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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# TIME AND DATE: 

9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 11, 2023.

# PLACE: 

The meeting was held via video conference on the internet.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The Special Review Committee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the Corporation's corporate activities within its authority to act on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In calling the meeting, the Special Review Committee determined, by the unanimous vote of Director Jonathan P. McKernan and Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2) and (c)(4) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (c)(4)).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed                               ( print page 86649)                            to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.                    

*Dated:*                         December 11, 2023.                    

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James P. Sheesley,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-27521 Filed 12-12-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
IV 

House Calendar No. 127 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 793 

[Report No. 114–638] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1270) to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments made by the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act which disqualify expenses for overthe-counter drugs under health savings accounts and health flexible 

spending arrangements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2016 

Mr. BURGESS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1270) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments made by the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act which disqualify expenses for over-the-counter 

drugs under health savings accounts and health flexible 

spending arrangements. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 1270) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 793 RH 

1 repeal the amendments made by the Patient Protection 

2 and Affordable Care Act which disqualify expenses for 

3 over-the-counter drugs under health savings accounts and 

4 health flexible spending arrangements. All points of order 

5 against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 

6 amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

7 the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the 

8 bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 

9 of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-60 shall be con10 sidered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be consid11 ered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 

12 bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 

13 be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 

14 any further amendment thereto, to final passage without 

15 intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 

16 divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

17 member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 

18 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 127 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 793 

[Report No. 114–638] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1270) 

rangements. savings accounts and health flexible spending arexpenses for over-the-counter drugs under health tection and Affordable Care Act which disqualify repeal the amendments made by the Patient Proto amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

JUNE 21, 2016 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
No. 02-678

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2003 MT 161N

CRAIG HUNTER CRAIN,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

In and for the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-01-536(A)

The Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Craig Hunter Crain, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders,

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: May 22, 2003

 Decided: June 10, 2003 

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk
2

Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as

a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,

Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to

West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court. 

¶2 The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, dismissed Craig Hunter Crain's

pro se petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. Crain

appeals. We affirm.

¶3 Crain argues on appeal that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing

to explain the sentence he would receive and that the District Court erred in failing to allow

him to amend his petition for postconviction relief by attaching his mother's affidavit in

support of his claim that part of his sentence should be suspended.

¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11,

2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for

memorandum opinions. The issue is clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the

District Court has correctly interpreted. The sentence the trial court imposed on Crain was

in conformity with Crain's plea agreement and Crain has established no legal justification

for allowing him to avoid that agreement. We hold the District Court did not err in

dismissing Crain's petition for postconviction relief without a hearing and without granting

Crain's request to be allowed to amend the petition by adding his mother's affidavit. 
3

¶5 Affirmed.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We concur:

/S/ JIM RICE

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
July 12, 1999

21834

#### State v. Ancheta

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1154

In Re: GROVER L. DILLON, SR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:98-cr-00140-1; 1:10-cv-00266)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Grover L. Dillon, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Grover L. Dillon, Sr., petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting 

on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. He seeks an 

order from this court directing the district court to act. Our 

review of the district court’s docket reveals that, on February 

14, 2012, the district court denied Dillon’s § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided

Dillon’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
24379

#### Silva v. Administrative Director of Courts

Affirmed
#### ALEXANDER DAWSON, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HYDROPONICS, INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13909.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 28, 1975.

Phillip L. Foremaster, .St. George, for plaintiff and appellant.

Frank A. Allen, St. George, Walter R. Ellett, Murray, for defendant and respondent.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a district court award of attorney’s fees in a receivership matter, for resisting an appeal in a prior case involving the same parties. Affirmed with costs to Hydroponics.

Dawson contends our failure to award attorney’s fees on appeal in the prior case was an exercise of discretion such as to preclude the trial court from awarding such fees.

Costs are statutory and the award of attorney’s fees is contractual — or statutory, — if, in a given case they are awarda-ble by statute. Such fees are not awarda-ble as costs, since they are not included in our statute as such.

The fees awarded by the trial court here, were legitimate expenses of the receivership, — as much so as fees for filing, compensating the receiver, storage of assets, drayage charges, accountant’s fees or *1252coffeebreak exhaustion time, — and the like, —all adjunct to the administration of a first or second class receivership.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.
#### H. P. Blocker, *et*al., Appellants, v. J. J. Seay, *et al.,*Administrators, *Appellees.*

Opinion Filed April 27, 1915.

Where it does not appear that the court had jurisdiction of some of the defendants, and where a decree *pro confesso*is entered against the other defendants after they had answered and it does not appear that the proceedings were not *ex parte,*a final decree against all the defendants may be reversed on appeal.

Appeal from Circuit Court for Hernando County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

*520Decree reversed.

*IP. B. Coogler,*for Appellants;

*R. B. SturMe,*for Appelless.

Whitfield, J.

The appellees brought a bill in equity to enforce a mortgage lien upon lands given by H. P. Blocker and his wife. A demurrer to the bill of complaint was overruled and H. P. Blocker answered for himself and for his wife. The answer stated that subsequent to the execution of the mortgage the property Avas sold to Annie M. Weaver after the timber rights in a portion of the land had been conveyed to the Peterson-McNeill Company, a corporation. Other averments appear in the answer. By stipulation it was agreed “that the complainants may amend their bill by making Annie M. Weaver and James A. Monsch parties defendant thereto, with the appropriate averments by way of amendment as may be necessary.” The bill of complaint was amended “by adding the names of Annie P. Weaver and James A. Monsch, after the names of H. P. and Annie L. Blocker, and making the former parties defendants in each and every place in said bill Avhere the allegations of said bill make the said H. P. and Annie L. Blocker defendants.” A replication to the answer was filed. Subsequently a decree *pro confesso*was entered against H. P. Blocker and Annie L. Blocker. It does not appear that service of process was made on Annie P. Weaver or James A. Monsch, or that they appeared. A final decree was rendered against all four of the defendants, and they appealed. This decree states that it appears “from an examination of the record and the papers filed therein that due and legal service was had upon the defendants.”

*521The agreement as to amending the bill of complaint did not waive service of process or amount to an appearance in the cause for the added defendants. Besides this the bill of complaint was not amended in accordance with the agreement, there being no allegations by amendment to the bill connecting the added defendants with the property or with the obligation growing out of the mortgage. In view of the state of the record with nothing to indicate that the court in fact acquired jurisdiction over the added defendants, the statement in the decree that “due and legal service was had upon the defendants” is not conclusive, and the decree as to the added defendants must be reversed. As a decree *pro confesso*was entered •against H. P. Blocker and his wife after they had answered, and as it does not appear that the proceedings before the Master were not *ex*parte, the decree as to Blocker and wife should be reversed.

Decree reversed.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,904
<ALLOWANCES>                                       243
<INVENTORY>                                     12,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,306
<PP&E>                                         113,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,318
<SALES>                                         99,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,986
<CGS>                                           64,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,889 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,332 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,703
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
        

</TABLE>
July 12, 2002

24054, 24055, 24062

#### Doe, In re; Doe Children, In Interest of; Doe, In re Interest of

Affirmed
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10444

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL WAYNE HARKNESS

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-215

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Wayne Harkness, former Texas prisoner # 1235550, pleaded

guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to four years of

imprisonment. Harkness now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to

appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the

denial of mandatory supervision.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10444

2

During the pendency of this appeal, Harkness was released from prison

to mandatory supervision. As a result, Harkness’s due process claim challenging

the denial of § 2254 petition has been rendered moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523

U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; COA MOTION DENIED.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS DRAFT NOTICE NO. 18-04

TO: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Veterinary Services Leadership Team

FROM: Byron E. Rippke

Director

SUBJECT: Expanded NCAH Portal Functionality: Submission of Export 

Documents

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Notice is to inform licensee and permittees that the Center for 

Veterinary Biologics (CVB) is expanding the functionality of the web-based NCAH 

Portal by accepting submission for export documents. Submitters must be portalenabled to submit electronic export documents.

II. BACKGROUND

The NCAH Portal is external-facing and enables web-based electronic submissions 

between registered biologics licensees and permittees and the CVB. To date, all 

submissions to CVB-Inspection and Compliance (IC) except Export Certificates,

Certificates of Licensing and Inspection, and Facility Documents have been 

accepted via the NCAH portal. This expansion includes Export Documents. The 

next phase planned will include Facility Documents, completing the IC transition 

from paper to electronic submissions in the near future. 

III. ACTION

The Roles of Liaison, Alternate Liaison and new Portal role of Export Contact will be 

allowed to submit Export Documentation via the NCAH portal. These Portal roles are 

further explained in the NCAH Portal User Guide, Description of Portal Roles and 

Privileges. 

Submission of an APHIS Form 2007 for the employees with the designated role Export 

Contact is required. The address listed on the APHIS Form 2007 for the Export Contact 

must be a physical address represented on the establishment license. In some cases, the 

Export Contact may work from a location not listed on the establishment license. That 

is acceptable. The actual address may be entered in Miscellaneous Remarks, but is not 

required.

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100
CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS DRAFT NOTICE NO.

Page 2

 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Other Portal roles such as Quality Review may also enter, edit, and review data related 

to export documentation, but are not allowed to submit, similar to the role used for 

other documents submitted to CVB. 

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/ APPLICABILITY

The option to submit export certificates via the NCAH portal is under development 

at this time and it tentatively scheduled to go live on March 28, 2018.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000854852
<NAME> MICROTEL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                       275
<INVENTORY>                                      6,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,552
<PP&E>                                           5,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,765
<BONDS>                                          1,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,619
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,242
<SALES>                                         37,261
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,261
<CGS>                                           23,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    97
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       101
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,185)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,185)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>