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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11528]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice of extension of passport travel restriction.

# SUMMARY:

On September 1, 2017, all U.S. passports were declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), unless specially validated for such travel. The restriction was extended for one year in 2018, 2019, and 2020. This notice extends the restriction until August 31, 2022, unless extended or revoked by the Secretary of State.

# DATES:

The extension of the travel restriction is in effect on September 2, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence Kovaciny, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Adjudication, 202-485-8800.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On September 1, 2017, pursuant to the authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603), and in accordance with 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3), all U.S. passports were declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the DPRK unless specially validated for such travel. The restriction was renewed on September 1, 2018, September 1, 2019, and again for another year effective September 1, 2020.

                    The Department of State has determined there continues to be serious risk to U.S. citizens and nationals of arrest and long-term detention constituting imminent danger to their physical safety, as defined in 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3). Accordingly, all U.S. passports shall remain invalid for travel to, in, or through the DPRK unless specially validated for such travel under the authority of the Secretary of State. This extension to the restriction of travel to the DPRK shall be effective upon publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     and shall expire on August 31, 2022, unless extended or revoked by the Secretary of State.                

Dated: August 30, 2021.

Brian P. McKeon,

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

[FR Doc. 2021-19140 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-13-P
#### Judith Zuckerman et al., Plaintiffs, v La Guardia Hospital, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Corazon Tolentino, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

— In a medical malpractice action, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated November 22, 1985, which denied her motion, *inter alia,*to dismiss the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, to sever the third-party action from the main action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is granted to the extent that the third-party action is severed from the main action.

The third-party action was commenced, without any reasonable justification, approximately eight years after service of the complaint in the main action and approximately 18 months after the plaintiff had filed a note of issue and statement of readiness. While the order which is the subject of this appeal sought to allot sufficient time for the third-party defendant to undertake and complete discovery so that the denial of a severance would not prejudice her *(see, Fries v Sid Tool Co.,*90 AD2d 512), under the circumstances, it would be unfair to require the third-party defendant to proceed to trial without an adequate opportunity to complete pretrial disclosure. Consequently, by order dated January 27, 1986, we granted the third-party defendant’s motion for a stay of the trial of the main and third-party action scheduled for jury selection on that date, pending determination of the instant appeal. Since a note of issue had been filed in the main action, the order dated November 22, 1985, in effect precluded further discovery after the specified deadline date, and while this appeal was pending. Therefore, there is a possibility of prejudice to the plaintiffs in the main action if further delay is permitted in order to complete discovery in the third-party action and to reconvene a medical malpractice panel, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 148-a, to hear the medical issues pertaining to the third-party defendant *(see, Nielsen v Greenman Bros.,*100 AD2d 578). Although the main and third-party action share some common questions of fact and law, in view of the absence of any reasonable justification for the substantial delay in serving the third-party complaint, the prejudice to the third-party defendant’s discovery rights attributable to the delay in serving the order which is the subject of this appeal, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if a trial of the *305main action is further delayed, a severance of the third-party action is warranted. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Thomas C.K. Yuen,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 23, 2006 |     | By:      |   | /s/ THOMAS C.K. YUEN                                                                |
|----------------------------|----------|----------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |     |     |   | Thomas C.K. Yuen                                                                    |
|                       | * * | * * |   | *Chairman  of the Board and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40945 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALI ANTHONY CLARKE

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CR-4-2

--------------------

May 9, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ali Anthony Clarke (“Clarke”) was convicted of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute controlled substance, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession with

intent to distribute controlled substance, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that insufficient evidence existed

to support his convictions. He also argues that the district

court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions for

drug-related offenses under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Because Clarke

did not reurge his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close
No. 00-40945

-2-

of all the evidence, this court’s review of the sufficiency of

the evidence is limited to determining whether there was a

manifest miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Johnson,

87 F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996).

This court has carefully reviewed the record and the briefs

of the parties. We conclude that no manifest miscarriage of

justice occurred. See United States v. Villasenor, 236 F.3d 220,

223 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d 364, 368-69

(5th Cir. 1998). We also conclude that Clarke waived his Fed. R.

Evid. 404(b) argument. See United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d

927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KENNETH MEDENBACH, 

Defendant. 

3:16-cr-00051-BR-16 

WAIVER OF RIGHT TO 

COUNSEL 

I, Kenneth Medenbach, the above-named Defendant, being 

accused of Conspiracy to Impede Federal Officers in violation of 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 372, and Theft of 

Government Property in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 641, and being advised of the nature of the charge, my 

constitutional right to be represented by counsel, my 

constitutional right to self-representation, and the dangers and 

disadvantages of self-representation, knowingly and voluntarily 

waive my right to counsel and elect to proceed by representing 

myself with standby counsel. 

Before~~ ANNA J. BC5WN 

United States District Judge 

1 - WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

Defendant 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 303 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 15, 2014

No. 04-12-00358-CV

George T. CHANEY and Medina County,

Appellants

v.

Simon CAMACHO and Felipe CAMACHO,

Appellees

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-03-20524-CV

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The court has considered Appellant's Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion is 

DENIED. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
LADON A. STEPHENS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOHN MYRICK, 

Respondent. 

MOSMAN,J., 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PENDLETON DIVISION 

No. 2:14-cv-1808-AC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On January 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued his Findings and 

Recommendation ("F&R") [69], recommending that I DENY Mr. Stephens's Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus [2]. Judge Acosta also recommended that I decline to issue a Certificate of 

Appealability because Mr. Stephens has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Mr. Stephens objected [74] to the F&R, 

and Mr. Myrick responded [75]. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the 

court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are 

addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review the 

F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, 

reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [69] as 

my own opinion. Mr. Stephens's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is DENIED. In addition, 

I decline to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Mr. Stephens has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). I agree with 

Judge Acosta that Mr. Stephens's trial counsel offered an alternative theory about how Mr. 

Stephens sustained injuries and got L.B. 's blood on his shorts and did not concede Mr. 

Stephens's guilt as to the rape, burglary, and assault of L.B. Accordingly, the Supreme Court's 

decision to grant certiorari in McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255, which presents the question of 

whether it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the 

accused's express objections, has no bearing on whether I should issue a Certificate of 

Appealability here. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this lQday of April, 2018. 

Chief United States District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER
# EUR-Lex - 32009M5320 - EN

*|*

# 32009M5320

**Commission Decision of 18/06/2009 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.5320 - ALMECO / MAGE / TINOX) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels , 18.06.2009

SG-Greffe(2009) D/3437

PUBLIC VERSION C(2009) 5031

MERGER PROCEDURE ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

To the notifying party:

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.5320 - ALMECO / MAGE / TINOX Notification of 11.05.2009 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 122, 30/05/2009 p.10

1. On 11/05/2009 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertakings Almeco GmbH (“Almeco”, Germany) (a company wholly controlled by Almeco Spa, Italy) and MAGE Industrie Holding AG (“MAGE”, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Tinox GmbH (“Tinox”, Germany), a company currently fully owned by MAGE, by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Almeco : production and commercialization of metal surfaces treatment and lighting reflectors .

- for MAGE : production and commercialization of roof accessories.

- for Tinox : production and commercialization of highly selective absorber surfaces (metal surface coating).

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and of paragraph 5 (a) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2] .

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed Philip LOWE Director General

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005, p. 32.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1788 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1788

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 
  tax liability limitation for small property and casualty insurance 
                               companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2015

 Mr. Paulsen (for himself and Mr. Kind) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 
  tax liability limitation for small property and casualty insurance 
                               companies.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN LIMITATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TAX LIABILITY FOR 
              SMALL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 831(b)(2)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(i) the net written premiums (or, if 
                        greater, direct written premiums) for the 
                        taxable year do not exceed $2,200,000, and''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (2) of section 831(b) of such 
Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any 
                taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2015, 
                the dollar amount set forth in subparagraph (A) shall 
                be increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for such 
                        calendar year by substituting `calendar year 
                        2014' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
                        (B) thereof.
                If the amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence 
                is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be 
                rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2009182EN.01000101.xml

| 15.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/1

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 617/2009

of 13 July 2009

opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | In view of the Community interest in developing harmonious trade relations with third countries, provision should be made for opening, as an autonomous measure, a Community import tariff quota of 20 000 tonnes for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In view of the Community interest in developing harmonious trade relations with third countries, provision should be made for opening, as an autonomous measure, a Community import tariff quota of 20 000 tonnes for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef.

| (2) | In accordance with Article 144 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), read in conjunction with Article 4 of that Regulation, tariff quotas for the products covered by this Regulation are opened and administered by the Commission under detailed rules adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of that Regulation, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In accordance with Article 144 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), read in conjunction with Article 4 of that Regulation, tariff quotas for the products covered by this Regulation are opened and administered by the Commission under detailed rules adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of that Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   An annual Community import tariff quota of 20 000 tonnes, expressed in product weight, with order No 09.4449, is hereby opened for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef falling within CN codes 0201, 0202, 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91.

2.   The import duties for the quota referred to in paragraph 1 shall be 0 %.

3.   The quota year shall run from 1 July to 30 June.

Article 2

The tariff quota referred to in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with Article 144 and Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

Article 3

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

It shall apply from 1 August 2009.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 July 2009.

For the Council

The President

E. ERLANDSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

---
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

2018 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Pursuant to
Section 12(a) of the USA Technologies, Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), subject to approval by the shareholders of USA Technologies, Inc. at the 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of USA Technologies, Inc., the
Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. The reference to “1,500,000” in Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby replaced with
“4,000,000”. 
 2. The second paragraph of Section 2(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated as follows: 

“Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, Awards granted under the Plan may not become exercisable, vest or be settled, in
whole or in part, prior to the one-year anniversary of the date of grant, except that: (i) the Committee may provide that Awards become exercisable, vest or settle prior to such date in the event of the
Participant’s death, disability, or other termination of Service approved by the Committee; and (ii) up to 5% of the aggregate number of shares authorized for issuance under this Plan (as described in Section 3(a)) may be issued
pursuant to Awards subject to any, or no, vesting conditions, as the Committee determines appropriate (it being understood that an Award to a non-employee director may be granted on or promptly following the
date of an annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders that vests upon the annual meeting of shareholders occurring in the following year and that occurs at least 50 weeks following such preceding meeting without counting against the foregoing
limitation).” 
 3. Except as expressly set forth above, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with
their terms.
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 313 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 313 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2