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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)—RFA-CE-22-001, Grants to Support New Investigators in Conducting Research Related to Understanding Polydrug Use Risk and Protective Factors; March 15-16, 2022, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., EDT. The web conference was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 5, 2022, Volume 87, Number 3, page 460.                

This meeting is being canceled in its entirety.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, Telephone: (404) 639-6473, Email:                         *AWilkes@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2022-01949 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CARNIE NORRIS, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PHILLIP  No. 01-6647 MCCLOUD, Warden of Perry

Correctional Institution; CHARLES M.

CONDON, Attorney General of the

State of South Carolina,

Respondents-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-00-2333-2-18)

Submitted: August 28, 2001

Decided: September 11, 2001

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Carnie Norris, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, 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). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Carnie Norris, a South Carolina state inmate, appeals the district

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and awarding summary judgment to the Appellees on his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. 

The district court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every

portion of the magistrate judge’s report to which objections have been

filed. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000); United

States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). However, the district

court need not conduct de novo review when a party makes general

and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific

error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 4748 (4th Cir. 1982). 

Although Norris requested an enlargement of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report, a request granted by the district

court, he filed objections within the time permitted by a notice that

accompanied the magistrate judge’s report. Nevertheless, the district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report focuses primarily

on the consequences of a party’s failure to timely file objections. The

order does not state whether the court was aware that Norris filed

timely objections or that the court had conducted a de novo review

of any matter to which Norris specifically objected. On the present

record, then, it is unclear whether Norris’ objections were considered.

Therefore, without expressing any view as to the merits, we grant a

certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s order, and

remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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. 

VACATED AND REMANDED

2 NORRIS v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGHEI VERLAN (2)

IEVGEN KARIAKA (6)

AKHLIDDIN KALONOV (7),

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cr-109

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

ORDER

This cause came before the Court for a Telephone Status Conference on May

19, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. before Judge Douglas R. Cole. The Government advised the 

Court that it is engaged in plea negotiations with Defendants Kariak and Kalonov

and that it has provided discovery to counsel for Defendant Verlan. Counsel for 

Defendant Kariaka requested a 30-day continuance to engage in further plea 

negotiations. Counsel for the other defendants joined in the motion. Telephone Status 

Conference set for June 18, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. There were no objections to the speedy 

trial clock being tolled through the next status conference.

Therefore, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the 

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendants in a speedy 

trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(i), as failure to grant the continuance 

would prevent Defendants Kariaka and Kalonov from exploring a possible resolution 

of the matter and would prevent Defendant Verlan from reviewing the discovery and 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 200 Filed: 05/19/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1129
2 

determining how to proceed, and thus would likely lead to a miscarriage of justice. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the continuance and also finds the period 

of time elapsing from May 19, 2021, until June 18, 2021, is properly, and shall be, 

excluded from the speedy trial calculation. 

SO ORDERED.

May 19, 2021

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 200 Filed: 05/19/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1130
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50035

Summary Calendar

ISIDRO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

FRANK TURRIGLIO, Corporal; R. SAENZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-107)

February 23, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isidro Martinez Ramirez, a Texas state prisoner, filed suit

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two detention officers whom he

alleges subjected him to excessive force in violation of his

constitutional rights. The jury concluded that the defendants had
2 The jury answered in the affirmative to a special

interrogatory that asked: “Do you find that all of the plaintiff’s

claims in this case are frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or

that the plaintiff continued to litigate after they clearly became

so?”

3 FDIC v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1318-19 (5th Cir. 1994).

2

not used excessive force, and that Ramirez’s suit was frivolous.2

On appeal, Ramirez raises the following assignments of error:

(1) the magistrate judge admitted prejudicial evidence, (2) defense

counsel engaged in improper cross-examination, and (3) the verdict

resulted from defense counsel’s improper closing argument. 

We have considered these points carefully. We find that the

district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise.

Furthermore, Ramirez has failed to make the requisite showing that

his substantial rights were affected.3 

AFFIRMED.
Amendment to Executive Deferred Compensation Plan - Suspension of Pending Merger



 Exhibit 10.30 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 THE GAP, INC. EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, The Gap,
Inc. (the “Company”) maintains The Gap, Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and restated effective January 1, 1999; and 
 WHEREAS, the Plan previously has been amended; and 
 WHEREAS, further amendment of the Plan now is considered desirable to suspend the pending merger of the Plan into the Gap Inc. Supplemental Deferred Compensation Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company under Section 9.2 of the Plan, and in exercise of the authority
delegated to the undersigned officer by resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Company dated November 19, 2008, the Plan is hereby amended, effective on the date of the execution of this amendment, by rescinding Appendix A to the Plan
such that no Appendix A shall be added to the Plan pursuant to the previous amendment. 
 *        *        * 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned officer has executed this amendment on behalf of the Company, this 19th day of December, 2008. 
  

			
	THE GAP, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ William Tompkins
		 	Senior Vice President, Total Rewards
From: Hofmeister, Art

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 9:57 AM

To: Nowakowski, Matt

Subject: TECO Polk Station GHG Application

Attachments: TECO_2 thur 5 CC Conversion_GHG PSD Application_October 2012.pdf

Here you go, Matt.

Thanks.

Art Hofmeister

Environment Engineer

Air Permits Section

EPA Region 4

(404) 562-9115
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1005 

To require records of the national instant criminal background check system 

to be retained for at least 90 days. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2021 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself and Mr. CARSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require records of the national instant criminal background check system to be retained for at least 90 days. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NICS Review Act of 

5 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT NICS RECORDS BE RETAINED 

7 FOR AT LEAST 90 DAYS. 

8 Section 511 of division B of the Consolidated and 

9 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (34 U.S.C. 

10 40901 note; Public Law 112–55; 125 Stat. 632) is amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:09 Mar 10, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1005.IH H1005

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1005 IH

1 ed by striking ‘‘no more than 24 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘no 

2 fewer than 90 days’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Gail SMITH, Appellant, v. EL GALEON BY THE SEA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1283

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Donald PERRY, DOC# 050031, Appellant, v. Officer LIND, Sergeant Fay, Officer Albritton, Officer Moseley, and Lt. Prieto, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1218

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Americas Car-Mart, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
William H. Henderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jeffrey A.
Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify in our capacities as
officers of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
our knowledge:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| |     |                                                                                                                                                         
| | (2) | The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|    |                            | 
|--- | -------------------------- | 
|By: | \s\
  William H. Henderson | 
|    |                            | 
|    | William H.
  Henderson     | 
|    | Chief
  Executive Officer  | 
|    | July 3, 2008               | 

|    |                                         | 
|--- | --------------------------------------- | 
|By: | \s\
  Jeffrey A. Williams               | 
|    |                                         | 
|    | Jeffrey A.
  Williams                   | 
|    | Chief
  Financial Officer and Secretary | 
|    | July 3, 2008                            | 

74

---
Yanet D. FALCO-RODRIGUEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and Animal Care and Surgical Hospital Inc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0524

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this administrative appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated August 17, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LUCK, JJ., concur.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05300**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05300\05300_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05300\05300_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05300\05300_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05300\05300_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05300\05300_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05300\05300_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05300\05300_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 05300\Supporting Documents\05300_GRE10629262-Aerial (2).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05300\Supporting Documents\05300_Water Balance Diagram Henderson Station.bmp.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05300\05300_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05300\05300_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1186 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to reduce the threat 

of counterfeit drugs to the pharmaceutical supply chain, and to make 

the pharmaceutical supply chain more robust, while ensuring the authenticity, content, purity, and manufacturing location and batch number 

of drugs (including COVID–19 therapeutics and vaccines) and allowing 

patient verification of authenticity, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Mr. VAN DREW (for himself and Mr. BAIRD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

reduce the threat of counterfeit drugs to the pharmaceutical supply chain, and to make the pharmaceutical 

supply chain more robust, while ensuring the authenticity, content, purity, and manufacturing location and 

batch number of drugs (including COVID–19 therapeutics and vaccines) and allowing patient verification 

of authenticity, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1186 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supply Chain Security 

3 and Pharmaceutical Authentication Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PACKAGES SUBJECT TO PHARMACEUTICAL DIS5 TRIBUTION SUPPLY CHAIN REQUIREMENTS. 

6 Subparagraph (B) of section 581(11) of the Federal 

7 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee(11)) is 

8 amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(B) INDIVIDUAL SALEABLE UNIT.—For 

10 purposes of this paragraph, an ‘individual sale11 able unit’ is the smallest solid oral dosage form 

12 of product, or other individual solid oral dosage 

13 form of product, introduced into commerce by 

14 the manufacturer or repackager.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Charles E. CANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-0840

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7101
TOMMY R. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; POLICE CHIEF; THOMAS M. MARTIN, Detective; RICHARD WITTE, Detective; KELLY SMITH, Officer; RICHARD RUTLEDGE, Officer; M. T. HARDING, Officer;MICHAEL MARTIN, Officer; VICTORIA PLANK, Officer; WILLIAM SEIFERT, Officer; NATHAN RETTIG, Officer; MICHAEL PRICE, Officer; UNIDENTIFIED MD STATE TROOPER; V. WILLIAM, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and NORMAN SNYDER, Dete ctive; K-9, Dino; SUSAN REIDER, Officer; KEITH FISHER, Officer, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-393-HAR) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.23 Tommy R. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara McFaul Cook, County Solicitor, Rebecca Ann Laws, COUNTY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's denial of his motion for court-appointed counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.§ 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
E.J.L., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 16, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 15

    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2021

Mr. Meeks (for himself, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Lieu, Mr. Khanna, 
Ms. Lee of California, and Mr. McGovern) submitted the following joint 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following proposed 
foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prohibited:
            (1) The transfer of the following defense articles, 
        including defense services and technical data, described in 
        Transmittal No. 20-13, submitted to Congress pursuant to 
        section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
        2776(b)): The proposed sale of 3,000 GBU-39/B Small Diameter 
        Bomb I (SDB I), including containers; weapon support and 
        support equipment; spare and repair parts; U.S. Government and 
        contractor engineering, technical and logisitical support 
        services; and other related elements of logistical and program 
        support.
                                 <all>
```
San Diego County Board of Supervisors

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335

San Diego, California 92101

Dear Mr. Cox:

Thank you for your letter dated December 1, 2011 regarding the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the Pio Pico Energy Center (PPEC). This facility is proposed to be a 300 MW power plant consisting ofthree natural gas-fired combustion turbine generators, to he located in an unincorporated area of San Diego County known as Otay Mesa.

We received a PSD application on September 21, 2011 and we are currently reviewing it. The facility would be a new major stationary source under the PSD program. My staff is working diligently to review the technical material submitted by the applicant. Please be assured that we will process the application as quickly as possible. We are working closely with the applicant and its consultants, and met with them on December 9, 2011 to discuss the project and the next steps in the permitting process. Once we have all the information we need to i5rocess the application, we will develop a draft permit decision and technical support document and make them available for public review and comment.

We trust that this information will be helpful in responding to your concerns. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Roger Kohn ofmy staff at 415-972-3973 or kohn.rogerepa.gov

Sincerely,

77

// /

Gerardo C. Rios

Chief, Permits Office

Air Division

Printed on Recycled Paper