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 the Interior

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Comment Period Extension—Second Draft of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, “Meeting the Challenge.” 

# SUMMARY:

The National Invasive Species Council announced the availability of the draft National Management Plan on October 2, 2000, for a public review period of 45 days. Pursuant to Executive Order 13112, this Plan was due in August of this year. In response to a number of requests, the Council is extending the comment period for an additional 15 calendar days. The new deadline for submitting comments will now be 6:00 p.m. (eastern) on Friday, December 1, 2000.

*Availability:*                         Copies of the draft Plan can still be obtained via the Council's website: www.invasivespecies.gov; or by contacting the Council Staff at 202-208-6336 (phone); 202-208-1526 (Fax); or by e-mail at invasivespecies@ios.doi.gov.                     

*Where to Send Comments:*                         Comments can be submitted to the Council Staff via regular mail to the address below, via e-mail at invasivespecies@ios.doi.gov, or by fax to 202-208-1526.                     

# ADDRESSES:

National Invasive Species Council, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Suite 320, Washington, DC 20240. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelsey Passé, National Invasive Species Council Program Analyst; E-mail: Kelsey_Passe@ios.doi.gov; Phone: (202) 208-6336; Fax: (202) 208-1526. 

Dated: November 13, 2000. 

Lori Williams, 

Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council. 

[FR Doc. 00-29416 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

WILTON IRVON LOMBARD, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § No. 4:22-cv-00784-O-BP

 §

§

NORTH RICHLAND HILLS POLICE §

DEPARTMENT, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. The Court identified one typographical error in Judge Ray’s Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation: the initial filing date of Plaintiff’s Complaint is incorrectly reported as 

September 22, 2022, when it was actually filed on September 2, 2022. Finding that this error is not 

material, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the 

Magistrate Judge are otherwise correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of 

the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

unless Plaintiff pays to the Clerk of the Court the filing and administrative fees of $402.00 within 

seven (7) days after the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED on this 26th day of October, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O-BP Document 8 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 44
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAWRENCE GENE JACKSON,

a/k/a LAWRENCE GENE PAGE

#23003214,

Plaintiff,

VS.

SHERIFF BROWN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-2408-G -BT

)

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The court has taken under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated April

13, 2023. The court has made a de novo review of those portions of the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation to which objections were made. IT IS,

THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted, and the objections are overruled. 

SO ORDERED.

May 3, 2023.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-02408-G-BT Document 18 Filed 05/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 119
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ERIC JACKSON, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0825-P

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

This Final Judgment is issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 58. In accordance with the Court’s Order of Dismissal (ECF 

No. 98) entered on August 17, 2023: 

It is ORDERED, ADJUGED, and DECREED that this civil action 

is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a true copy of this Final 

Judgment to the Parties.

SO ORDERED on this 17th day of August 2023.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 99 Filed 08/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2047
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ORDER STRIKING AND UNFILING DOCUMENT(S)

The Court has independently determined that the document(s) below should be stricken and unfiled. Accordingly, it is ordered 

that the document(s) is/are stricken from the record of this case, and the Clerk is directed to note on the docket that the 

document(s) has/have been unfiled.

DATE U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

Judge:

Case Number: Style:

Date:

*******************

1. A civil cover sheet must be filed with the complaint. See LR 3.1(a) or LR 3.2(c).

2. The document(s) must be in proper form. See LR 10.1 or LCrR 49.3.

3. The signature of the attorney of record, which includes a party proceeding pro se, is required on each

A(n) has been filed by

 and is considered deficient in the area(s) noted below:

document filed. See FED. R. Civ. P. 11(a), FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d), LR 11.1(b), or LCrR 49.5(b).

5. Each separate document contained therein must be identified. See LR 5.1(c) or LCrR 49.2(c).

4. A completed certificate of service is required. See FED. R. Civ. P. 5(d) or FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d).

6. The motion RUUHVSRQVHmust include:

brief in support of motion. See LR 7.1(d), LR 56.5(a), or LCrR 47.1(d).

certificate of conference or inability to confer. See LR 7.1(b) or LCrR 47.1(b).

proposed order. See LR 7.1(c) or LCrR 47.1(c).

documentary or non-documentary evidence in a separate appendix. See LR 7.1(i) or LR 56.6.

a.

b.

c.

d.

See LR 15.1(a) and (b). If the motion for leave to amend is filed on paper, the motion must be

accompanied by an original and second copy of the proposed amended pleading that is neither attached to the

motion nor made an exhibit to the motion. See LR 15.1(a).

7. A motion for leave to amend must have a copy of the proposed amended pleading attached as an exhibit.

8. A motion for continuance of a trial setting must be signed by the party as well as by the attorney of record.

See LR 40.1.

10. Additional copies are required. See LR 5.1(b) or LCrR 49.2(b).

9. An attorney seeking pro hac vice admission must apply for admission on an approved form and pay the

11. The attorney filing the pleading is not admitted to practice in this district. See LR 83.7 or LCrR 57.7.

applicable fee. See LR 83.9(b) or LCrR 57.9(b).

12. The document requires a separately signed certificate of interested persons. See LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e),

13. Other:

LR 7.4, LR 81.1 (a)(3)(D), or LR 81.2.

, United States District Judge

U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTR

February 7, 2024 ,

Means 2/5/2024

4:22-CV-343-Y Ross v. APFA, et al.

Sealed Motion for Sanctions (doc. 195)

Plaintiff

✔

Documents may only be filed under seal per statute, rule, or with leave of Court. See LR 79.3. The "order 

dated 12/26/2024" Plaintiff cites as permitting filing under seal does not so permit. See doc. 187.
Case 3:22-cv-01416-N Document 197 Filed 06/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 7668
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00107-Z-BR

§

SEMEIN CRUZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

SEMEIN CRUZ (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 SEMEIN CRUZ (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 SEMEIN CRUZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) -

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: January 3, 2023

______________________________________

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-00107-Z-BR Document 33 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 71
1:22-cv-0099

Case 1:22-cv-00099-BU Document 3 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4
Case 1:22-cv-00099-BU Document 3 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5
#### Robert M. Morgenthau, as District Attorney of New York County, Respondent, v Andrew Mackey, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered April 9, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion to the extent of dismissing defendant’s first and second affirmative defenses, unanimously modified, on the law, defendant’s second affirmative defense reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly dismissed defendant’s first affirmative defense and the counterclaims set forth in paragraphs 8 and 9 of defendant’s answer. With respect to the second affirmative defense, however, although inartfully drafted, defendant is in fact claiming that the instant forfeiture proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 13-A was wrongfully commenced inasmuch as the defendant has no interest in the property which is the subject of the proceeding. Defendant has submitted proof in the form of leases and retail installment contracts which indicate that a corporation, New World Concerts, Inc., is the party having an interest in the subject automobiles. That entity was not named as a " '[n]on-criminal defendant’ ” in this action as defined in CPLR 1310 (10). Absent proof that the defendant and the corporation were in fact one entity, defendant’s second affirmative defense should not have been summarily dismissed.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
#### Terence W. Murphy, Respondent, v Sally Capone et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered July 14, 1989, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve a third amended verified complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to serve a third amended verified complaint *(see, Murray v City of New York,*43 NY2d 400). As the defendants concede, the amendments the plaintiff sought to make, with the exception of the withdrawal of 6 of the 8 causes of action, were only of "the most minimal and nonsubstantive” nature, and thus it cannot be said that any prejudice to the defendants would arise as a result thereof *(see, Powe v City of Albany,*130 AD2d 823; *Sentry Ins. Co. v Kero-Sun, Inc.,*122 AD2d 204). Additionally, contrary to the defendants’ contention, it is not at all clear that the proposed amendments are legally insufficient *(see, Sentry Ins. Co. v Kero-Sun, Inc., supra).*Moreover, we note that the causes of action the plaintiff is asserting in his third amended verified complaint have not heretofore been dismissed. Thus the cases relied upon by the defendants in *438support of their assertion that the plaintiff has sought leave to serve a third amended complaint only as a subterfuge to avoid the effect of a prior order of preclusion *(see, Murphy v Capone,*168 AD2d 436 [decided herewith]), are inapposite, as they involve situations where pleadings have been dismissed and, by their amendments, the movants were seeking to reassert the dismissed pleadings *(see, e.g., Anteri v NRS Constr. Corp.,*148 AD2d 563). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

Agenda

September 29, 2022

1:00 – 1:15 pm Introduction & FIO Update

1:15 – 2:00 pm Presentation on the Federal Reserve Board’s Insurance 

Policy Advisory Committee (IPAC) Paper on the Insurance 

Capital Standards by Pooja Rahman, Protective Life, and 

Aaron Sarfatti, Equitable

2:00 – 2:20 pm Supplemental Comments on FIO’s Auto Insurance Work from 

FACI members

2:20 – 2:35 pm Break

2:35 – 3:05 pm Presentation on Wildfire Risk Mitigation by Dan Kaniewski, 

Marsh Solutions and Amy Bach, United Policyholders 

3:05 – 3:35 pm Presentation on Cyber Priorities and Pending Cyber Issues for 

the Insurance Sector by Neal Higgins, Deputy National Cyber 

Director for National Cybersecurity, Office of the National 

Cyber Director

3:35 – 3:50 pm Presentation on Cybersecurity Priorities by FIO Staff

3:50 – 3:55 pm New Business

3:55pm Adjourn
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7852

LEON STEVENSON, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-2779-2-12) Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: August 13, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leon Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Stevenson’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Contrary to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, however, the district court never entered its judgment in a separate document. As a result, the time limit for noting an appeal never began to run. SeeBankers Trust Co. v. Mallis , 435 U.S. 381, 384-85 (1978). We accordingly deem the appeal timely. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Leon Stevenson seeks to appeal * the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stevenson has not made the requisite showing. First, Stevenson’s argument that his state court convictions violate double jeopardy has been previously rejected by this court, Stevenson v. Johnson , No. 01-7572 (4th Cir. Mar. 27, 2003) (unpublished) (reversing district court’s grant of habeas- 3 - petition), and that ruling is now the law of the case. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp. , 486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988); United States v. Bell , 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Second, Stevenson’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his prior appeal to this court fails as he is not entitled to such representation in a collateral adjudication. Pennsylvania v. Finley , 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Stevenson’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel and 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.

DISMISSED
Case 4:22-cr-00043-O Document 36 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 69
Case 4:22-cr-00043-O Document 36 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 70
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 Venture Lending & Leasing VIII, Inc. (the "Fund") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin D. Eng, Chief Financial Officer of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Fund.





/S/ Martin D. Eng





Martin D. Eng


Chief Financial Officer


March 15, 2017
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 
  





 
 June 18, 2015 
 Mark L.
Perry 
  

	 	Re:	Board of Directors of MyoKardia, Inc. 

 Dear Mark: 

MyoKardia, Inc. (the “Company”) appreciates your past service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company (the
“Board”) starting with your appointment as a director effective as of December 6, 2012 and would like to document terms pursuant to which you have been serving as a member of the Board and will serve as a member of the Board
going forward. 
 You have been and will be entitled to be paid an annual cash retainer of $35,000 during your service on the Board, which
will be payable quarterly in arrears and pro-rated for any partial year served. In addition, the Board, on June 12, 2013, approved the grant to you of a stock option to purchase 75,000 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Initial
Option”). The shares of common stock underlying Initial Option vested over a one year period and are now fully vested. In all respects, the Initial Option is governed by the Company’s 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) and the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement entered into between you and the Company pursuant to the Plan. 
 It
is understood that you have and will serve at the pleasure of the Company and that either you or the Company may terminate your directorship at any time and for any reason without prior notice and without additional compensation to you. The Company
has and will reimburse you for reasonable and necessary travel expenses incurred by you in furtherance of the Company’s business pursuant to Company policy. You will be solely responsible for payment of all governmental charges and taxes
arising from your service to the Company as a director. 
 In making this offer, the Company understands, and in accepting it you represent
that you are not under any obligation to any employer or any person, firm, or corporation which would prevent, limit, or impair in any way the performance by you of your duties as a director of the Company. 

This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the Delaware General Corporation Law as to all matters within the scope
thereof, and as to all other matters in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 







 Please indicate your acknowledgement of the terms under which you have been serving as a director
of the Company and accepting such terms going forward, by signing and dating the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to the Company. The Company appreciates your past service and looks forward to your continued service as a member of our
Board. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	 /s/ Tassos Gianakokos

	Tassos Gianakakos
	Chief Executive Officer
	


  

	
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	
	 /s/ Mark L. Perry

	Mark L. Perry
	
	  

	Date: June 22, 2015


  
 2