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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Utility Broadband Alliance, Inc. (“UBBA”) 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, Redline Communications, Markham, Canada; Intel, Santa Clara, CA; Itron, Liberty Lake, WA; and Verizon, Basking Ridge, NJ, 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 UBBA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 4, 2021, UBBA 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 June 10, 2021 (86 FR 30981).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 20, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67083).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05178 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### SOLLENNE FAMILY TRUST; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CMG MORTGAGE, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56296

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Sollenne Family Trust, Pro Se

Patricia D. Sollenne, Pro Se

Peter R. Sollenne, Pro Se

Robert R. Yap, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Melissa L. Cizmor-ris, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their action alleging various claims arising from a foreclosure sale. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Gager v. United States,*149 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that there is a federal claim or that there is complete diversity between the parties. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 2201; *Cal. Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp. Ins. Fund,*636 F.3d 538, 543 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural only and does not confer arising under jurisdiction.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig.,*549 *858F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties — each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.”); see *also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,*511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving jurisdiction).

Plaintiffs’ opposed emergency motion to stay foreclosure proceedings (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Neil R. PUTERBAUGH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-14904 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 22, 2017)

*802Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M, Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Rinku Talwar Tribuiani, U.S. Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Rosenbaum, appointed counsel for Neil Puterbaugh, Jr. in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Puter-baugh’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
NO. 07-03-0146-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 11, 2003

______________________________

MICHAEL R. PALOMIN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;

NO. 89-10-3257; HON. ANDY KUPPER, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

 Appellant Michael R. Palomin attempts to appeal pro se from the denial of his

request for forensic DNA testing. The order denying his request was signed on September

5, 2002. The document, which we interpret as his notice of appeal, was filed with this court

on March 24, 2003. Furthermore, we interpret it as a notice of appeal since it is entitled

“Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Appeal” and evinces appellant’s desire to appeal the

trial court’s ruling. See Palma v. State, 76 S.W.3d 638, 641 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi

2002, pet. ref’d) (stating that a letter from Palma to the court clerk asking if he had an

appellate attorney and an appeal bond sufficiently evinced a desire to appeal and,
1

Because we have determined that we do not have jurisdiction over appellant’s appeal, his “Motion

for the Appointm ent of Attorney” is m oot.

2

therefore, constituted a notice of appeal). For the reasons set out, we must dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Olivo

v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1996). To be timely, a notice of appeal

(in a criminal matter) must be filed within 30 days after the date sentence is imposed or

suspended in open court or within 90 days after the date sentence is imposed or

suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.2(a)(1) & (2). In a civil matter, the notice must be filed within 30 days of the date the

trial court signed the final order or judgment or within 90 days if a timely motion for new trial

is filed. Id. at 26.1(a). And, while an appellate court may extend the time to file a notice

of appeal, the notice and request for an extension must be filed within 15 days of the

original deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26. 3. 

Irrespective of whether or not appellant timely moved for a new trial after his request

for DNA testing was denied, the document we deem to be his notice of appeal was

untimely. That is, it was filed long after 90 days lapsed from the date the order was signed.

Similarly, his request to extend the appellate deadline is also untimely by approximately

three months. Thus, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. And, because we cannot

create jurisdiction where none exists, Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1998), we must dismiss the appeal. Id. at 210.1

Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 696 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 696

   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Eastvale, California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2023

Mr. Calvert (for himself and Mrs. Torres of California) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Eastvale, California.

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

SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR EASTVALE, CALIFORNIA.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
section, the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, 
unique ZIP Code applicable to the area encompassing solely Eastvale, 
California.
                                 <all>
```
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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA L Conflict SEP.                    

*Date:*                         March 29, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sheila Pirooznia, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Review, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9350,                         *sheila.pirooznia@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 7, 2022. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-05137 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2





SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATION OF BRYAN F. BULAWA, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


OF DEP HOLDINGS, LLC, THE GENERAL PARTNER OF


DUNCAN ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.





In connection with this annual report of Duncan Energy Partners L.P. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan F. Bulawa, Chief Financial Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC, the General Partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.








/s/ Bryan F. BulawaName:
Bryan F. BulawaTitle:
Chief Financial Officer of DEP Holdings, LLC,the General Partner of Duncan Energy Partners L.P.





Date:      March 1, 2011
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-68-2021]

On October 22, 2021, BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 38A, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 60201, November 1, 2022). On February 22, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: February 22, 2022.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-04116 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Kenneth Aaron SHINEDLING, Guardian Ad Litem for A.L.S, A.C.S and A.A.S.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-56891

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed June 30, 2017

Arash Homampour, Esquire,. Attorney, The Homampour Law Firm, Sherman Oaks, CA, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, Esquire, Attorney, The Ehrlich Law Firm, Encino, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees

Peder Kristian Batalden, Esquire, Attorney, Mitchell C. Tilner, Horvitz *&*Levy LLP, Burbank, CA, Annemarie Ellis, Senior Counsel, Gary A, Wolensky, Esquire, *903Trial Attorney, Buchalter, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States Senior District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Sunbeam Products, Inc.’s warnings were inadequate to alert plaintiffs of the fire risks associated with the space heater, particularly the danger of using the heater while sleeping. *See Jackson v. Deft, Inc.,*223 Cal.App.3d 1305, 273 Cal.Rptr. 214, 223 (1990) (“In most cases ... the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact for the jury.”); *see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles,*533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008).

2. Regarding bystander damages, there is substantial evidence that the girls were “present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred] and [were] then aware that it [was] causing injury to the victim.” *Thing v. La Chusa,*48 Cal.3d 644, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814, 815 (1989). The jury was able to find that the girls could have had “very little doubt” that their mother was “in the house that [they] saw engulfed in flames.” *In re Air Crash Disaster Near Cerritos, California, On Aug. 31, 1986 (Estrada),*967 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1992). As in *Estrada,*“[t]he injury-producing event was the fire,” and the girls were not required to be aware of its cause. *Id.; see also Fortman v. Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan AB,*212 Cal.App.4th 830, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 329 n.4 (2013).

3.Finally, substantial evidence supports the amount of emotional distress damages awarded to the girls, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sunbeam’s motion for a new trial based on excessive damages. *See Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc.,*518 U.S. 415, 435-36, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996); *Toscano v. Greene Music,*124 Cal.App.4th 685, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 732, 736 (2004) (Under California law, “[t]he amount of damages ... is a fact question committed to the discretion of the trial judge on a motion for new trial; an award of damages will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Oscar Saul VELAZQUEZ-PRADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72157

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 7, 2017

Monica Ganjoo, Esquire, Attorney, Gan-joo Law Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Lauren Fascett, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Oscar Saul Velazquez-Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in finding that Velazquez-Prado failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. *See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Velazquez-Prado’s CAT claim because he did not establish it is *899more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its .consent or acquiescence. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# L_2009126EN.01002301.xml

| 21.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 126/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 126/23

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom of 25 June and 23 September 2002 amending the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 283 of 21 October 2002
  )

On page 3, Article 1(10)(b):

for:

for:

| ‘(b) | in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, the words “determine another period which shall not be more than one month before” shall be replaced by “determine, at least one month before the end of the five-year term referred to in Article 3, another electoral period which shall not be more than two months before”’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, the words “determine another period which shall not be more than one month before” shall be replaced by “determine, at least one month before the end of the five-year term referred to in Article 3, another electoral period which shall not be more than two months before”’,

read:

read:

| ‘(b) | in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, the words “determine another period which shall not be more than one month before” shall be replaced by “determine, at least one year before the end of the five-year term referred to in Article 3, another electoral period which shall not be more than two months before”’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, the words “determine another period which shall not be more than one month before” shall be replaced by “determine, at least one year before the end of the five-year term referred to in Article 3, another electoral period which shall not be more than two months before”’.

---