alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

1. PURPOSE. This system establishes policy and assigns responsibility for issuing Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Issuances.

2. SCOPE. This issuance system applies to all bureaus, offices, and organizations in the 

Department of the Treasury, including the Offices of Inspector General within the 

Department. The provisions of this Issuance shall not be construed to interfere with or 

impede the authorities or independence of the Department’s Inspectors General.

3. POLICY. The DEIA Issuance Program is comprised of official documents issued at the 

Departmental level to convey the Department’s equal opportunity, civil rights, equity, and 

diversity policies, essential procedures, delegations of authority and/or responsibility to 

managers and employees throughout the Department. 

a. The Department’s DEIA Issuances are limited to equal opportunity matters under the 

authority of the Chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Officer, including 

descriptions of responsibilities, delegations of authority and/or responsibility, statements 

of Department policy, and descriptions of essential procedures.

b. Any existing policy previously issued by the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity through 

the Civil Rights and Diversity (CRD) Issuance system shall be grandfathered into the 

DEIA Issuance and considered a DEIA Issuance. These policies should be updated within 

one year of the signing of this policy to reflect the new offices and realignment.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES.

a. The Chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Officer is responsible for the 

overall administration of the Treasury DEIA Issuance Program.

Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion, and Accessibility 

Issuance System 

DEIA-001

Date: June 30, 2022

Office: Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

Subject: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Issuance System Program
2

b. The Chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Officer will:

1) circulate the new, revised, reaffirmed, or cancelled DEIA Issuances to the affected 

bureaus and offices for coordination and approval;

2) post the DEIA on the Department website and retain all official copies of the 

documents.

c. The Office of General Counsel is responsible for reviewing each proposed new or revised 

DEIA Issuance, and proposed cancellations thereof, and to assure their legal sufficiency, 

including a determination whether they must be published in the Federal Register.

d. The Chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Officer shall conduct periodic 

review of each DEIA to determine whether it should be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. 

DEIA Issuances will be reviewed every five years after issuance.

6. AUTHORITIES.

a. TO 102-02, “Delegation of Authority Concerning Equal Opportunity Programs.”

7. OFFICE OF PRIMARY INTEREST. Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and 

Accessibility.

/S/

Tonya Burton

Acting Chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and 

Accessibility Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      13,946,000
<SECURITIES>                                27,182,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,322,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   561,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,985,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,094,000
<PP&E>                                      10,462,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,892,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,183,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,237,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  81,937,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                89,183,000
<SALES>                                     28,331,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,331,000
<CGS>                                       12,437,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,692,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,750,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (1,095,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,016,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   413,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (9,429,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,429,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.03)
        

</TABLE>
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-200-060]

Take notice that on November 3, 2000, Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company (REGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective December 1, 2000. 

Third Revised Sheet No. 8B

Original Sheet No. 8B.01

Original Sheet No. 8B.02

REGT states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the addition of a new negotiated rate arrangement involving three contracts.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims. htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29582  Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

- WICHITA FALLS DIVISION -

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Defendants Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Martin J. 

Gruenberg, Michael J. Hsu, Rohit Chopra, and Jennifer Whang, appeal to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the following Orders of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas: (i) the Order entered on November 6, 2022 (Dkt. # 31), granting 

plaintiff Cornelius Campbell Burgess’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. # 15); and (ii) the 

Order entered on December 1, 2022 (Dkt. # 49), denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration 

(Dkt. # 33, 34) and issuing a preliminary injunction against defendants. Copies of the District 

Court’s Orders (Dkt. # 31, 49) are attached.

Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Andrew J. Dober

Senior Counsel

Bryce C. Quine (Tex. No. 24032976)

Arthur E. Anthony (Tex. No. 24001661)

 /s/ Andrew A. Nicely 

Andrew A. Nicely (Va. No. 41750)

Daniel Kurtenbach

CORNELIUS CAMPBELL BURGESS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL NO. 7:22-cv-00100-O

 The Honorable Reed O’Connor,

 United States District Judge

Case 7:22-cv-00100-O Document 50 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 805
600 North Pearl Street, Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (972) 761-8520

Alternate Tel.: (972) 761-2237

Email: bquine@fdic.gov

Email: aranthony@fdic.gov

3501 Fairfax Drive, D-7028

Arlington, VA 22226-3500

Tel.: (703) 516-5729

Fax: (703) 562-2477

Email: anicely@fdic.gov

 Counsel for Defendants

DATED: December 2, 2022

Case 7:22-cv-00100-O Document 50 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 806
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 2, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all

counsel and parties of record registered to receive such notices.

 /s/ Andrew A. Nicely

 Andrew A. Nicely

Case 7:22-cv-00100-O Document 50 Filed 12/02/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 807
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00079-Z-BR

§

KYLE RYAN FARRIS (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

KYLE RYAN FARRIS (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining KYLE RYAN FARRIS (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I 

determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that KYLE RYAN FARRIS (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) -

DISTRIBUTION AND POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence 

imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: October 28, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00079-Z-BR Document 39 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 80
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

173) ll-E-133 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:09 AM Sheet 173 of 264 
P.2 

M MRR. 25.1998., 10:04flMjM _, SHAKESPEARE 03/24/S9 17:1B •tfl91»»4iutJ4 PES RTP NC NO.119 P.|,oo2/002 

A 94 52 

H-C-/33" 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

March24,1998

 l

~~ ' 

CCT-" 11 m 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: Mr. John J. Price 

Company: Shakespeare Electronics & Fiberglass Division 

Telephone Number: (803)276-5504 

Fax Number: (S03) 276-2809 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. John J. Price was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to update information provided 

in the 1993 EPA Reinforced Plastic Composites Screening Survey submitted by Shakespeare 

Electronics & Fiberglass Division for their facility located in Newberry, South Carolina. In response 

to my questions Mr. Price indicated the following: 

The facility uses the filament winding process in the fabrication of fishing rods and antennas 

for recreational industries and light poles for the utility industry. The polyester resin used during 

this fabrication process contains approximately 33% HAP by weight and does not contain a vapor 

suppressant. The only HAP initially present in the resin is styrene. No additional HAP is added to 

the resin during the fabrication process with the exception of small amounts of HAP that may (or 

may not) be present in initiators, promoters and/or catalysts added to tiie resin. 

The facility uses the pultrusion process in the fabrication of various custom products. 

Examples of these products include door and window sills for the construction industry. The 

polyester resin used during this fabrication process contains approximately 3VA HAP by weight and 

does not contain a vapor suppressant The only HAP initially present in the resin is styrene. No 

additional HAP is added to the resin during the fabrication process with the exception of small 

amounts of HAP that may (or may not) be present in initiators, promoters and/or catalysts added to 

the resin. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE
----

(2004/C 78 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2916/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations

Regulation (EC) 2200/96 (1) provides for Community financial assistance for producer organisations on condition that they have established an operational programme and set up an operational fund.

Operational funds are financed from producer contributions and Community assistance representing a maximum 4,1 % of the producer organisation's sales. The funding ratio is 50 %: 50 % in the case of national measures. That means that in such cases the operational fund represents a maximum 8,2 % of sales.

In the case of transnational measures the funding ratio is 60 %: 40 %. However, a problem arises here in so far as the percentage of assistance remains fixed at a maximum 4,1 %. That means in effect that the operational fund is restricted in the case of transnational cooperation, although it is precisely such cooperation that the regulation seeks to promote.

Does the Commission recognise this problem? If so, will it very shortly be taking measures to rectify this contradiction in the legislation by permitting a derogation from the maximum percentage of assistance of 4,1 % in the case of transnational producer organisations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

In line with the commitments it has made to Parliament in particular the Commission has already devoted a great deal of attention to simplifying and clarifying the implementing rules for common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables.

It has, in close consultation with Member States and interested parties, identified a number of problems to be tackled, including that raised by the Honourable Member, who correctly states that the present 4,1 % aid ceiling often makes it difficult in practice to apply a Community part-financing rate of 60 %.

The Commission is reflecting on possible solutions. The budgetary implications of various options will be examined and the budget neutrality requirement reflected in the proposal for amendment of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (2) that the Commission will be making to the Council in furtherance of the ongoing process of simplifying this particular market organisation.

Simplification will be carried out as quickly as the work programme of the Institutions involved permits.

----

(1)OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in fruit and vegetables.

----
#### P & K Marble, Inc., Respondent, v Arthur Pearce, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered April 7, 1989, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to set aside a judgment of the same court, entered February 20, 1987, upon his default in appearing at the trial.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision granting the motion to the extent of reducing the amount awarded from $36,392 to $17,000 and denying the motion in all other respects; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an amended judgment in accordance herewith.

A decision to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court *(see, Ehmer v Modernismo Publ.,*120 AD2d 483, 484). The record herein indicates that the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the defendant’s application to vacate his default in appearing at the trial was not an improvident exercise of discretion *(see, Formichella v Formichella,*134 AD2d 481). The hearing held on the defendant’s motion in this case establishes that the default did not arise out of mere inadvertence or neglect but, rather, was the intended result of the conduct deliberately engaged in by the defense counsel *(see, Clarke v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center,*149 AD2d 559; *Perellie v Crimson’s Rest.,*108 AD2d 903). Moreover, under the circumstances, the intentional conduct of the defendant’s attorney must be imputed to the defendant *(see, Chery v Anthony,*156 AD2d 414; *Greenwald v Zyvith,*23 AD2d 201).

However, it is established law that "[a] default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief from *440that demanded in the complaint” *(Sanford v Powers,*93 AD2d 985; *see also, Frascatore v Mione,*97 AD2d 809, 810; CPLR 3215 [b]). It is equally well established that "at an inquest, the court may not permit amendments of pleadings which would broaden the scope of the inquest and increase the amount of damages provable by the plaintiff” *(Recon Car Corp. v Chrysler Corp.,*130 AD2d 725, 732; *see, Gluck v Allen Mfg. Co.,*53 AD2d 584; *Frank P. McNally, Inc. v Ontario Frgt. Lines Corp.,*29 AD2d 678) absent notice to the defendant. Thus, the court erred in allowing the plaintiff, without notice to the defendant, to amend its ad damnum clause at the inquest to increase the amount of damages sought from $17,000 to $36,392. Accordingly, the judgment must be modified to limit the award to the amount originally demanded in the complaint. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50588

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Spencer Duran Riley, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:03-CR-38-5

Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Spencer Duran 

Riley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Riley has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 6, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50588 Document: 00515851551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2021
No. 20-50588

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as 

Riley’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-50588 Document: 00515851551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2021
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 374

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AUGUST 2 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Committee discharged

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating August 2, 1994, as ‘‘National Neighborhood

Crime Watch Day’’.

Whereas neighborhood crime is of continuing concern to the

American people;

Whereas the fight against neighborhood crime requires people

to work together in cooperation with law enforcement

officials;

Whereas neighborhood crime watch organizations are effective at promoting awareness about, and the participation

of volunteers in, crime prevention activities at the local

level;

Whereas neighborhood crime watch groups can contribute to

the Nation’s war on drugs by helping to prevent their
2

•HJ 374 CDS

communities from becoming markets for drug dealers;

and

Whereas citizens across America will soon take part in a

‘‘National Night Out’’, a unique crime prevention event

which will demonstrate the importance and effectiveness

of community participation in crime prevention efforts by

having people spend the period from 9 to 10 o’clock

postmeridian on August 2, 1994, with their neighbors in

front of their homes: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That August 2, 1994, is designated as ‘‘National Neigh4 borhood Crime Watch Day’’, and the President is author5 ized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon

6 the people of the United States to observe such day with

7 appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.