alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-978]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
                        **Supplemental Information**
                         listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 13, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 13, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: The DEA requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov*
                         and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov.*
                         If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.”


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on January 6, 2022, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 70 Lake Drive, East Windsor, New Jersey 08520, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
SchedulePsilocybin
7437
IPsilocyn
7438
ILevorphanol
9220
II
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for the internal use or for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Matthew J. Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-05323 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-146628 and 333-151287) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement (No. 333-167392) on Form S-3 of  American DG Energy Inc of our report dated March 31, 2011, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American DG Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLPMcGladrey & Pullen, LLPBoston, MassachusettsMarch 31, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             819
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                       349
<INVENTORY>                                      3,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,355
<PP&E>                                           3,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,313
<BONDS>                                          4,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,918
<SALES>                                          6,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,111
<CGS>                                            4,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,315
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,050)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,050)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,050)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.74)
        

</TABLE>
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 802

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL AFFAIRE.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, and

6 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of

7 Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel ROYAL

9 AFFAIRE, United States official number 649292.

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 802

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

AFFAIRE.wise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYALissue a certificate of documentation and coast-
#### Sean THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Police Officer Michael MCAULLIFE, Shield 1676, Police Officer Thomas DeKoker, Shield 15364, Sergeant Stephen Kelly, Shield 2057, Defendants-Appellants.1

16-1014-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 1, 2017

Appearing for Appellants: Qian Julie Wang, of Counsel (Richard P. Dearing, *672Susan P. Greenberg, of Counsel, op the brief), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.

Appearing for Appellee: Annette G. Ha-sapidis, Ridgefield, CT.

Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

1

. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above,

SUMMARY ORDER

Michael McAuliffe, Thomas DeKoker and Stephen Kelly (together, “Appellants”) appeal from (1) the June 4, 2013 opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, *J.)*denying their motion to dismiss the complaint as a sanction for misconduct by the plaintiff, Sean Thomas; and (2) the January 26, 2016 opinion and order of the district court granting Thomas attorneys’ fees and costs for the second trial, held after the district court vacated the first verdict entered in Thomas’s favor as a sanction for Thomas’s misconduct. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

“It is well settled that district courts enjoy wide discretion in sanctioning litigants appearing before them.” *Novak v. Wolpoff & Abramson LLP,*536 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008). “We review all aspects of a [district [cjourt’s decision to impose sanctions for abuse of discretion.” *Schlaifer Nance & Co., Inc. v. Estate of Warhol,*194 F.3d 323, 333 (2d Cir. 1999). Tlje reviewing court must ensure that the district court’s sanctions are not based on “an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” *Id.*An assessment of the evidence is clearly erroneous where the reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” *Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc.,*252 F.3d 163, 168 (2d Cir. 2001). The imposition of sanctions would also be improper where the decision “cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” *Id.*at 169.

Appellants here argue that the district court abused its discretion by not imposing harsher sanctions on Thomas, either by dismissing Thomas’s complaint or by requiring Thomas to pay their attorneys’ fees and costs from the first trial. We disagree. The district court acted well within its discretion in rejecting the sanctions sought by Appellants, instead imposing the remedy of a new trial (at which Thomas prevailed) and denying Thomas attorneys’ fees for the first trial. Harsher sanctions were available to the district court, but it did not exceed its discretion in choosing the sanctions it imposed.

We have considered the remainder of Appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly* the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.
#### Sandra JIMENEZ-ESQUER, AKA Monica Jimenez-Esquer, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70097

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Regina Byrd, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, 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

*895Before: 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 **

Sandra Jimenez-Esquer, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for-review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Jimenez-Esquer’s CAT claim because Jimenez-Esquer failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. *See id.*at 1073; *Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture were speculative). We reject her contentions that the agency erred in analyzing her claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[LETTERHEAD OF WILSHIRE]


                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                           WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION

RE: RAMP SERIES 2006-SP2 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

RE: RAMP SERIES 2006-SP4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

        The   undersigned,   a  duly  authorized   officer  of  Wilshire  Credit
Corporation as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing
agreement, does hereby certify that:

    1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the period covered by the
    Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under
    the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

    2. To the best of my  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
    fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in
    all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th
day of March 2007.

WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION


By:     /s/ Ken Frye
        Name: Ken Frye
        Title: Senior Vice President Loan Servicing
# L_2007155DE.01008001.xml

| 15.6.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 155/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 155/80

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2002/31/EG der Kommission vom 22. März 2002 zur Durchführung der Richtlinie 92/75/EWG des Rates betreffend die Energieetikettierung für Raumklimageräte

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 86 vom 3. April 2002
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 86 vom 3. April 2002

Seite 37, Anhang IV, Tabelle 3.2:

Die Tabelle 3.2 erhält folgende Fassung:

| „Energieeffizienzklasse | Kompaktgeräte (1) |
| --- | --- |
| A | 3,40 < Leistungskoeffizient |
| B | 3,40 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 3,20 |
| C | 3,20 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 3,00 |
| D | 3,00 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 2,60 |
| E | 2,60 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 2,40 |
| F | 2,40 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 2,20 |
| G | 2,20 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient |

„Energieeffizienzklasse

Kompaktgeräte (1)

A

3,40 < Leistungskoeffizient

B

3,40 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 3,20

C

3,20 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 3,00

D

3,00 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 2,60

E

2,60 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 2,40

F

2,40 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient > 2,20

G

2,20 ≥ Leistungskoeffizient

---

(1)  Kompaktgeräte mit „Zweileitungssystem“ (d. h.: „Klimageräte, die vollständig im klimatisierten Raum aufgestellt sind, wobei die Luftzufuhr und der Luftauslass des Kondensators durch zwei Leitungen mit der Außenseite verbunden sind“) werden nach Tabelle 3.2 mit einem Korrekturfaktor von – 0,4 eingestuft.“

1

---
## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ON THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FOR TEST PROCEDURES FORRESIDENTIAL FURNACES AND BOILERS
U.S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Room 8E-089 Tuesday, August 18,2009 

## Purpose The U.S. DepartmentofEnergy (DOE) will present its methodology used in developing its Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR) addressing the ElSA 2007 requirements for including standby and offmode power consumption measurements in its test procedure lor residential furnaces and boilers. DOE will also seek input from interested pm1ies on its methodologies, assumptions, data sources. proposed test procedures. 

## Agenda 9:00
- 9:05 am 

### 9:05
- 9: 15 am 9:15
- 9:30·am

9:30
- 10:00 am

10:00 -10:45 am Welcome 

# u.s. Department o.fEnergy Opening Remarks, Introduction and Agenda Review Doug Brookman Rulemaking Overview MohammedKhan This is an overview ofthe purposes ofthe public meeting and the statutory authority and requirements DOE has [or addressing the EISA 2007 requirements. BriefOpening Remarks from Interested Parties (as applicable) DougBrookman Interested parties are invited to make briefsummary comments regarding the NOPR content proposed testprocedures. Rulemaking Steps, Rulemaking History, and Discussion of Proposed Amendments MohammedKhan Summary presentation ofrulemaking steps, history, and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the determination ofscope and test procedure revisions.

### 10:45
- 11:00 am 11:00 -12:00 am

12:00 - 1:00 pm

1:00
- 3:45 pm 3:45
- 4:00 pm Break Discussion ofProposed Amendments John Talboll 

### Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the market assessmentand engineering analysis. Lunch (on yourown) Final Comments from Interested Parties

ext Steps and Closing MohammedKhan 

### Adjournmentofthe public meeting.



## }
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6189 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6189

    To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land from mineral 
                              development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2016

Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land from mineral 
                              development.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Buffalo Tract Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL.

    (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, the Bureau of 
Land Management land described in subsection (b) is withdrawn from all 
forms of mineral development under all laws pertaining to mineral 
leasing or mineral materials, including locatable minerals.
    (b) BLM Land Described.--The Bureau of Land Management land 
referred to in subsection (a) is the land identified as ``Tract A'', 
``Tract B'', ``Tract C'', and ``Tract D'' on the map entitled 
``Placitas, New Mexico Area Map'' and dated March 11, 2016.
    (c) Disposal of Surface Estate.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), nothing in this 
        section prohibits the disposal of the surface estate of the 
        Bureau of Land Management land described in subsection (b) 
        under--
                    (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
                1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); or
                    (B) the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the 
                ``Recreation and Public Purposes Act'') (43 U.S.C. 869 
                et seq.).
            (2) Ownership of mineral estate.--Any disposal of the 
        surface estate of the Bureau of Land Management land described 
        in subsection (b) shall be subject to the condition that the 
        mineral estate of that land shall remain under the ownership of 
        the Bureau of Land Management, subject to the withdrawal 
        described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: H.J.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.P., FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 171 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7027 

To amend title 1, United States Code, to clarify that certain tax exemptions 

are not treated as Federal financial assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2024 

Mr. STEUBE (for himself, Mr. OGLES, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. 

CLINE, Mr. NEHLS, and Mr. WEBER of Texas) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 1, United States Code, to clarify that certain 

tax exemptions are not treated as Federal financial assistance. 

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 ‘‘Safeguarding Charity 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7027 IH

1 SEC. 2. FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE NOT TO INCLUDE 

2 CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 9. FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. 

7 ‘‘In the case of any organization described in sub8 section (c) or (d) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue 

9 Code of 1986 or any organization described in section 

10 401(a) of such Code, for purposes of any Federal law, 

11 rule, or regulation, unless explicitly provided otherwise, 

12 the term ‘Federal financial assistance,’ or any other term 

13 referring to assistance provided by the Federal Govern14 ment, shall not include any exemption from Federal in15 come tax.’’. 

16 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

17 for chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended 

18 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘9. Federal financial assistance.’’. 

19 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec20 tion or the amendments made by this section shall be con21 strued to imply that an exemption from Federal income 

22 taxes under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 

23 of 1986 constituted assistance from the Federal GovernVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:10 Jan 31, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7027.IH H7027

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7027 IH

1 ment for periods before the date of the enactment of this 

2 Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
14310

#### CITY OF SPARTANBURG v. LEONARD

(186 S. E., 395)

*492March, 1936.

*499
      *Messrs. Hamer & Leonard,*for appellant,

*500
      *Messrs. Hvans, Galbraith &*Holcombe, for respondent,

June 10, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Stabler.

We have given careful consideration to the questions presented by the appeal in this case, and are satisfied with the conclusions reached and expressed by the Circuit Judge. Plis well-considered decree, therefore, which will be reported, is affirmed and adopted as the judgment of this Court.

Messrs. Justices Carter, Bonham, Baker and Fishburne concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES CALVIN HAMLETT, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 391 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issue, rephrased for clarity is:

Can the tension between the well

- settled rule that the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt and the contradictory principle that an appellate court has the ability to affirm a valid judgment or verdict for any reason appearing as of record be reconciled? If these conflicting principles must be reconciled in favor of the Commonwealth proving harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt, did the Superior Court err in finding harmless error sua sponte ?