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

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

A report summarizing the closed meeting activities of the Art Advisory Panel during Fiscal Year 2020 has been prepared. A copy of this report has been filed with the Assistant Secretary for Management of the Department of the Treasury.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         This notice is effective June 28, 2021.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        The report is available at                         *https://www.irs.gov/​compliance/​appeals/​art-appraisal-services*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robin B. Lawhorn, AP:SPR:AAS, Internal Revenue Service/Independent Office of Appeals, 400 West Bay Street, Suite 252, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Telephone number (904) 661-3198 (not a toll free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

It has been determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and that a regulatory impact analysis is, therefore, not required. Additionally, this document does not constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).

Authority:5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 5 U.S.C. 552b, of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Andrew J. Keyso,

Chief, Independent Office of Appeals.

[FR Doc. 2021-14170 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# Eiropas Savienības C 87I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 087I |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 65. gadagājums2022. gada 23. februāris |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 087I

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

65. gadagājums2022. gada 23. februāris

---

| Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Paziņojumi |
| | EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2022/C 87 I/01 | Paziņojums importētājiem – Ražojumu imports Savienībā saskaņā ar ES un Ukrainas asociācijas nolīgumu no Ukrainas Doņeckas un Luhanskas apgabalu valdības nekontrolētajām teritorijām | 1 |

Saturs

Lappuse

IV   Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

2022/C 87 I/01

Paziņojums importētājiem – Ražojumu imports Savienībā saskaņā ar ES un Ukrainas asociācijas nolīgumu no Ukrainas Doņeckas un Luhanskas apgabalu valdības nekontrolētajām teritorijām

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

IV Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

| 23.2.2022 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CI 87/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2022

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CI 87/1

---

Paziņojums importētājiem

Ražojumu imports Savienībā saskaņā ar ES un Ukrainas asociācijas nolīgumu no Ukrainas Doņeckas un Luhanskas apgabalu valdības nekontrolētajām teritorijām

(2022/C 87 I/01)

Eiropas Komisija informē importētājus, ka Ukrainas muitas dienestiem nav vajadzīgo nosacījumu, lai efektīvi pārvaldītu un kontrolētu preferenciālu tarifu režīmu, kas paredzēts Asociācijas nolīgumā starp Eiropas Savienību un tās dalībvalstīm, no vienas puses, un Ukrainu, no otras puses, attiecībā uz precēm, kas ražotas Ukrainas Doņeckas un Luhanskas apgabalu valdības nekontrolētajās teritorijās vai eksportētas no tām.

Tā kā Ukrainas muitas dienestiem nav iespējas piemērot attiecīgos nolīguma noteikumus, lai garantētu, ka precēm no minētajām teritorijām ir tiesības uz preferenciālu tarifu režīmu, un lai pārbaudītu, vai tās atbilst visām vajadzīgajām prasībām, kas jo īpaši paredzētas Asociācijas nolīguma 1. protokola 33. pantā, tad nosacījumi, lai šādām precēm varētu piemērot preferenciālu tarifu režīmu, nav izpildīti.

Tāpēc Eiropas Savienības uzņēmējiem tiek ieteikts nepieprasīt preferenciālu režīmu visu to preču importam Savienībā, kas ražotas vai eksportētas no Ukrainas Doņeckas un Luhanskas apgabalu valdības nekontrolētajām teritorijām, jo šo preču laišana brīvā apgrozībā rada muitas parādu no šā paziņojuma publicēšanas dienas.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 37 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the restriction 

that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker provide services 

in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility to a patient only 

under the care of a physician. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove 

the restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility to a patient only under 

the care of a physician. 

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 ‘‘Autonomy for Psy5 chologists and Social Workers Act of 2011’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 37 IS

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A CLINICAL PSY2 CHOLOGIST OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 

3 PROVIDE SERVICES IN A COMPREHENSIVE 

4 OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITY TO 

5 A PATIENT ONLY UNDER THE CARE OF A 

6 PHYSICIAN. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended 

9 by striking ‘‘physician’’ and inserting ‘‘physician, except 

10 that a patient receiving qualified psychologist services (as 

11 defined in subsection (ii)) may be under the care of a clin12 ical psychologist with respect to such services to the extent 

13 permitted under State law and except that a patient re14 ceiving clinical social worker services (as defined in sub15 section (hh)(2)) may be under the care of a clinical social 

16 worker with respect to such services to the extent per17 mitted under State law’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

19 subsection (a) shall apply to services provided on or after 

20 January 1, 2012. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
[No. 38273-0-I.

Division One.

October 13, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert Duane Knowles, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-03508-2, Donald D. Haley, J., entered February 23, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Becker and Ellington, JJ.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs University Partnerships







Businessheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

RB/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GAYANE MADATIAN; VAHE

GHARAGUZIAN; KRISTINE

MADATIAN,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75372

Agency Nos. A073-915-871

 A073-915-872

 A073-915-863

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Gayane Madatian, her son Vahe Gharaguzian, and her sister Kristine

Madatian, citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

FILED

MAR 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RB/Research 2 06-75372

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 8 years after the BIA’s

May 23, 1997, order dismissing their appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The

BIA acted within its discretion in determining that the evidence submitted with the

motion to reopen failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of

the motions deadline. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)

(equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to

deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such

circumstances).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.

Petitioners’ motion for extension of time to file the reply brief is granted. 

The clerk shall file the reply brief received on March 4, 2008.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
RB/Research 3 06-75372
[Nos. 16832-4-II; 16833-2-II; 18871-6-II; 19048-6-II.

Division Two.

September 19, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eugene Jayson Youngblood, *Appellant.*The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ernest Allen Bailey, *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, Nos. 92-1-00021-9, 91-1-00823-8, Leonard W. Kruse, J., entered January 8, 1993, October 25 and December 23, 1994. *Affimed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Seinfeld, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

October 4, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00226

- CR

Jose Trinidad GONZALEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR0458 The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

After we granted court reporter David Zarate ’s second motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record, we set the record due on September 27, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. R. 35.3(c). After t he twice

- extended due date, the court reporter filed a third request for an
extension of time to file the record until October 1 8

, 201 9

. The reporter’s request is GRANTED. The reporter’s record must be filed with this court by October 18 , 201 9

. See id. (l imiting any extension in an ordinary appeal to thirty days).

If the court reporter is unable to file the completed record by Octo ber 18 , 2019 , any further request for additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written
status report.
The report must describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and remarks for each day. The page counts must include the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, pro ofread, and formatted into the required electronic form (including bookmarks).

The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record. The report must describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond the requested date.

The preferred form for the status report, with an accompanying example, is attached._____________________________ ____ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th day of October, 2019

.

_______________________ ____________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3172

___________

Steven Lynn Freeman, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 28, 2003

Filed: March 5, 2003

___________

Before BYE, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lynn Freeman was convicted of rape and sentenced to 40 years

imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, see Freeman

v. State, 959 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. 1998), and Freeman's petition for postconviction relief

was denied, as was his August 2000 petition to reinvest the trial court with

jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, see Freeman v.

State, No. CR 97-640, 2000 WL 1476656, at *1 (Ark. Oct. 5, 2000) (unpublished per

curiam).
*

The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

In October 2001, almost a year after the denial of his August 2000 petition,

Freeman filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, raising, as he did in the August

2000 petition, a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v.

United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Freeman argued equitable considerations should

toll the one-year statute of limitations application to section 2254 petitions, because

the evidence underlying his Brady claim established he was actually innocent. Even

assuming the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Freeman obtained the

Brady evidence in March 2000, and the limitations period was tolled during the

pendency of the state court proceeding from August through October 2000, Freeman

still waited nearly seventeen months to pursue his claims in federal court. Given

Freeman's failure to show wrongdoing by the State prevented him from bringing a

timely petition, his reliance on actual innocence to invoke equitable tolling is

misplaced. See Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 2002), petition for

cert. filed, (Dec. 30, 2002) (No. 02-8255).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court*

 dismissing Freeman's

petition as time-barred.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

KEVIN L. GOVAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-501 RM

) 

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Kevin L. Govan, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2005 convictions in Allen County in Case No. 02D04-0411-FB196. (DE 1.) In Govan v. Superintendent, 3:09-CV-547 (N.D. Ind. filed Nov. 20, 2009), Mr.

Govan challenged the same 2005 convictions. This court denied his petition in October

2011. (Id., DE 29.) Mr. Govan appealed, but the court of appeals denied his request for a

certificate of appealability. (Id., DE 49.)

This court has no authority to hear an unauthorized successive habeas corpus

petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). Mr. Govan already filed a federal

habeas petition challenging his 2005 convictions. Regardless of whether the claims he now

wants to present are new or the same as those presented before, the petition must be

dismissed. “A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under

section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” 28 U.S.C.

-1-
§ 2244(b)(1). New claims can be presented under some circumstances: “Before a second or

successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant

shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court

to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Mr. Govan hasn’t gotten an order from

the court of appeals allowing him to proceed with (and authorizing this court to decide)

any new claims. “A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without

awaiting any response from the [state], unless the court of appeals has given approval for

its filing.” Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original).

Mr. Govan’s petition must be dismissed. 

For the reasons set forth above, the court DISMISSES the petition (DE 1) for lack of

jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 13 , 2016 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2016

GEORGE ELWOOD ODUM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION,

Local 1751 of Georgetown, South Carolina,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-96-3798-2-23)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Elwood Odum, Appellant Pro Se. Grover Cleveland Seaton,

III, Moncks Corner, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The district court’s order was filed on May 14, 1998; the

judgment and the order were both entered on the docket on May 19,

1998. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a).

2

PER CURIAM:

George Elwood Odum appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994) complaint and denying his

motion for reconsideration. Odum’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that the union’s summary judgment motion

be granted. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and

recommendation. See Odum v. International Longshoremen’s Ass’n,

No. CA-96-3798-2-23 (D.S.C. May 19, 1998).*

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109

F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997); see generally Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Odum has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file objections. Further, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Odum’s motion for reconsideration, because Odum’s objections were not timely filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,943-01

EX PARTE NEAL WATSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2010-428,155-A IN THE 137 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault on a

public servant and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to hold the

State to its burden of proof to show Applicant’s sanity at the time of the offense. 

The trial court has determined that trial counsel's performance was deficient in that counsel

did not know the law applicable to Applicant’s case and that such deficient performance prejudiced
2

Applicant. Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 2010-428,155 in the 137 District Court th

of Lubbock County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Lubbock

County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary

bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 17, 2014

Do not publish
#### JOHNSON v. ISAACS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Chas. F. H. Johnson against Stanley M. Isaacs. No opinion. Motion denied, with §10 costs. Order filed.