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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2326-054]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Cross Power Hydroelectric Project, located on the Androscoggin River in Coos County, New Hampshire and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the project. No Federal land is occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.

The FEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

                    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the FEA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (                    *http://www.ferc.gov/​*), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                

                    You may also register online at                     *https://ferconline.ferc.gov/​eSubscription.aspx*                     to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.                

                    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Ryan Hansen at (202) 502-8074 or                     *ryan.hansen@ferc.gov.*

Dated: October 7, 2024.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-23668 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
REMITTANCE REPORT FOR FY 2016 VERAs

FY 2016 VERAs

Attachment 1 A

FY 2016 VERAs, VSIPs PROCESSING COSTS UNDER CONSOLIDATED

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016, P.L. 114-113

Remittance Date: 

Reporting Entity: POC Name: 

POC Email address: POC Phone Number: FY 2016 Retirement Month:

(MM/YYYY)

Funds submitted by:

(Indicate IPAC, EFT or CHECK)

IPAC

EFT

CHECK

Payroll Office Number:

(Column 1)

Agency Location Code:

(Column 2)

Number of Covered Employees

(Column 3)

Amount Submitted

Column 3 x $124.48

FERS

TOTALS (A) $

CSRS

TOTALS (B) $

AMOUNT SUBMITTED $

(Must Equal A + B)

(To Be Reproduced Locally)

(Use additional forms if needed)

I certify to the best of my knowledge, the accuracy and completeness of this Remittance Report.

Signature Name - Printed
REMITTANCE REPORT FOR FY 2016 VERAs

FY 2016 VERAs, VSIPs PROCESSING COSTS UNDER CONSOLIDATED

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016, P.L. 114-113

FY 2016 VSIPs

Attachment 1 B

Remittance Date: 

Reporting Entity: POC Name: 

POC Email address: POC Phone Number: FY 2016 Retirement Month:

(MM/YYYY)

Funds submitted by:

(Indicate IPAC, EFT or CHECK)

IPAC

EFT

CHECK

Payroll Office Number:

(Column 1)

Agency Location Code:

(Column 2)

Number of Covered Employees

(Column 3)

Amount Submitted

Column 3 x $124.48

FERS

TOTALS (A) $

CSRS

TOTALS (B) $

AMOUNT SUBMITTED $

(Must Equal A + B)

(To Be Reproduced Locally)

I certify to the best of my knowledge, the accuracy and completeness of this Remittance Report. (Use additional forms if needed)

Signature Name - Printed
FY 2016 VERAs with VSIPs

Attachment 1 C

FY 2016 VERAs, VSIPs PROCESSING COSTS UNDER CONSOLIDATED

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016, P.L. 114-113

REMITTANCE REPORT FOR FY 2016 VERAs

Remittance Date: 

Reporting Entity: POC Name: 

POC Email address: POC Phone Number: FY 2016 Retirement Month:

(MM/YYYY)

Funds submitted by:

(Indicate IPAC, EFT or CHECK)

IPAC

EFT

CHECK

Payroll Office Number:

(Column 1)

Agency Location Code:

(Column 2)

Number of Covered Employees

(Column 3)

Amount Submitted

Column 3 x $124.48

FERS

TOTALS (A) $

CSRS

TOTALS (B) $

AMOUNT SUBMITTED $

(Must Equal A + B)

(To Be Reproduced Locally)

I certify to the best of my knowledge, the accuracy and completeness of this Remittance Report. (Use additional forms if needed)

Signature Name - Printed
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10915

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARY DON BYRD,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CR-10-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 3, 1997

Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Don Byrd appeals his sentence following his guilty plea

to bank fraud. Byrd contends that the district court erred in

finding that he was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity

involving five or more participants and that the activity was

otherwise extensive. We have reviewed the record and the briefs

of the parties and hold that the district court’s finding was not

clearly erroneous. United States v. Ronning, 47 F.3d 710, 712

(5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 30, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41458 Summary Calendar

JOHN RIVES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KELLI WARD, Assistant Regional Director; D. DOUGHTY, Senior Warden; F. REESCANO, Treatment Warden; M. DABNEY, Captain; J. BROWN, Correctional Officer; J. LEWIS, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CV-483

-------------------- Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John Rives, Texas prisoner #603511, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Rives alleged that his constitutionalNo. 02-41458 -2- rights were violated in connection with a prison disciplinary proceeding. Rives’ motion to file a corrected brief is GRANTED. Rives’ challenges to his disciplinary proceeding would imply the invalidity of his conviction. As he has not shown that his disciplinary conviction has been overturned or otherwise invalidated, he may not maintain his claim for damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Similarly, he cannot seek injunctive or declaratory relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action because these claims should be raised in a habeas petition. Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973); Clarke v. Stalder , 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to allow Rives to amend his compliant. See Ashe v. Corley , 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1993). Rives’ appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of Rives’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim each count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Rives is warned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated orNo. 02-41458 -3- detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED BRIEF GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.
|   | Exhibit      32.2 |
|--------|-------------------|

| CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------------------------------|

| 18      U.S.C. § 1350 |
|----------------------------|

| AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO |
|-----------------------------|

| SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|---------------------------------------------------|

| (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification By
J. Michael Mayer, Chief Financial Officer
of Complete Production Services, Inc.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
   Date: August 3, 2007
    By:
    /s/ J. Michael MayerJ. Michael MayerSenior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer 42
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

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

LINDA McGUIRE, *

* No. 16-1101V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: November 25, 2019

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine; 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

* (“ADEM”); multiple sclerosis

* (“MS”).

Respondent. *

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

Jeffrey A. Golvash, Brennan, Robins & Daley, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioner;

Sarah C. Duncan, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On November 25, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Linda McGuire on September 2, 2016. 

Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on September 4, 

2013, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. 

§100.3(a), caused her to suffer acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) 

and multiple sclerosis (“MS”). Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the 

residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that 

there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her 

behalf as a result of her condition.

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from 

ADEM, MS, or any other injury.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $45,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that 

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 16-1101V according to this decision 

and the attached stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
Exhibit 10.4


 


Named Executive Officers with a Change of Control Agreement


Charles O. Moore, Executive Vice President, Consumer Lending


Daniel M. Roberts, Senior Vice President and Chief Credit Officer
Exhibit 32.1

MF Global Holdings Ltd.

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MF Global Holdings Ltd. (together with its subsidiaries, the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jon S. Corzine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 3, 2011



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    Jon S. Corzine  
|Jon S. Corzine         
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6940
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH RICHARD SANTIAGO, a/k/a Kenneth Santiago-Gonzalez, a/k/a David, a/k/a Coca, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-95-318, CA-96-364-AM) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Richard Santiago, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Santiago , Nos. CR-95-318, CA-96-364-AM (E.D. Va. May 20, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### KING v. STATE.

No. 16122.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1933.

See, also (Tex. Cr. App.) 65 S.W.(2d) 772.

Jno. M. Hatter, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of unlawfully possessing for the purpose of sale liquor capable of producing intoxication, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.

The appellant filed a motion to'quash the indictment because the indictment merely charged that the appellant “did then and there unlawfully possess, for the purpose of sale, liquor capable of producing intoxication,” and did not expressly follow Article 666 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offense to possess for the purpose of sale spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors or medieated bitters capable of producing intoxication, and that the state has wholly failed to charge the kind of liquor defendant is alleged to have possessed for the purpose of sale whether it waá spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors or medicated bitters, which motion of the appellant was by the court overruled and the appellant excepted. •

Article 666 of the Penal Code of this state makes it an offense for any person, directly or indirectly, to possess or receive for the purpose of sale, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors or medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication, or any other intoxicant whatever. It appears to us that from a reading of the statute-that the indictment charges the offense of possessing for the purpose of sale liquor capable of producing intoxication, and in support hereof we refer to the cases of Tucker v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 251 S. W. 1090; Nowells v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 571, 252 S. W. 550.

No other question being raised and no errors appearing in the record before us, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 07-205 Date: November 30, 2007 

Subject: Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) and Premium Pay 

The purpose of this BAL is to ensure agencies are using the appropriate pay amount when 

determining FEGLI coverage for employees who earn premium pay. In situations where the 

combination of salary and premium pay reaches the employee’s annual salary cap, the amount of 

FEGLI coverage is based on the capped amount (i.e., the actual amount of earnings received by 

the employee). 

By regulation, FEGLI is based on the annual rate of basic pay. In situations where an employee 

earns premium pay, the process for determining the FEGLI annual salary amount is to calculate 

the amount of premium pay which exceeds the salary cap and subtract it from the sum of basic 

pay and total premium pay. The resulting amount represents the employee's FEGLI Basic 

Insurance Amount (BIA) and is the basis for the premiums he/she pays. This calculation should 

be done on an annual basis rather than each pay period. 

As an example if an individual’s current salary is $125,078 and the current authorized premium 

pay is 25% or $31,269.50, the total would be $156,347.50. However, the current salary is 

capped at GS 15/10 $143,471. Therefore, if the salary is capped, then FEGLI is based on the 

capped amount of $143,471. The FEGLI BIA would be $146,000. 

If you have any questions please contact Ingrid Burford on (202) 606-0004 or 

Ingrid.Burford@opm.gov. 

 Sincerely, 

 Kathleen M. McGettigan 

 Deputy Associate Director 

 Center for Retirement & Insurance Services
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 18, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Consortium for Rare Earth Technologies (“CREaTe”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Watts & Fisher Pty Ltd, Mandurah, WA; Alkemio, San Francisco, CA; Fluid Photonics Corporation, Lindenhurst, NY; MTL Corp., Bloomington, MN; and Precision Combustion, Inc., North Haven, CT, have been added as parties to this venture.                

                    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CREaTe intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.                          ( print page 82630)    

                    On April 22, 2022, CREaTe filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 13, 2022 (87 FR 29384).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 12, 2024. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 2024 (89 FR 54042).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-23599 Filed 10-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 **IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MON**  **TANA**

**SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO.**  **DA -**  **23 -**  **0505**
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OFKEVIN THIELMANN, Deceased. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE No. DA
- 23
- 0505

**ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME** 

UPON REVIEW of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief (Unopposed) and with good cause being shown first; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant’s deadline to file their Reply Brief in this matter is hereby RESET for the 30 th day of January, 2024. No further extensions will be granted. **ELECTRONICALLY DATED AND SIGNED BELOW.** CC;

- Patrick F. Flaherty

- Garry Bjelland

- Heather Starnes

- Patrick Watt

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2023

12/21/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0505