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 Defense

###### Department of the Army

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), an announcement is made of the following Committee Meeting:

*Name of Committee:*                         Army Science Board, Objective Force Soldier, Leadership Meeting.                    

*Date of Meeting:*                         June 5 and 6, 2001.                    

*Place:*                         SAIC, McLean, VA., 8 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Summary:*                         The Army Science Board's (ASB) Summer Study Leadership on the “Objective Force Soldier/Soldier Systems” will meet for the purpose of “pre-decisions” and FY2001 SS general discussion. As this session is for the purposes of laying the framework for the two-week report writing session and outbrief to Army leadership and because the proprietary matters to be discussed are so inextricably intertwined, this precludes opening any portion of these meetings to the public.                     

*Contact Person:*                        For further information, please contact Everett R. Gooch at (703) 604-7479.                    

Wayne Joyner,

Executive Assistant, Army Science Board.

## Agenda

### June 5-6, 2001

8 a.m.-5 p.m. (both days) Group discussion and leadership decision.

[FR Doc. 01-13649 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
NO.

______________ IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

PAUL HENRI WAGNER ) APPELLANT v. )
THE STATE OF TEXAS ) APPELLEE
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Now comes, Paul Henri Wagner , Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, by and through his attorneys of record, Vincent W. Perini and Dan Wood, Jr., and pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.2(c), moves for an ex tension of time of 30 days to file a petition for discretionary review, and for good cause shows the following:
1. The Court of Appeals below affirmed appellant ’s conviction in its opinion and judgment in Paul Henri Wagner v. The State of Texas , Case No. 05-13-01329- CR, (Tex.App. – Dallas, decided May 5, 2015); no motion for rehearing was filed and the petition for discretionary review is therefore due on June 4, 2015.
2. Appellant requests an additional forty

- five (45 ) days from the deadline sta t ed above and Appellant asks this Court to order the petition to be due on or before July 19, 2015. 3. No previous extensions have been requested.
4. The facts relied upon to reasonably explain the need for an extension of time are
as follows: On May 28, 2015, Dan Wood, Jr., became associated as co

- counsel to represent Appellant in regarding a petition for discretionary review

. New c ounsel needs additional time to

MOTION TO EXTEN D TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW , Page 1 PD-0659-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/29/2015 12:21:46 PM Accepted 6/1/2015 2:29:26 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKread the record and research grounds for the petition. Appellant does wish to pursue his right to file a petition for discretionary review and requests this court to allow additional time for new counsel to adequately prepare same WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONS IDERED , App ellant respectfully requests an
extensi on of 45 days, i.e. until July 19, 2015 , to file a petition for discretionary review

. Respectfully submitted,
VINCENT W. PERINI DAN WOOD, JR ATTORNEY AT LAW 4303 N. Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75205 (214) 559

- 8815 Office tel. (214) 696

- 0867 Fax
/ Dan Wood, Jr

. / By: Dan Wood, Jr. State Bar No. 21887050 Email: danwoodjr@sbcglobal.net
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

C ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on May 29, 2015 , a true and correct copy of t he above and foregoing document was served upon the State of Texas by U.S. Mail addressed to : Hon. Susan Hawk, Criminal Dist rict Attorney, Attn: Appellant Division , 1 33 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB 19, Dallas, TX 75207

.

/ Dan Wood, Jr

. / Dan Wood, Jr.

MOTION TO EXTEN D TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW , Page 2
[925 NE2d 576, 898 NYS2d 538]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Thomas Edwards, Jr., Respondent.

Decided February 16, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney,*Buffalo *(Michael J. Hillery*of counsel), for appellant.

*742
      *Law Office of Susan V. Tipograph,*New York City *(Susan V. Tipo graph*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress tangible property denied and the judgment of County Court reinstated.

Defendant was driving a vehicle that was stopped by the police based on probable cause to believe that a traffic infraction had occurred. During the course of the officers’ investigation, cocaine residue was observed on defendant’s hand and he was arrested. Crack cocaine was discovered in his pocket and there was over a half pound of the drug in the car.

Defendant moved to suppress the drugs, claiming that the police unlawfully extended the investigation of the traffic infraction because they suspected he might be involved with narcotics. Supreme Court denied the motion and defendant later pleaded guilty to drug and assault charges. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that once the police officers determined that a traffic infraction had occurred, the purpose for the detention was exhausted and the continued seizure was unlawful. We disagree.

The initial stop of defendant’s vehicle was permissible and the police officers’ subjective motivation to investigate possible drug activity does not negate the objective reasonableness of the officers’ actions *(see People v Wright,*98 NY2d 657, 658-659 [2002]; *People v Robinson,*97 NY2d 341, 350 [2001]). In addition, here, as a matter of law, the officers did not inordinately prolong the detention beyond what was reasonable under the circumstances to address the traffic infraction *(cf. People v Banks,*85 NY2d 558, 562 [1995], *cert denied*516 US 868 [1995]). Rather, it was proper for the police officers to return to defendant’s vehicle in order to complete the traffic stop. Because drug residue was first seen while the police had a justifiable basis to continue the detention for the traffic infraction, that observation provided probable cause to arrest and search defendant, and the subsequent impoundment and inventory search of the vehicle were valid. Consequently, suppression of the drugs is not required.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

*743On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  27  LLC  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
September  30,  2008, as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              November 11, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              November 11, 2008
#### In the Matter of Paul Z., a Child Alleged to be Severely Abused. Karen AA, Respondent; Paul N., Appellant.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided February 16, 2010

*750Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
# C_2019328EN.01004501.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — STIF-IDF v Commission

(Case T-738/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the STIF-IDF - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Advantage - Offsetting of costs involved in the discharging of public service obligations - Article 107(1), TFEU - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 328/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syndicat Transport Île de France (STIF-IDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and C. Rydzynski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders Syndicat Transport Île de France (STIF-IDF) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Syndicat Transport Île de France (STIF-IDF) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
Exhibit 16.1

May 7, 2018

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549-7561

United States of America

Dear Sirs/Madam:

We have read Item 16F of Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the Annual
Report), and have the following comments:



|1. | We agree with the statements made in the first, second and third paragraphs of Item16F of the Annual Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | We have no basis on which to agree or disagree with the statement made in the fourth paragraph of Item 16F of the Annual Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yours truly,

/s/DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU

Auditores Independentes
# C_2004230EN.01000101.xml

| 15.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

Composition of the European Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic and Social Spheres

(Council Decision 91/116/EEC (1))

1

(2004/C 230/01)

By its Decision of 16 July 2004, the Council appointed Mr M. R. WEALE a member of the European Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic and Social Spheres to replace Ms A. DALE, who has resigned, for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which runs until 27 November 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 59, 6.3.1991, p. 21. Decision amended by Decision 97/255/EC (OJ L 102, 19.4.1997, p. 32).

1

---
# C_2020027EN.01000501.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Land Berlin

(Case C-379/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Directive 2009/12/EC - Articles 3 and 6 - Article 11(1) and (7) - Airport charges - Protection of airport users’ rights - Whether it is possible for the airport managing body to agree charges lower than those approved by the independent supervisory authority - Remedies available to an airport user - Collateral challenge before a civil court giving judgment on the basis of equitable criteria)

(2020/C 27/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant: Land Berlin

Interveners: Berliner Flughafen GmbH, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, in particular Article 3, Article 6(5)(a) and Article 11(1) and (7) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision that allows an airport managing body to determine, together with an airport user, airport charges different from those set by that body and approved by the independent supervisory authority, within the meaning of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, in particular Article 3, Article 6(5)(a) and Article 11(1) and (7) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision that allows an airport managing body to determine, together with an airport user, airport charges different from those set by that body and approved by the independent supervisory authority, within the meaning of that directive.

| 2. | Directive 2009/12 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national law whereby an airport user is prevented from challenging directly the decision of the independent supervisory authority approving the charging system, but can bring an action against the airport managing body before a civil court and can plead in that action only that the charges determined in the charging system that that user must pay are inequitable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2009/12 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national law whereby an airport user is prevented from challenging directly the decision of the independent supervisory authority approving the charging system, but can bring an action against the airport managing body before a civil court and can plead in that action only that the charges determined in the charging system that that user must pay are inequitable.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 01-1261, MM Docket No. 01-50, RM-10059] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission, at the request of Arkansas Educational Television Commission, licensee of noncommercial educational station KETS(TV), substitutes DTV channel *5 for DTV channel *47 at Little Rock, Arkansas.                         *See*66 FR 12750, February 28, 2001. DTV channel *5 can be allotted to Little Rock in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (34-28-23 N. and 92-12-11 W.) with a power of 2.1, HAAT of 540.1 meters and with a DTV service population of 848 thousand.                     

With this action, this proceeding is terminated. 

# DATES:

Effective July 9, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-50, adopted May 23, 2001, and released May 25, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Television
      - Digital television broadcasting

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.622

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Arkansas, is amended by removing DTV channel *47 and adding DTV channel *5 at Little Rock. 

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01-13711 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
#### CAUDILL v. DELLINGER

No. 270A98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 649

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1998. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rules 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals allowed 5 November 1998.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12736]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-125237-00]
RIN 1545-AY60


Debt Instruments With Original Issue Discount; Annuity Contracts; 
Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document cancels the public hearing on proposed 
regulations relating to the federal income tax treatment of annuity 
contracts issued by certain insurance companies.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 
2001, at 10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaNita Van Dyke of the Regulations 
Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & Strategic Planning), 
(202) 622-7190 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on Friday, 
January 12, 2001 (66 FR 2852), announced that a public hearing was 
scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2001, at 10 a.m., in room 4718, 
Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under 
sections 163(e) and 1271 through 1275 of the Internal Revenue Code. The 
public comment period for these proposed regulations expired on April 
12, 2001.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of Wednesday, May 16, 2001, no one has requested to speak. 
Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2001, is 
cancelled.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Acting Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel 
(Modernization & Strategic Planning).
[FR Doc. 01-12736 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the American First Financial, Inc. (the “registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, J R Stirling, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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





Date: August 15, 2011





/s/  J. R. StirlingJ. R. StirlingChief Executive and Chief Financial Officer
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

January 20, 2023

Submitted via Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Confidential Treatment Request – Exhibit B - AEGIS SEF Self Certification

Dear Sir:

AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby requests that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “Commission”) accord confidential treatment to Exhibit B (“Exhibit”), which 

were submitted to the Commission as 40.2 Listing products for trading by certification on this 

date. This request pertains to all material in the Exhibit. The Exhibit bears the designation 

“Confidential Treatment Requested by AEGIS SEF, LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission Regulations 40.8, as 

Exhibit contains information that would reveal the trade secrets or confidential commercial or 

financial information of AEGIS SEF and its affiliates. 

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any 

questions regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381