääsihteerin 22 päivänä joulukuuta 2004 tekemällä päätöksellä on seuraavien avointen kilpailujen perusteella vahvistettujen soveltuvien hakijoiden luetteloiden voimassaoloaikaa pidennetty 1 päivään tammikuuta 2006:

----
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Evidence Rules published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on August 9, 2018, concerning the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The document contained an incorrect date for the Bankruptcy Rules public hearings scheduled on the proposed amendments.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-240, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502-1820.

*Correction:*                         In the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 9, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-17092, on page 39463, in the second column, correct the public hearings scheduled on the proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules to read:                    
      - Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC on January 10, 2019, and in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 24, 2019;

Dated: August 24, 2018.

Rebecca A. Womeldorf,

Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.

[FR Doc. 2018-18851 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
IN THE 

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

No. 10-14-00014-CR 

RUBEN HEREDIA, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

From the County Court 

Navarro County, Texas 

Trial Court No. C34853-CR 

ABATEMENT ORDER 

Ruben Heredia was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine,

and sentenced to 60 years in prison.  See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d)

(West 2010).  Heredia filed a motion to suppress his statements in which he contended

he did not voluntarily waive his statutory rights set out in article 38.22 of the Texas

Code of Criminal Procedure.    After a hearing, the motion to suppress was denied.
Heredia v. State Page 2

Although the trial court stated that findings of fact and conclusions of law would be

made if either party requested, none were requested and none were made.   

The Court of Criminal Appeals has said, “Under article 38.22 of the Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure, ‘[i]n all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness

of a statement of an accused, the [trial] court ... must enter an order stating its

conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made, along with the

specific finding of fact upon which the conclusion was based, which order shall be filed

among the papers of this cause.’”  Vasquez v. State, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (quoting art. 38.22, sec. 6).  In Vasquez, the Court held that “written findings are

required in all cases concerning voluntariness. The statute has no exceptions.”  Id.

Accordingly, this appeal is abated to the trial court to make findings of fact and

conclusions of law regarding whether Heredia’s statements were voluntary and

specifically whether Heredia made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the

rights set out in Article 22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  The trial court’s

findings of fact and conclusions of law must be prepared, signed, and filed as a

supplemental clerk’s record with this Court within 28 days from the date of this Order.

      PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed December 31, 2014
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

N ovember 22 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk November 22 , 2019

1 59 513

OMEGA REHAB S ERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

, and

ADVANCED SURGERY CENTER, LLC,

Intervening Plaintiff

SC: 1 59 513

v COA: 3 4 2067

Oakland CC: 16

- 014980

- NF

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

- Appell ant

.

________ _________________________ ___ __ _/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2013 (the Report) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAEL S. GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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

|      |  |                        
|----- |  | -----------------------
|      | 
|      |  | /S/    MICHAEL S.
GROSS
|Name: |  | Michael S. Gross       
|Date: |  | October 30, 2013
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

## HE/\RING

INTHE MATTER OF JOHN WALSH Docket No. FAA-2015-0550

Judge Sullivan
UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO TERMINATE PROCEEDINGS On July 25, 2014, the undersigned served an Order of Assessment on Respondent concerning allegations that Respondent had violated the Federal Aviation Regulations while Respondent was acting as an airman. 1 On August 14, 2014, Respondent correctly filed an appeal ofthe Order ofAssessment with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). On August 15, 2014, this office inadvertently filed the Complaint in that case with the FAA Civil Penalty Hearing Docket Clerk, rather than with the NTSB Office ofJudges? By letter dated August 22, 2014 and Notice served August 28, 2014 (both received by the undersigned on September 2, 2014), the incorrectly filed Complaint was docketed as FAA-2015-0550, and assigned to the Judge. The FAA hereby withdraws its inadvertently filed Complaint and requests that the instant proceedings be terminated. The Respondent did not file a request for hearing with the Hearing

1On the same day, the undersigned also served a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty on Respondent concerning allegations that Respondent had violated the Federal Aviation Regulations in a mannerthat did not involve him acting as an airman. Respondentrequested a hearing with regards tothatNotice, the FAA filed a Complaint, and it has been assigned to the Judge as DocketNo. FAA-2014-0548. This request does not seekto disturb that case. 2Theundersigned subsequently detectedthe inadvertent misfiling made during his absence from the office, and filed a Complaintwith the NTSB, where litigation willproceed concerning the matters raised in the Order ofAssessment.Docket concerning this matter. The underlying Order at issue in this case concerns allegations of actions taken by Respondent while acting as an airman, which fall under thejurisdiction ofthe NTSB, rather than this Court. The particular controversy betweenthe parties at issue in the Order ofAssessment is notproperly before the Judge. The undersigned has consulted with Respondent, who concurs in the request that this proceeding be terminated.


### rtv--. Respectfully submitted this(_\_day ofSeptember, 2014, 

# h Christopher R. Stevenson Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing FAA'sUnopposed Request to Terminate Proceedings has been sentthis date bythe following methods: original and one copy via certified mail: Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2WI000 Washington, D.C. 20591
one copy via certified mail and facsimile: Stuart

### A. Goldstein, Esq. 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 Miami, FL 33 I56 fax: (305) 400-0685 Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 fax: (202) 366-7536

# ~N~ Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

### ScP 10 2014 Dated



## I
NUMBER S 13
- 1 5
- 00 005
- C R , 13
- 15
- 00006
- CR, & 13
- 15
- 00007
- CR 

### COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

JUAN JOE CANO , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On Appeal from the 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas.



### ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Order Per Curiam

These cause s are before the Court on appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time to file the briefs in these matters. Appellant has been granted three previous extensions of time to file the briefs totaling one hundred and twenty

- one days. By his
fourth motion s for extension of time, appellant seek s an additional 30 days to file the2

briefs. The Court, having examined and fully considered the motions for extension of time, is of the opinion that the motions should be granted. Accordingly, we GRANT the motions for extension of time. Appellant’s br iefs are due on or before August 28, 2015. The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure to timely file the briefs in these matters and no further extensions will be granted absent exigent
circumstances
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed th e 6 th day of A u gust, 2015

.
<PAGE>
 
                    FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROCESSING AGREEMENT

     This agreement made as of May 29, 1996, by and between First National Bank
of Omaha ("FNBO") a national banking association organized under the laws of
United States, and P.M.T. Services, Inc., doing business as US Bankcard Center
("COMPANY") a corporation with principal offices located at 2 Maryland Farms,
Suite 200, Brentwood, TN  37027.

     A. FNBO and COMPANY executed a written Processing Agreement as of March 1,
1994, which was amended by a written Amendment to Processing Agreement dated May
10, 1995, an Amendment to Processing Agreement dated July 18, 1995, an Amendment
to Processing Agreement dated August 7, 1995, and an Amendment to Agreement
dated November 1, 1995. A copy of said Processing Agreement is attached hereto
as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this reference. Copies of said
Amendments to Processing Agreement are attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a
part hereof by this reference. The Processing Agreement, including all
amendments thereto shall collectively be known as "AGREEMENT."

     B.  The parties desire to amend the AGREEMENT to provide for the processing
of additional MERCHANTS.

     For good and valuable consideration, COMPANY and FNBO agrees as follows:

     1.     Terms set forth herein in all capitalized letters which are not 
            otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set out in
            the AGREEMENT.
            
     2.     Attached hereto, marked EXHIBIT A, and by this reference
            incorporated herein, is a list of merchants which constitutes the
            ACQUIRED PORTFOLIO merchants listed on pursuant to this AGREEMENT.
            Henceforth the merchants listed on Exhibit A shall, therefore,
            constitute MERCHANTS under the AGREEMENT.

     3.     This AGREEMENT, along with the exhibits attached, contains the
            entire understanding between the parties hereto for the purpose set
            forth above. This AGREEMENT may not be altered, amended or modified
            except in writing executed by a duly authorized representative of
            each party.

     4.     This AGREEMENT is not assignable by either party without written
            consent of the other party.
 
     5.     This AGREEMENT is to be interpreted and construed under the laws of
            the State of Nebraska.
            
     6.     Except as modified or amended hereby the parties ratify and confirm
            their covenants and obligations contained in the AGREEMENT.
            

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of  as of the date first
set forth above.


FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA                    P.M.T. SERVICES, INC.


By:    /s/ Kevin M. Keating                     By:    /s/ Gregory S. Daily    
   -------------------------------                 ----------------------------

Title:  Legal & Compliance Officer         Title:    President
      ----------------------------               ------------------------------
March 23, 2015

Mr. Aaron Rose

Eagle UAV Services

432 Cherry Orchard Road

Canton, MI 48188

Dear Mr. Rose:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your January 26, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Eagle UAV Services into 

the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0216), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
1999 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-6-1999

Conte Bros Auto Inc v. Quaker State Slick

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 98-5136

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1999 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Conte Bros Auto Inc v. Quaker State Slick" (1999). 1999 Decisions. Paper 1.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999/1
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 No. 98-5136 

 In Re: Conte Bros Auto Inc vs. Quaker State Slick 

 The following modifications have been made to the Court's 

opinion issued on December 30, 1998 in the above-entitled appeal 

and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion: 

 (1) On page 4, 12th line from the top of the page: please 

 insert the word "the" after "is." The complete sentence 

 should read: The harm the Appellants allege they suffered 

 is the loss of sales of products they sell, such as 

regular 

 motor oil, that compete with Slick 50. 

 

 (2) On page 5, 21st line of text: please insert a hard return 

 after the comma following the words, "commercial 

 activities". 22nd through 24th lines of text: please 

 unindent these lines of text so that they are indented the 

 same amount as subparagraph (1). 

 

 (3) On page 20, 34th line of text: please delete 1998 and 

 replace it with "4th ed. 1996." (See page 18 for example 

 of proper citation to McCarthy). 

 

 (4) On page 21, 18th line of text: please make the same 

 changes as indicated above in (3). 

 

 (5) On page 25, 31st line of text: please insert "(4th ed. 

 1996)" after 27-12. (See page 18 for example of proper 

 citation to McCarthy). 

 

 /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

January 6, 1999