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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1

### CFR Correction

In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (§§ 1.851 to 1.907), revised as of April 1, 2008, on page 436, in § 1.882-5, reinstate paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) to read as follows:

§ 1.882-5

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

                        (B)                         *Identified liabilities not properly reflected.*                         A liability is not properly reflected on the books of the U.S. trade or business merely because a foreign corporation identifies the liability pursuant to § 1.884-4(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3).                    

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-6944 Filed 3-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Opinion issued March 26, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00949-CV

———————————

WILNA ELORME, Appellant

V.

MR PROPERTIES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1118097

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Wilna Elorme, has failed to timely file her appellate brief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(1), (d), 38.8(a)(1). On January 11, 2019, the Clerk of this 

Court notified appellant that her deadline to file her appellant’s brief had expired and 

that her appeal was subject to dismissal if she failed to timely file her appellant’s 
2

brief or an extension within 10 days of the date of that notice. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(d), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Appellant failed to timely file a brief or request an 

extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to 

timely file an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Landau.
John Wesley JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



Pursuant
to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 Andrew J. Ritter, the Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of Ritter Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”),
and John W. Beck, the Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his/her
knowledge on the date hereof:



(a)
The Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2019 filed on the date hereof
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



These
certifications accompanying the Report to which they relate, are not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



| | By: | /s/
    Andrew J. Ritter                                                                                      
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Andrew
    J. Ritter                                                                                          
| |     | Chief
                                         Executive Officer
        (Principal
        Executive Officer)
| |     | April
    24, 2020                                                                                            
| |     |                                                                                                               
| | By: | /s/
    John W. Beck                                                                                          
| |     | John
    W. Beck                                                                                              
| |     | Chief
                                         Financial Officer
        (Principal
        Financial Officer)
| |     | April
    24, 2020
Kristan Elaine NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2934

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
BOYNTON OLD SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, LLC, Appellant, v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-63

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

December 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Garrick Gideon JOHN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-125

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jamarl W. VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3438

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Vickie SCONYERS

1150870 (2140909)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 16, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of cert. quashed.
Ronald Wayne CLARK, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-587

Supreme Court of Florida.

[January 23, 2018]

Linda McDermott of McClain and McDermott, Wilton Manners, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Ronald Wayne Clark, Jr.'s appeal of the circuit court's *100order denying Clark's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Clark's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Clark's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Clark responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Clark's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Clark is not entitled to relief. Clark was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. *Clark v. State*, 613 So.2d 412, 413 (Fla. 1992).1 Clark's sentence of death became final in 1993. *Clark v. Florida*, 510 U.S. 836, 114 S.Ct. 114, 126 L.Ed.2d 79 (1993). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Clark's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Clark's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Clark, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.

1

Although our decision affirming Clark's death sentence does not specify the number of Clark's jurors who voted to recommend death, our decision affirming the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief states that "[t]he jury voted eleven to one to recommend death." *Clark v. State*, 35 So.3d 880, 884 (Fla. 2010).
From: Mohan Nagavedu [mnagavedu@aqmd.gov]

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 6:28 PM

To: Adams, Lucy H.

Cc: Edwin Pupka; David Jones; Rachel Mendoza

Subject: Aqmd Chrome facilities data

Attachments: R1469 Facility Data for EPA 2

‐ 11

‐ 11.xlsx

Lucy,

As discussed this morning please see attached AQMD Chrome facilities data for all active facilities.

Please review the data and call me if you have any questions with the database and with “FIND” in our

web site.

Mohan Nagavedu

Supervising Air Quality Inspector

909

‐ 396

‐ 3739

909

‐ 396

‐ 3342 fax

MNagavedu@AQMD.Gov
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHASITY C. MUICH,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2751

LT Case No. 2022-DR-510

MARY LYNETTE LEE,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed May 30, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Sumter County,

Michelle Morley, Judge.

Chasity C. Muich, Etna, Ohio, pro 

se, Appellant.

Mary Lynette Lee, Oxford, pro se, 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BOATWRIGHT, KILBANE and PRATT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         CONCURRENT COMPUTER CORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION

                               THREE MONTHS ENDED  NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                  MARCH 31, 1999    MARCH 31, 1999
                                -----------------  -----------------
                                 BASIC   DILUTED    BASIC   DILUTED
                                -------  --------  -------  --------
<S>                             <C>      <C>       <C>      <C>
Average outstanding shares:. .   48,043    48,043   47,855    47,855
Dilutive options outstanding .        -     2,938        -     1,331
                                -------  --------  -------  --------
Equivalent Shares. . . . . . .   48,043    50,981   47,855    49,186
                                =======  ========  =======  ========

Net income available to common
  stockholders . . . . . . . .  $   294  $    294  $   783  $    783
                                =======  ========  =======  ========
Earnings per share . . . . . .  $  0.01  $   0.01  $  0.02  $    .02
                                =======  ========  =======  ========
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Isabel GONZALEZ, a/k/a Chabello, a/k/a Isabel Garcia, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-6994.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 10, 2004.

Decided: May 26, 2004.

Isabel Gonzalez, Appellant pro se.

Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Isabel Gonzalez appealed from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on the following issues: whether Gonzalez received ineffective assistance when his attorney failed to (1) file a requested notice of appeal and/or (2) pursue objections to drug quantity, the leadership enhancement, or the obstruction of justice enhancements at the sentencing hearing.

The district court dismissed these claims (along with many others), finding that Gonzalez waived the right to file a § 2255 motion in his plea agreement. However, the plea agreement explicitly reserved the right to challenge “ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct not known to [Gonzalez] at the time of [Gonzalez’s] guilty plea.” The claims above fall into this category, as they concern actions or inactions by counsel *after*Gonzalez’s guilty plea. In addition, Gonzalez has stated colorable claims that cannot be decided summarily on the current record.

Thus, with the exception of the claim regarding the leadership enhancement which has been waived on appeal,* we *448vacate the district court’s dismissal of the claims described above and remand so that the district court can consider the merits of the claims in the first instance. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Gonzalez’s claim that his attorney improperly failed to object to the leadership enhancement at sentencing. 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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART*

*

 In his informal brief, Gonzalez contends that his attorney told him that he was not pleading guilty as a leader or organizer of the conspiracy, despite the fact that the indictment described him as occupying a leadership role. Because Gonzalez should have been aware of *448the contents of the indictment at the time of his guilty plea (and he does not claim otherwise), this issue was waived in his plea agreement. Moreover, the certificate of appealability was granted on Gonzalez’s claim that his attorney withdrew her objection to the leadership enhancement attributed to him in his presentence report. This claim has now also been waived by Gonzalez’s failure to address it in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Darrell AMOS v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-15-1353

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1020 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1020

   To require the Administrator of the Economic Research Service to 
 conduct research on consolidation and concentration in the livestock 
                   industry, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2023

Ms. Smith (for herself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Administrator of the Economic Research Service to 
 conduct research on consolidation and concentration in the livestock 
                   industry, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Livestock Consolidation Research Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. LIVESTOCK CONSOLIDATION RESEARCH.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which each 
latest Census of Agriculture is made publicly available, the 
Administrator of the Economic Research Service shall publish a report 
on consolidation and concentration in the livestock industry, 
including--
            (1) changes in the size and location of ranches, farms, 
        processing facilities, and packers throughout the United 
        States; and
            (2) the impact of the changes described in paragraph (1) on 
        farmers, ranchers, and downstream consumers, including--
                    (A) financial impacts;
                    (B) market entry impacts;
                    (C) access to resources and inputs, including 
                processing facilities; and
                    (D) dietary impacts.
    (b) Sources of Information.--In preparing a report under subsection 
(a), the Administrator of the Economic Research Service shall draw on 
data available to the Secretary of Agriculture, including the Census of 
Agriculture, inspection records of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, and the packing plant data of the Packers and Stockyards 
Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
    (c) Report Organization.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
separate information on beef cattle by cow-calf and fed cattle 
operations.
    (d) Confidentiality.--A report published under subsection (a) shall 
not contain any confidential business information.
    (e) Definition of Livestock.--In this section, the term 
``livestock'' includes beef, dairy, pork, and poultry production 
(including broilers, eggs, and turkeys).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Notices]               
[Page 12738]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-57]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of International Regimes and Agreements, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement 
under the Agreement for Cooperation Between the United States of 
America and the Government of Canada Concerning Peaceful Uses of 
Nuclear Energy and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses 
of Nuclear Energy Between the United States and the European Atomic 
Energy Community (EURATOM).
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 303,250 kg 
of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (67.6% U), 205,000 kg of 
which is uranium, from Cameco in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada to 
Urenco in Capenhurst Works, Chester, United Kingdom. The material, 
which is currently located at Cameco, Blind River, will be transferred 
to Urenco for toll enrichment at their Capenhurst UK facility. The 
natural uranium hexafluoride was originally obtained by Cameco from 
Crowe Butte Resources Inc. pursuant to export license XSOU8798.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: March 10, 2010.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anatoli Welihozkiy,
Acting Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. 2010-5797 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
NITROTEL INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. NDC GROUP TECHNOLOGY, LLC, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1837

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mark Anthony DALY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-5865

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 11, 2017 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1093 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1093

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
establish an air tour management plan for certain areas of Hawaii, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2023

Mr. Schatz (for himself and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
establish an air tour management plan for certain areas of Hawaii, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Hawaii Air Tour Management Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN AREAS OF HAWAII.

    (a) Air Tour Management Plan.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 40128 of title 49, 
        United States Code, subject to paragraph (2), not later than 2 
        years after the date of enactment of this section, the 
        Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in 
        consultation with the Governor of Hawaii, shall establish an 
        air tour management plan for any area within the State of 
        Hawaii that is not located within the National Park System.
            (2) Requirements.--The Administrator of the Federal 
        Aviation Administration shall enter into an agreement with the 
        Governor of Hawaii to establish the contents of the plan 
        required by paragraph (1), the procedure for establishing such 
        plan (including with respect to any amendments to the plan), 
        and the responsibilities of each party to such agreement in 
        carrying out the plan.
    (b) Interim Authority.--Until the date on which the air tour 
management plan is established under subsection (a), the Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administration may grant an air tour operator 
operating in an area within the State of Hawaii that is not located 
within the National Park System interim operating authority for that 
area.
    (c) Non-Application of the APA.--The provisions of subchapter II of 
chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
known as the ``Administrative Procedure Act'') shall not apply to the 
establishment of an air tour management plan under this section.
                                 <all>
```