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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4822-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4822-DR), dated September 24, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued October 23, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 24, 2024.

Richardson County for Public Assistance.

                        The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used                               ( print page 97043)                            for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.                    

Deanne Criswell, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-28650 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
J-S55022-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

MALIK MANDRUM a/k/a MALIK 

MANGRUM,

Appellant

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3259 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 26, 2013,

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 

Criminal Division, at No. CP-51-CR-0011828-2012.

BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN and OTT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 04, 2015

Malik Mandrum a/k/a Malik Mangrum (“Appellant”) appeals from the 

judgment of sentence entered on June 26, 2013, after the trial court, sitting 

as the fact finder, convicted him of various drug offenses. We vacate and 

remand.

At trial, Appellant stipulated to the weight of the drugs recovered by 

the police. Based on that weight, the trial court imposed a mandatory 

minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(i) and (b). 

Appellant argues on appeal that his sentence is illegal pursuant to Alleyne 

v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). Appellant also 

contends that 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 is unconstitutional and its offensive 

components cannot be severed.
J-S55022-14

-2-

Applying this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 

___ A.3d ___, 2014 WL 6656644 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 25, 2014) (holding 

that, because section 7508(b) is not severable, trial court violated Alleyne

by imposing mandatory minimum sentence based on defendant’s 

stipulation), we agree that Appellant’s sentence is illegal for the reasons 

proffered. Thus, we affirm Appellant’s convictions, but we vacate the 

judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for resentencing. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judge Ott joins the Memorandum.

Judge Bowes files a Concurring Statement.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/4/2015
Dagoberto CRUZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0775

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Linda C. JOHNSON et al. v. BEACH COMMUNITY BANK

1150694

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Opinion issued May 25 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 23 - 00112 - CR

——————————— LACEDRIC BANKS , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1745911
MEMORANDU M OPINION On February 24, 2023, appellant Lace d ric Banks filed a notice of appeal stating his desire to appeal the denial of his pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of the statu t e being used to prosecute appellant. On February 27, 2023, the charges in the underlying case against appellant2

were dismissed. A ppellant subsequently filed a Suggestion of Mootness asserting that the dismissal of the underlying charge s renders his habeas claim mo ot and our Court thus lacks jurisdiction over the appeal
. See Ex parte Bailey , N o. 14

- 20

- 00837

- CR, 2021 WL 2546163, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] June 22, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op, not designated for publication). We agree. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Good man, Landau, and Rivas

- Molloy
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2( b).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 32859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-10617]



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 116 / Tuesday, June 17, 1997 / 
Corrections

[[Page 32859]]



COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 1


Alternative Method of Compliance With Requirements for Delivery 
and Retention of Monthly, Confirmation and Purchase-and-Sale Statements

Correction

    In rule document 97-15071, beginning on page 31507 in the issue of 
Tuesday, June 10, 1997, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 31057, in the third column, in the first paragraph, in 
the second line from the bottom, ``rule'' should read ``Rule''.
    2. On page 31507, in the third column, in footnote 2, in paragraph 
(2)(ii), in the third line, ``period'' should read ``period,''.
    3. On page 31507, in the third column, in footnote 2, in paragraph 
(2)(ii), in the fifth line, ``transactions'' should read 
``transaction''.
    4. On page 31508, in the second column, in footnote 5, in the 
fourth line, ``has'' should read ``had''.
    5. On page 31508, in the third column, in footnote 8, in the third 
line from the bottom, ``FMCs' '' should read ``FCMs' ''.
    6. On page 31510, in the first column, in the first full paragraph, 
in the eleventh line, ``and'' should read ``an''.
    7. On page 31510, in the second column, in footnote 23, in the 
fourth line from the bottom, ``records images'' should read ``records 
or images''.
    8. On page 31510, in the third column, in footnote 26, in the 
fourth line from the bottom, ``and'' should read ``an''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5612 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2886 Sandy Plains Road in Marietta, Georgia, 

as the ‘‘Marine Lance Corporal Squire ‘Skip’ Wells Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 5612 RFS

1 SECTION 1. MARINE LANCE CORPORAL SQUIRE ‘‘SKIP’’ 

2 WELLS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 2886 Sandy Plains Road in 

5 Marietta, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Marine Lance Corporal Squire ‘Skip’ Wells Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Marine Lance Cor12 poral Squire ‘Skip’ Wells Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Big Data Analysis

Filters

              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(10)
              - arizona(7)
              - california(33)
              - colorado(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - hawaii(12)
              - idaho(3)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(3)
              - montana(3)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(4)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(22)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - (-)virginia(3)
              - washington(10)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        August 31, 2018        Course Corrections to Address Gender Harassment in Science

Presentations and Events        March 15, 2018        Projecting Climate Change Impacts on Wetland-Dependent Birds - YouTube

Presentations and Events        April 26, 2018        National Liaison Committee Meeting: Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
___________

No. 96-2907

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

Rebecca L. Oates, *

 *

Appellant. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

------------------- * Western District of Missouri.

 *

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

Rebecca L. Oates, *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 2, 1996

 Filed: January 3, 1997

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rebecca L. Oates pleaded guilty to illegally possessing food stamps

and conspiring to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §

2024(b) and 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to concurrent 51-month

prison terms and five years supervised release. The district court

subsequently reduced Oates’s sentence to time served. Oates later violated

her release conditions and was sentenced upon revocation to concurrent 36-

month prison terms. She appeals.
 On remand, the district court should also reconsider the

1

concurrent sentence on the food-stamp conviction, as that

conviction was a Class D felony subject to a maximum prison term of

five years, and the maximum term for a Class D felony upon

revocation of supervised release is two years. See 7 U.S.C. §

2024(b); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(4), 3583(e)(3).

-2-

Oates argues that the district court failed to consider the policy

statements addressing revocation of supervised release in Chapter 7 of the

Sentencing Guidelines. The provisions in Chapter 7 are merely advisory and

do not have binding effect. United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th

Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Nevertheless, district courts must consider these

provisions before imposing sentence, as 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) directs

district courts resentencing an offender after revocation of supervised

release to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which in

turn requires, among other things, that the court consider any applicable

policy statements. United States v. Hensley, 36 F.3d 39, 41-42 (8th Cir.

1994). We believe remand is required here, because it is not clear whether

the district court considered the Chapter 7 policy statements. See id.

The court did not indicate that it relied on any statutory or Guidelines

provision in imposing sentence, and neither the revocation-hearing

transcript nor the district court docket sheet indicates whether the court

considered the probation officer’s Guidelines worksheet and sentencing

recommendation.

If the district court in fact considered the policy statements in

sentencing Oates, it may simply say so and reimpose sentence. Otherwise,

the court should consider the policy statements along with other sentencing

factors and, in the exercise of its discretion, then impose the sentence

it finds proper, up to and including the statutory maximum terms of

imprisonment.1

Accordingly, we remand to the district court for resentencing.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
J-S53006- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : JERMAINE SAMUEL, : : Appellant : No. 1546 WDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 12, 2013,

Court of Common Pleas, Blair County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 07

- CR -0000667-2012

and CP- 07

- CR -0002674-2011 BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON and PLATT*, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2014
Jerma ine Samuel (“Samuel”) appeals from the judgment of se ntence entered following his convictions of numerous counts of p ossession with intent to deliver, criminal use of a communication facil ity, dealing in unlawful proceeds and corrupt organizations. 1 On April 12, 2013, Samuel was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 461⁄2 to 103 years o f incarceration. On April 22, 2013, Samuel filed a timely post-sentence motion. The trial court did not rule on Samuel’s post -sentence motion within 120 days of the date it was filed, and so it was effectively denied by operation of law. See

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7512(a), 5111, 911(b)(3).J-S53006- 14

- 2 -

Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a). The docket reveals, howev er, that no order was ever entered denying Samuel’s post -sentence motion. 2 “A direct appeal in a criminal proceeding lies from the judgment of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Patterson , 940 A.2d 493, 497 (Pa. Super. 2007). When timely post-sentence motions have been fil ed, the judgment of sentence is made final when an order is entered dispo sing of the postsentence motions. Commonwealth v. Kuykendall, 2 A.3d 559, 560 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2010). Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for the entry of an order nunc pro tunc denying Samuel’s post -sentence motion as a matter of law pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3) (a) within 10 days of the date of this judgment order. The trial court shal l then transmit the order and updated docket sheet reflecting its entry to this Court so that we may proceed with the appeal. Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained.

2 Samuel avers in his notice of appeal that an order w as entered on August 20, 2013 denying his post-sentence motions as a matter of law. There is no notation of such an order on the docket. Further, we have conducted a thorough review of the record and have found no such o rder contained therein.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Chesapeake Bay

Filters

              - science_science(1)

## By Location

              - maryland(1)
              - virginia(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(10)
              - 2023(4)
              - 2022(6)
              - (-)2021(2)
              - 2020(3)
              - 2019(2)

partnerChesapeake Bay Program

Science Theme        November 3, 2021      Habitat Management
# C_2020177EN.01000501.xml

| 27.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/5

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9677 – DIC/BASF Colors & Effects)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 177/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | The DIC Corporation (‘DIC’, Japan), |
| --- | --- |

—

The DIC Corporation (‘DIC’, Japan),

| — | BASF Colors & Effects (‘BCE’, Germany), controlled by BASF SE, |
| --- | --- |

—

BASF Colors & Effects (‘BCE’, Germany), controlled by BASF SE,

DIC acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of BCE.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for DIC: the production and sale of printing inks, organic pigments and synthetic resins. As regards pigments and other colourants, DIC is mainly active through its wholly-owned subsidiary Sun Chemical Corporation, |
| --- | --- |

—

for DIC: the production and sale of printing inks, organic pigments and synthetic resins. As regards pigments and other colourants, DIC is mainly active through its wholly-owned subsidiary Sun Chemical Corporation,

| — | for BCE: the production and sale of pigments and other colourants. |
| --- | --- |

—

for BCE: the production and sale of pigments and other colourants.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9677 – DIC/BASF Colors & Effects

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate as to Compliance for the WaMu Mortgage
                    Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-AR3 dated as of
                    March 22, 2002

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

         The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.,
formerly PNC Mortgage Securities Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies on behalf of the Company and on his own behalf for purposes of
the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-AR3, as follows:

         1.   I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting Vice President of
              the Company.

         2.   Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the
              meanings ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing
              Agreement related to the above-referenced series of Certificates.

         3.   I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's
              Certificate on behalf of the Company.

         4.   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
              preceding calendar year and performance under this Agreement has
              been made under my supervision.

         5.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
              Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
              throughout such year.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 22, 2002.


                                               By: /s/ Richie Moore
                                                   ----------------------
                                                   Richie Moore
                                                   Vice President
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate ldentitier: -AD 

/fyo/1 make dWIIKeS to t!Jc \'llflii!S ill 1/ie /a/J/e be/ow you IIIIlS{ <!11Sl/re Tfte lotufs update m:cording/y. [( 

r!JC\' do 11of. click for Tall) into and then ow ~~f the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition cosls here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 4.0 $0 • I 389 

: 

Removal 24.0 ' $0 ·':' 389 

:' 

_R r.,.._,;,. ., ; o.v 'UUl .J)V _-'_"_ 

~ ' /' l , .• 

Reinstallation 24.0 's. :J; ;I) ~ • 

$0 . 389 

l (1. {"} . i•' C) " #ou L't b'- 5 , '1 d v \; ~ L, J ,, /?' I 

~ . ; 

,, '' 

·' ,, •;: . ' 

,. '· : ~ u• 'i 

u I J ~ 

(lt ' ,. ,, .. , 

. u~ lt) ·. ~ 

' 1 fi;i ' 

' i ' :; ' 

0 'i 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,983,900 

Costs covered under warranty (if/mown) $ 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) / Ll 

~pa. ~- x-,o '· r, {p' y) OJ"'.,. ~Jv ... 

( '-f.c; ,.r- lte ~~~ '') r 1.. ., 

" 'I' 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use !his field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs}: 

0 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action ~ 

YES* 0 NO [gj 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* 0 NO [gj 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. ~ 

YES 0 NO [gj 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ·-

YES* 0 NO [gj 

*Explanation: