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 Agriculture

###### Foreign Agricultural Service

# AGENCY:

Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 2, 2021, pertaining to adjustment of appendices under the Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Import Licensing Regulation. FAS has technical corrections to that document.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Abdelsalam El-Farra, (202) 720-9439;                         *abdelsalam.el-farra@fas.usda.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of September 2, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-19106 (86 FR 49289) make the following corrections:                

(1) On page 49289, in the third column, in numbered paragraph 3, insert “inserting” after “(d)”, and

(2) On page 49290, in the first column, in numbered paragraph 5, delete “1,31,000” and insert “1,313,000” in lieu thereof.

Lori Tortora,

Licensing Authority.

[FR Doc. 2021-19660 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Prashant Agarwal, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 906]

Appeal from an order of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), dated June 20, 2011. The order determined that *1451defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.),*defendant contends that County Court’s upward departure from his presumptive classification as a level one risk to a level two risk is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence *(see*§ 168-n [3]). We reject that contention. There is clear and convincing evidence that defendant used the internet to engage in sexually explicit conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, instructed her to masturbate, provided her with Web sites to educate her about sexual positions, communicated to her that he wanted to engage in sexual activity with her, and “ ‘exhibited a willingness to act on his compulsions’ ” by arranging to meet with her and then arriving at the arranged meeting with various items demonstrating his intent to engage in sexual activity *(People v Blackman,*78 AD3d 803, 804 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 707 [2011]). In our view, the People thereby presented evidence of aggravating factors “ ‘of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines’ ” *(People v McCollum,*41 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2007], *lv denied 9*NY3d 807 [2007]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
# L_2009073EN.01000301.xml

| 19.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 73/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 73/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 211/2009

of 18 March 2009

on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2009 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1399/2007 for sausages and certain meat products originating in Switzerland

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to 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),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1399/2007 of 28 November 2007 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for sausages and certain meat products originating in Switzerland (2) and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 1399/2007 opened a tariff quota for imports of sausages and certain meat products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1399/2007 opened a tariff quota for imports of sausages and certain meat products.

| (2) | The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2009 for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2009 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2009 for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2009 do not cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications under the quota bearing the serial number 09.4180 have not been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1399/2007, to be added to the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2009, shall be 929 000 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 March 2009.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 29.11.2007, p. 7.

2

---
(18 Misc. Rep. 593.)

#### BIGGERT v. HICKS.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

Contracts—Public Policy—Restricting Right to Sue.

A provision in an insurance policy, that no action shall be brought on it by insured except against the attorneys in fact, representing insurers, is against public policy, as ousting the courts of jurisdiction. Knorr v. Bates, 33 N. Y. Supp. 691, 12 Mise. Rep. 395, followed.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Joseph M. Biggert against Henry C. Hicks. From an interlocutory order sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and O’DWYER, J.

Walter J. Taylor, for appellant.

Edgar J. Nathan, for respondent.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

The plaintiff’s demurrer was to the separate defense that the policy of insurance under which defendant was sued as one of several underwriters contained a provision that:

> “No action shall be brought to enforce the provisions of this policy except against the general managers, as attorneys in fact, and representing all of the underwriters; and each of the underwriters hereby agrees to abide the result of any suit so brought, as fixing his individual responsibility hereunder.”

This demurrer was properly sustained. The common pleas, general term, Pryor, J., writing (35 N. Y. Supp. 1060), has passed upon this specific question in Knorr v. Bates, 33 N. Y. Supp. 691, 12 Misc. Rep. 395, in affirming the special term decision of Bischoff, J., holding that such a provision in such policy of insurance cannot be enforced against the insured if he objects; and such is the ruling in Farjeon v. Fogg, 16 Misc. Rep. 219, 37 N. Y. Supp. 980. And our general term, in obedience to the ruling in the Knorr Case, has so decided in Ralli v. Hillyer, 15 Misc. Rep. 692, 40 N. Y. Supp., 1148. However, appellant’s counsel contends that these decisions should be disregarded, because of the decisions by the appellate division of First department in Leiter v. Beecher, 2 App. Div. 577, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1114, and Concentrating Works v. Acker*237mann, 6 App. Div. 540, 39 N. Y. Supp. 585. But a careful reading of the opinions in these two cases show that the precise question involved in this case was not passed upon in those cases.

The interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

O’DWYER, J., concurs.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

January 7-8, 2004

List of Attachments

No. Title Author/Presenter

1 Attendance Sheets

2 Draft Tribal Funding letter Norm Henderson

3 FY 2005 Revised Budget Spreadsheet Dennis Kubly

4 TWG BAHG Recommendations on FY05 Budget Dennis Kubly

5 TWG Comments, Budget & Work Plan Presentation Helen Fairley

6 DASA Elements (PowerPoint presentation) Ted Melis

7 Report to AMWG: An Independent Review of

Ongoing and Proposed Scientific Methods to Assess

the Status & Trends of the Grand Canyon Population

of the Humpback Chub

Steve Gloss

8 Memo to Sara White, Subj: Opposition to NPS killing

trout in Bright Angel Creek

Mark Steffen

9 Revised budget TWG

10a

10b

GCMRC’s Response to WAPA Flow Proposal

WAPA Flow Proposal & Excel spreadsheet

Clayton Palmer

11 Strategic Planning for GCMRC PowerPoint

presentation

Jeff Lovich

12 Outyear Budget process (developed by Randy

Peterson) with comments from Helen Fairley & Jeff

Lovich

USBR

13 Recommendations on a new direction for foodbase

monitoring

Steve Gloss

14 Humpback Chub Methods Review Steve Gloss
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Murray, Appellant.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s arguments concerning the unreliability of his identification by an eyewitness and the complainant, both of whom knew him and saw him on a daily basis and concededly correctly identified his accomplice. Regarding the conflicting exculpatory testimony of the defendant’s accomplice, "resolution of credibility [was] properly for the trier of fact” *(see, People v La Borde,*76 AD2d 869, 870; *People v Sutton,*108 AD2d 942; *lv denied*65 NY2d 930). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Renee Bender, Also Known as Marcy Bender, Appellant.

*810We have examined the defendant’s contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Hooper, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7028

MARK E. RICHARDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-176-3) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 26, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E. Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* By consent of the parties, the decision below was rendered by a magistrate judge. See28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Mark E. Richards, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). * We have reviewed the record and conclude in part for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge that Richards has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. SeeRichards v. Angelone , CA-01-176-3 (E.D. Va. June 27, 2002). We further find Richards’ claims regarding his parole revocation hearing were barred by the one year limitations period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2000); Crawley v. Cato , 257 F.3d 395, 399 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 811 (2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Totalsjc Ave Sjc Release                    
csv

      Riogrande Ave Rg Release                    
csv

      Reclamation Ave Sjc Release                    
csv

      Santefecity Ave Sjc Release                    
csv

      Total Flow                    
csv

      Rg5Dayaverage Flow                    
csv

      Rio Grande At Otowi Bridge, Nm Flow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Totalsjc Ave Sjc Release                    
json

      Riogrande Ave Rg Release                    
json

      Reclamation Ave Sjc Release                    
json

      Santefecity Ave Sjc Release                    
json

      Total Flow                    
json

      Rg5Dayaverage Flow                    
json

      Rio Grande At Otowi Bridge, Nm Flow                    
json
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

RICHARD RAWLINS, 

Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COL VIN, Acting Commissioner of ) 

Social Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

JONES, J., 

6:15-cv-00011-JO 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on the joint motion of the pmiies to dismiss this action with 

prejudice.[# 19). The motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this (tf, day ofFebrnary, 2016.
1

Note: District Court order of dismissal not available electronically.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and

judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 10th Cir.

36.3.

2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 3/25/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

JASON AARON SIMMONS, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 95-1440

) (D.C. No. 95-S-1818)

PHILIP BEINVENU, STAN KIMBLE, ) (D. Colorado)

CLEVELAND HOLMES, LEROY L. YOWELL, )

JUDGE ARREN, JUDGE NIESCHBURG, )

JUDGE STEWART, MICHAEL GUVARA, )

WILLIAM SYLVESTER, DENNIS HOUNON, )

IVAN DEW, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that

oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Simmons, a state inmate and a pro se litigator, commenced this action against three state
3

court judges, the district attorney, a sheriff in his capacity as a witness, his two court-appointed

attorneys, his court-appointed investigator, a department of corrections investigator, again in his

capacity as a witness, and two probation officers. The district court, in a thorough thirteen-page

“Order of Dismissal,” dismissed the complaint for a variety of reasons including the fact the civil

rights claims asserted were frivolous and the claims construed as habeas corpus claims were

unexhausted.

Mr. Simmons appeals the Order of Dismissal, pro se, asserting, inter alia, claims of double

jeopardy and malicious prosecution. Mr. Simmons does not tell us why the actions of the district

court were legally or factually incorrect; rather he asserts the Bill of Rights is not frivolous and

argues the district court did not actually apply any law. He charges the district court “totally ignored

the constitution” and “totally ignored each and every fact.” He asks this court “to order Default

Judgement against the Plaintiffs and order them to pay me the money that I'm due.” He concludes

by informing us “I am pro se and mentally disabled and have been since 1991.”

We have reviewed the record on appeal and carefully considered Mr. Simmons’ brief and

arguments. He has failed to convince us the district court erred in dismissing his complaint.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth

in the Order of Dismissal entered by the district court, a copy thereof being attached.

Entered for the Court:

WADE BRORBY
4

United States Circuit Judge
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN SMITH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 35063

D.C. No. 6:16

- cv

- 01875

- TC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA
, BYBEE, and WATFORD , Circuit Judges

.
Steven Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his requests for

records from the Department of Transportation (“DOT”)

. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 35063

Food & Drug Admin. , 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the DOT because

Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to wheth er the DOT did

not “conduct [] a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”

Hamdan v. U.S

. Dep’t of Justice , 797 F.3d 759, 770 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted) ; id . at 770

- 71 (requirements for demonstrat ing

adequacy of search for documents in response to a FOIA request ).

The district court did not err by denying in part Smith’s motion for partial
summary judgment. Although the DOT’s failure to respond to Smith’s FOIA

requests within the statutory time limits meant that Smith was deemed to have

exhausted his administrative remedies, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i) (a party
making a FOIA request “shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative

remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the
applicable time limit provisions”), Smith provided no basis for any relief outside of

that provided by the FOIA statute.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motions for

discovery because the discovery sought was not within the scope of the limited

discovery permitted in FOIA actions. See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior , 523 F.3d

1128, 1134

- 35 (9th Cir. 2008) ( setting forth standard of review and explaining

limitations on discovery in FOIA actions ).3 19

- 35063

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for

costs without prejudice to refil ing the motion after t he resolution of the instant

appeal

. See C

hristian v. Mattel, Inc.
, 286 F.3d 1118 , 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting

forth standard of review and noting a district court’s “ considerable latitude in

managing the parties ’ motion practice ”)

.
Smith’s “ motion re trial court motion for costs ” i s denied without prejudice

to refiling in the district court

.
AFFIRMED.
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-899]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Eli-Elsohly Laboratories has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before November 12, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before November 12, 2021.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on August 5, 2021, Eli-Elsohly Laboratories, 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, Mississippi 38655, applied to be registered as an bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substances
Drug code
ScheduleMarihuana Extract
7350
IMarihuana
7360
ITetrahydrocannabinols
7370
IAmphetamine
1100
IIMethamphetamine
1105
IICocaine
9041
IICodeine
9050
IIDihydrocodeine
9120
IIEcgonine
9180
IIThebaine
9333
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for product development and reference standards. In reference to drug codes 7360 (Marihuana) and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to isolate these controlled substances from procured 7350 (Marihuana Extract). In reference to drug code 7360, no cultivation activities are authorized for this registration. In reference to drug code 9333 (Thebaine), the company plans to manufacture a Thebaine derivative. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Brian S. Bresser, Acting Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-19679 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In   connection   with  the   Amendment   No.  1  to  Annual  Report  of  Altair
Nanotechnologies  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, William P. Long, Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ William P. Long
--------------------------
William P. Long
Chief Executive Officer
April 29, 2003