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 Education

          - 34 CFR Part 668

### CFR Correction

In Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Education, Parts 400 to 679, revised as of July 1, 2020, on page 417, in section 668.41, paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iii) are reinstated to read as follows:

§ 668.41

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(2) * * *

                            (i)                             *Class action*                             means a lawsuit or an arbitration proceeding in which one or more parties seeks class treatment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or any State process analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.                        

                            (ii)                             *Class action waiver*                             means any agreement or part of an agreement, regardless of its form or structure, between a school, or a party acting on behalf of a school, and a student that relates to the making of a Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the student received title IV funding and prevents an individual from filing or participating in a class action that pertains to those services.                        

                            (iii)                             *Pre-dispute arbitration agreement*                             means any agreement or part of an agreement, regardless of its form or structure, between a school, or a party acting on behalf of a school, and a student requiring arbitration of any future dispute between the parties relating to the making of a Direct Loan or provision of educational services for which the student received title IV funding.                        

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2021-13694 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-59

)

TYSON J. ALLEN )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on September 27, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 27th day of September, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

LYN MARIE STEVENS ) 

Plaintiff, ) Case No.:3:16-cv-481 

) 

v. ) 

) 

 ) 

) 

FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., a/k/a ) 

FRANCISCAN SAINT ANTHONY HEALTH- ) 

MICHIGAN CITY ) 

 Defendant. ) 

JOINT STIPULATION OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 Plaintiff Lyn Marie Stevens and Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a/k/a Franciscan 

Saint Anthony Health-Michigan City, more properly known as Franciscan Health Michigan City, 

by their respective counsel and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, stipulate and agree to the dismissal of this cause and all claims made in this cause, 

with prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ryan C. Fox 

Ryan C. Fox 

Ryan P. Sink 

FOX WILLIAMS & SINK, LLC 

6177 North College Avenue 

Indianapolis, IN 46220 

Telephone: (317)254-8500 

Facsimile: (844)273-6464 

rfox@fwslegal.com 

rsink@fwslegal.com 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Lyn Marie Stevens 

/s/ Amy J. Adolay 

Amy J. Adolay 

Matthew C. Branic 

KRIEG DeVAULT LLP 

12800 N. Meridian St., Suite 300 

Carmel, IN 46032 

Telephone: (317) 289-6329 

Facsimile: (317) 636-1507 

aadolay@kdlegal.com

mbranic@kdlegal.com

Attorneys for Franciscan St. Anthony 

Health-Michigan City 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00481-JD-MGG document 32 filed 12/12/17 page 1 of 1
Asset Building Opportunities for Individuals and Banks

Rae-Ann Miller

March 19, 2008
# L_2008086EN.01002101.xml

| 28.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 86/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 86/21

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 284/2008

of 27 March 2008

registering certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Lingot du Nord (PGI), Cipolla Rossa di Tropea Calabria (PGI), Marrone di Roccadaspide (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Lingot du Nord’ and Italy’s applications to register the names ‘Cipolla Rossa di Tropea Calabria’ and ‘Marrone di Roccadaspide’ were published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Lingot du Nord’ and Italy’s applications to register the names ‘Cipolla Rossa di Tropea Calabria’ and ‘Marrone di Roccadaspide’ were published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, these names should be entered in the Register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, these names should be entered in the Register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The names in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2008.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ C 151, 5.7.2007, p. 21 (Lingot du Nord), OJ C 160, 13.7.2007, p. 15 (Cipolla Rossa di Tropea Calabria), OJ C 160, 13.7.2007, p. 19 (Marrone di Roccadaspide).

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Group 1.6.:   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

FRANCE

Lingot du Nord (PGI)

ITALY

Cipolla Rossa di Tropea Calabria (PGI)

Marrone di Roccadaspide (PGI)

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2322 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2322

 To designate the Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in 
     McAllen, Texas, as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2005

   Mr. Doggett (for himself, Mr. Baca, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. 
  Cuellar, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Al Green of 
 Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hinojosa, 
   Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
McCaul of Texas, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pastor, 
   Mr. Paul, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Reyes, Ms. 
Roybal-Allard, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez 
  of California, Mr. Serrano, and Ms. Solis) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in 
     McAllen, Texas, as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in McAllen, 
Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

     Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kika de la Garza 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1998

___________

Daniel R. Giannini, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 20, 2010

Filed: December 28, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Giannini, a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Medical Center in

Lexington, Kentucy, appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After careful de novo review, we conclude that

Giannini is not entitled to habeas relief. See Mitchell v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 538

F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (standard of review). First, we agree with

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota (now retired), adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of

Minnesota.
the district court that neither the Due Process Clause nor 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B)

creates a liberty interest in receiving a sentence reduction upon completion of a

Bureau of Prisons residential drug abuse program, and that no due process violation

therefore occurred in this case. See Richardson v. Joslin, 501 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir.

2007). Second, we agree with the court that 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(c) and the related

Program Statement 5331.02 were promulgated in compliance with the Administrative

Procedure Act and are reasonable and allowable interpretations of their enabling act. 

See 5 U.S.C. § 553; Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 242 (2001). Finally, we agree with

the court that the regulation and program statement do not violate the Ex Post Facto

Clause with respect to Giannini, who was neither notified of his eligibility for a

provisional sentence reduction nor enrolled in a residential drug abuse program before

the effective date of the regulation and program statement. See Grove v. Fed. Bureau

of Prisons, 245 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). We note that the cases on which

Giannini relies with respect to this argument are merely persuasive authority and are

factually distinguishable, and that his remaining arguments do not provide any basis

to reverse the district court.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2107 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 

Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend Public Law 104–329 to modify authorities for 

the use of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2107 RCS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Law Enforce3 ment Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO NA5 TIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL 

6 MAINTENANCE FUND. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 201 of Public Law 104– 

8 329 is amended by adding at the end the following new 

9 subsection: 

10 ‘‘(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Effective on and after the 

12 date of the enactment of the National Law Enforce13 ment Memorial Maintenance Fund Act of 2005, the 

14 following applies, notwithstanding other provisions of 

15 this Act: 

16 ‘‘(A) The Secretary of the Interior, acting 

17 through the National Park Service, shall enter 

18 into a cooperative agreement with the National 

19 Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 

20 Inc., a nonprofit corporation incorporated under 

21 the laws of the District of Columbia, to carry 

22 out the purposes of the Fund as described in 

23 subsection (b). 

24 ‘‘(B) In accordance with the terms of such 

25 agreement, the Secretary shall transfer all 

26 amounts in the Fund to the Corporation. 
3 

HR 2107 RCS 

1 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub2 section— 

3 ‘‘(A) the term ‘Corporation’ means the Na4 tional Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 

5 Fund, Inc; and 

6 ‘‘(B) the term ‘Secretary’ means the Sec7 retary of the Interior.’’. 

8 (b) PURPOSES OF FUND.—Section 201(b) of Public 

9 Law 104–329 is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘and’’ after 

11 the semicolon; 

12 (2) by striking paragraphs (4), (6), and (7), 

13 and redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); 

14 and 

15 (3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by 

16 striking the semicolon and inserting a period. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER L. SCRUGGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:16-CV-039 JD

)

SGT. SINCLAIR, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The Court referred the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to Magistrate Judge

Michael G. Gotsch. On June 2, 2017, he issued a report and recommendation, in which he

recommended that the motion be denied. ECF 81. The parties were informed that they had

fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation to file any

written objections. More than fourteen days have passed and no party filed any objection. Willis

v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999)(explaining that the failure to file a timely

objection will result in the waiver of the right to challenge a report and recommendation).

For these reasons, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF 81) of the

magistrate judge, and DENIES the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 77). 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 28, 2017

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION

I,
Mike Ulrich, certify that:



In
giving the foregoing certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5, I have relied to the extent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by the working interest owners and the
managing general partner of the Mesa Offshore Trust Partnership, in which the registrant owns a 99.99% interest.

|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | /s/MIKE ULRICHMike Ulrich Vice President,The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as attorney-in-fact for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
OPTI INC., Plaintiff

- Cross

- Appellant

v.

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., VIA TECHNOLOGI ES, INC. (TAIWAN), Defendants

- Appellants

______________________

2013

- 1670, 2014

- 1839

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:10

- cv

- 00279

- JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gils trap.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL L OUIS B RODY , Winston & Strawn LLP, Ch icago, IL, argued for plaintiff

- cross

- appellant. Also repr esented by J AMES E THAN M C C OMB ; G EOFFREY P. E ATON , Washington, DC.

B RIAN A NDREW C ARPENTER , Beuther Joe & Carpenter LLC, Dallas, TX, argued for defendants

- appellants. Also represented by E RIC W ILLIAM B EUTHER ; T IMOTHY J.H. C RADDOCK , Klemchuk LLP, Dallas, TX.______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , D YK , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 8, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 21**

 

J.L Halsey Corporation

 

SUBSIDIARIES

 
| **Subsidiary**                 | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
|                           |       |                              |
| Lyris Technologies, Inc.  |       | Delaware                          |
| Admiral Holdings, Inc.    |       | Nevada                            |
| Commodore Resources, Inc. |       | Nevada                            |
| NC Holdings, Inc.              |       | Nevada                            |
| NovaCare Management Company    |       | Pennsylvania                      |
| Admiral Management Company     |       | Delaware                          |
| Halsey C&R, Inc.      |       | Delaware                          |
| NC Resources, Inc.        |       | Nevada                            |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2151 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2151

To suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkacit MOZ/LG and Vulkacit MOZ/SG.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on Vulkacit MOZ/LG and Vulkacit MOZ/SG.

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

SECTION 1. VULKACIT MOZ AND VULKACIT MOZ/SG.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.02       2-                 Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (morpholinothio)b                                                  31/2009
                         enzothiazole (CAS
                         No. 102-77-2)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2934.20.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### JAHN et al., Respondents, v. REYNOLDS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by A. Mathilde Jahn and another as executrix etc, of Gustave A. Jahn, against De Elbert A. Reynolds and another.

No opinion. We think the parties should proceed to the trial of this case, and express no opinion upon the merits. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 101 N. Y. Supp. 293.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000353

19-FEB-2016

08:39 AM
#### Yusef BROWN, Appellant, v. Scott FISHER, Appellee.

No. 11-1736.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 26, 2011.

Filed: Oct. 31, 2011.

Yusef Brown, Springfield, MO, pro se.

Alien A. Slaughter, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Yusef Brown appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Following careful review, we affirm for the reasons provided by the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.