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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2804 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2804

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John 
                        Brademas Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2000

  Mr. Bayh (for himself and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John 
                        Brademas Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOHN BRADEMAS POST OFFICE.

    (a) In General.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John Brademas Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John 
Brademas Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 82945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23701]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 820

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0507]
RIN 0910-AH99


Medical Devices; Quality System Regulation Amendments; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is correcting 
a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on February 2, 2024. 
In that final rule, FDA amended the device current good manufacturing 
practice (CGMP) requirements of the Quality System (QS) regulation to 
harmonize and modernize the device CGMP. FDA is correcting an editorial 
error that inadvertently omitted a definition in the codified of the 
final rule. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to 
ensure the accuracy and clarity of the Agency's regulations.

DATES: Effective February 2, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Sternberg, Center for Devices 
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5517, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-0425.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 2, 2024 
(89 FR 7496), FDA published a final rule that amended the device CGMPs 
requirements in 21 CFR part 820. The preamble indicated that the 
definition for ``batch'' or ``lot'' was set forth at Sec.  820.3 (21 
CFR 820.3) but the definition for ``batch'' or ``lot'' was 
inadvertently omitted from the codified portion of Sec.  820.3 in the 
final rule. FDA is, therefore, correcting the codified for Sec.  820.3 
to include the definition of ``batch'' or ``lot'' as was intended and 
to be consistent with the preamble of the final rule.
    In FR Doc. 2024-01709 appearing on page 7524 in the Federal 
Register of Friday, February 2, 2024 (89 FR 7496), the following 
correction is made:


Sec.  820.3  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 7524, in amendment number 4, in the first column, in 
paragraph (a) of Sec.  820.3, the definition for ``Batch or lot'' is 
added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    ``Batch or lot means one or more components or finished devices 
that consist of a single type, model, class, size, composition, or 
software version that are manufactured under essentially the same 
conditions and that are intended to have uniform characteristics and 
quality within specified limits.''

    Dated: October 7, 2024.
Kimberlee Trzeciak,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Legislation, and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2024-23701 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
the Company as of and for the period covered by this Report.
 Date: November 12, 2008
    /s/ Theodore S. GreenName:
    Theodore S. GreenTitle:
    Co-Chief Executive Officer and
Interim Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 12, 2008
    /s/ Malcolm BirdName:
    Malcolm BirdTitle:
    Co-Chief Executive Officer
SATICOY BAY LLC SERIES 3884

SQUIRREL, Appellant, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA., Re SD ondent. No. 65450 

# FILED JAN 2.2 2016

TRAC E K. 

# 4 DEMAN 

# • 0

1 4; A° IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA



### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from a district court order denying a preliminary injunction in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Stefany Miley, Judge.

On August 7, 2013, appellant Saticoy Bay filed a complaint in the district court seeking to quiet title to the subject property and seeking an injunction. Respondent Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted on November 7, 2013. Then, on March 18, 2014, over four months after the district court dismissed Saticoy Bay's action, Saticoy Bay purported to file a motion for a preliminary injunction as to the same case the district court had dismissed.' The district court denied Saticoy Bay's motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that there was no likelihood of success on the merits. Saticoy Bay appealed.

'We note that the record contains no indication of any attempt to reconsider or to set aside the dismissal before the motion for a preliminary injunction was filed.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A oeOur review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. We

note that no timely appeal was taken from the motion to dismiss, see NRAP 4(a)(1) (providing thirty days to appeal), which was a final judgment disposing of the case on its merits, see Emerson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, ex rel. County of Clark, 127 Nev. 672, 677, 263 P.3d 224, 227 (2011) ("We have previously held that jurisdiction over matters related to the merits of a case terminates upon dismissal."). Additionally, no intervening action was taken to reopen this case. See, e.g. NRCP 60(b) (providing relief from judgment). Thus, the district court had no jurisdiction to consider the motion for a preliminary injunction, which was, at best, a fugitive document as to a closed case. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction over the case. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4 (limiting the Nevada Supreme Court's jurisdiction t6 appeals in civil cases arising in the district courts and granting the power to issue writs).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cer>H H



### J. Accordingly, we are precluded from considering this appeal, and we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Parraguirre


### /c4Je J. Hardesty



### "Rao \ J.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Tucson Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
Civil Service Federal Employees Federal Employees Federal Employees Retirement Group Life Health Benefits Retirement System Insurance Program System 

United States         Office of  Personnel Management The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency    Retirement and Insurance Service 

Payroll Office Letter                                                     Number: P-00-24 Date:  October 13 ,2000                         SUBJECT:  JOINT BENEFIT OFFICER/PAYROLL OFFICE MEETING  The purpose of this letter is to inform you that there will be a meeting of benefit officers and payroll officials about the implementation of the Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Correction Act (FERRCA), the FEHB Open Season and the remaining issues regarding the implementation of Health Benefits Premium Conversion.   We believe it would be very beneficial for you to attend.  Please call us on  (202) 606-0606 if you have any questions or via email us at finance@opm.gov.        Date:  November 8, 2000    Time:  9:30am – 11:30 am    Where: Office of Personnel Management     Campbell Auditorium     1900 E Street, NW     Washington, DC  20415   

             Robert A. Yuran, Chief       Financial Policy Staff       Retirement and Insurance Service    

mailto:finance@pm.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1090

BELINDA A. HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Gre enville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2815-6-OAK) Submitted: May 7, 1996 Decided: June 13, 1996 Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Belinda A. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. John Berkley Grimball, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Belinda A. Hudson filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income in May and June 1992, respectively, alleging that she had become disabled on August 15, 1990. She last worked as a nurses' assistant. Hudson contended that she suffers from a knee injury she sustained in 1986, while working as a mental retardation specialist. Hudson complained of swelling and pain in her knee which made her unable to sit and stand for long periods of time and thus causing her not to be able to work. After both applications were denied, a hearing was held by an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), who rejected her claims. The ALJ found Hudson's statements regarding the severity of her impairment to be incredible. While the ALJ found that Hudson is unable to perform her past relevant work as a mental retardation specialist and nurses' assistant, he concluded that she had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. After the Appeals Council denied her request for review, Hudson filed this action. Amagistrate judge reviewed the record and concluded that the Secretary's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and that Hudson's subjective complaints of pain were not enough to constitute a disability per se. The district court adopted this recommendation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hudson v. Chater , No. CA-94-2815-6-OAK (D.S.C.,3 Dec. 11, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7772

PAUL GRAHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.

(1:06-cv-01297-JFM)

Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 23, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Graham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Paul Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was

not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

July 18, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on October 16, 2006.

Because Graham failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss

the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23648]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council; Renewal of Charter

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Charter for the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council 
(IRSAC), has been renewed for two years beginning September 30, 2024, 
in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Millikan at (202) 317-6564 or 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acdcd9cec0c5cfc0c5cdc5dfc3c2ecc5dedf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cababfa8a6a3a9a6a3aba3b9a5a48aa3b8b9e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the charter for 
the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) has been renewed 
for two years beginning September 30, 2024, in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014.
    The purpose of the IRSAC is to provide an organized public forum 
for discussion of relevant tax administration issues between Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) officials and representatives of the public.
    The IRSAC proposes enhancements to IRS operations; recommends 
administrative and policy changes to improve taxpayer experience and 
service, compliance and tax administration; discusses relevant 
information reporting issues; addresses matters concerning tax-exempt 
and government entities; conveys the public's perception of 
professional standards and best practices for tax professionals; and 
advises on fairness in tax administration.
    Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities to Internal 
Revenue Service officials, the IRSAC is comprised of individuals 
representing a cross-section of the taxpaying public with substantial, 
disparate experience in tax preparation for individuals, small 
businesses and/or large, multi-national corporations; information 
reporting; tax-exempt and government entities; digital services; and 
professional standards of tax professionals.

    Dated: October 8, 2024.
John A. Lipold,
Designated Federal Official, C&L Office of National Public Liaison, 
Internal Revenue Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-23648 Filed 10-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# L_2012078DE.01003901.xml

| 17.3.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 78/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2012

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 78/39

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 859/2011 der Kommission vom 25. August 2011 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 185/2010 zur Festlegung von detaillierten Maßnahmen für die Durchführung der gemeinsamen Grundstandards für die Luftsicherheit bezüglich Fracht und Postsendungen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 220 vom 26. August 2011
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 220 vom 26. August 2011

Auf Seite 12, Anhang, Nummer 6.8.1.2:

anstatt:

„Anforderungen, die bis zum 1. Juli 2014 zu erfüllen sind:

| a) | Zusätzlich zu den Anforderungen gemäß Nummer 6.8.1.1 b gewährleistet das Luftfahrtunternehmen spätestens bis zum 1. Juli 2014, dass seine Fracht- und Postabfertigungseinrichtungen an dem betreffenden Drittstaaten-Flughafen einer Kontrolle vor Ort durch einen unabhängigen Validierungsprüfer unterzogen werden.“ |
| --- | --- |

a)

Zusätzlich zu den Anforderungen gemäß Nummer 6.8.1.1 b gewährleistet das Luftfahrtunternehmen spätestens bis zum 1. Juli 2014, dass seine Fracht- und Postabfertigungseinrichtungen an dem betreffenden Drittstaaten-Flughafen einer Kontrolle vor Ort durch einen unabhängigen Validierungsprüfer unterzogen werden.“

muss es heißen:

„Anforderungen, die ab 1. Juli 2014 zu erfüllen sind:

| a) | Zusätzlich zu den Anforderungen gemäß Nummer 6.8.1.1 b gewährleistet das Luftfahrtunternehmen spätestens ab 1. Juli 2014, dass seine Fracht- und Postabfertigungseinrichtungen an dem betreffenden Drittstaaten-Flughafen einer Kontrolle vor Ort durch einen unabhängigen Validierungsprüfer unterzogen werden.“ |
| --- | --- |

a)

Zusätzlich zu den Anforderungen gemäß Nummer 6.8.1.1 b gewährleistet das Luftfahrtunternehmen spätestens ab 1. Juli 2014, dass seine Fracht- und Postabfertigungseinrichtungen an dem betreffenden Drittstaaten-Flughafen einer Kontrolle vor Ort durch einen unabhängigen Validierungsprüfer unterzogen werden.“

---
#### D. R. HENDERSON v. STATE.

No. 20297.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

M. E. Cain, of Liberty, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is forgery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Upon .the written request of appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.

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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOSEPH M. MASSI, SR.,

Petitioner

v.

CITY OF CHESTER AGGREGATED 

PENSION BOARD AND CITY OF 

CHESTER,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 528 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:

(1) May a municipal employer infringe upon the vested right of a city employee 

by imposing restrictions not specifically contained in its disability ordinance 

or its agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement?

(2) May a police officer rely upon the terms of a collective bargaining agreement 

which sets forth no deadlines for claiming a disability pension in making 

such application after his technical date of retirement?

(3) Absent language to the contrary, does a police officer vest in entitlement to

a disability pension on the date of his injury, and, absent language to the 

contrary, should the time of confirmation of the disability, and not the date 

of application, be determinative of a disability pension eligibility?

(4) Does a police officer who has retired forfeit the ability to seek the protection 

of his collective bargaining agreement, and cease to be considered as a 

police officer once his retirement has taken effect?

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

38 MAP 2019
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23699]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900-0717]


Agency Information Collection Activity: Child Care Provider 
Information--For the Child Care Subsidy Program (VA Form 0730b); 
Withdrawal

AGENCY:  Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and 
Preparedness, Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On Friday, September 13, 2024, The Human Resources and 
Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness (HRA/OSP), VA, 
published a notice in the Federal Register announcing an opportunity 
for public comment on the proposed collection Child Care Provider 
Information--For the Child Care Subsidy Program (VA Form 0730B). This 
notice was published in error; therefore, this document corrects that 
error by withdrawing this FR notice, document number 2024-20802.

DATES: As of October 9, 2024, the FR notice published at 89, FR 75059 
on Friday, September 13, 2024, is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise 
and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20006, (202) 461-8900 or email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2944485b404b4c4507485946475d4c695f48074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="701d11021912151c5e11001f1e04153006115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR Doc. 2024-20802, published on Friday, 
September 13, 2024 (89 FR 75059), is withdrawn by this notice.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Maribel Aponte,
VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Enterprise and Integration/Data 
Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2024-23699 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 
 Media
& Analysts:
 Date:
 Spectra Energy Partners, LPs General Partner Appoints New Board Member
      1




---



##### 



www.spectraenergypartners.com


2