alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

          - [CFDA No.: 84.128G] 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary E. Chambers, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3322, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2647. Telephone (202) 205-8435. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. 

                        Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of this document in an alternative format (                        *e.g.*, Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.                     

## Electronic Access to This Document 

                        You may view this document, as well as other Department of Education documents published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the following sites:                    

http://ocfo.ed.gov/​fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/​news.html

To use the PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530. 

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/​nara/​index.html

**Program Authority:**29 U.S.C. 774.                     

Dated: January 12, 2001. 

Judith E. Heumann, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 01-1528 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Rufino Antonio ESTRADA-MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 15-1232.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

*40Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 2010 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐170/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/60/EC – Money laundering and terrorist financing – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
Exhibit (g)(5)

APPENDIX B

TO

CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

AND

EACH OF THE INVESTMENT

COMPANIES LISTED ON APPENDIX "A" THERETO

DATED AS OF August 7, 2007

The following is a list of Additional Custodians, Special Subcustodians, Foreign Subcustodians andEligible Securities Depositories under the Custodian Agreement dated as of January 1, 2007 (the"Custodian Agreement"):

*Citibank, N.A. will act as Special Subcustodian with respect to global bond certificates for the followingportfolios only:  Fidelity Advisor Series VIII: Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Fund; Fidelity Investment Trust: Fidelity New Markets Income Fund.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1704 

Honoring the 2500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself and Mr. SARBANES) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 2500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon. 

Whereas in 490 BC, Athenian warriors defeated foreign invaders and won against overwhelming odds in one of the 

most significant battles in human history; 

Whereas the Athenian victory helped continue the development of a new form of government called ‘‘democracy’’; 

Whereas according to legend, a messenger named Phidippides 

ran from the battlefield of Marathon, Greece, to Athens 

26 miles away to carry news of the victory and it is said, 

that upon delivering the news to the citizens of Athens, 

Phidippides died from exhaustion; 

Whereas Phidippides’ run inspired the spiritual origin of 

what has become the sport of marathoning; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1704 IH 

Whereas the first official marathon race was introduced in 

the first modern Olympics in 1896 held in Athens, 

Greece; 

Whereas officials from the Boston Athletic Association 

brought the long distance Olympic running event to Boston, Massascheusetts, where it has been run annually 

since 1897; 

Whereas a ceremony took place in Marathon, Greece, in 2007 

at the Tomb of the Athenians, the burial cite of the 

Greek warriors who gave their lives defending their country; 

Whereas this ceremony created the symbolic Flame of Marathon that embodies the strength of the human spirit, fair 

competition, and peace; 

Whereas Hopkinton, Massachusetts, and Marathon, Greece, 

have a twin-city relationship, the Flame of Marathon 

traveled from Marathon, Greece, and was presented to 

the Town of Hopkinton in 2008; 

Whereas the Flame of Marathon has burned continuously in 

Hopkinton, Massachusetts, since its arrival in the United 

States; 

Whereas the Flame of Marathon reminds us of the sacrifice 

of the United States Armed Forces and their families, 

the defenders of democracy; 

Whereas the 35th Marine Corps Marathon is receiving the 

Flame of Marathon as part of its celebration of the 

2500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon; and 

Whereas the Flame of Marathon will be displayed at events 

leading to and including the Marine Corps Marathon in 

view of 30,000 runners who embody the marathon spirit 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1704 IH 

as they run through Washington, DC: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives joins 

2 with the Greek Embassy in Washington, DC, the people 

3 of Hopkinton, Massachusetts, the people of Marathon, 

4 Greece, and the hundreds of thousands of runners partici5 pating in marathons throughout the United States, in 

6 celebrating the 2500th anniversary of the Battle of Mara7 thon, Greece, one of the most significant battles in human 

8 history. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21
                                                         ----------

        Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries of Commonwealth Industries, Inc.


     Name                                        Jurisdiction of Incorporation
     ------                                      -----------------------------
     Commonwealth Financing Corp. (1)                                 Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Lewisport, Inc. (1)                        Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Sales Corporation (2)                      Delaware

     Commonal Corporation (2)                                         Barbados

     Alflex Corporation (1)                                           Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Concast, Inc. (3)                          Ohio

     Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation (4)                            Delaware
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------
         (1)  Subsidiary of Commonwealth Industries, Inc.

         (2)  Subsidiary of Commonwealth Aluminum Lewisport, Inc.

         (3)  Subsidiary of Alflex Corporation.

         (4)  Subsidiary of Commonwealth Aluminum Concast, Inc.
Lorenzo E. FLINT, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9815.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Segun M. RASAKI, petitioner, v. Tammy LYNN.

No. 16-6645.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fifth District denied.
Donielle T. HOIST, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY, et al.

No. 16-6195.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 19, 2016, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# C_2010063EN.01001601.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Republic of Slovenia) — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia

(Case C-403/09 PPU) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Provisional measures concerning custody - Decision enforceable in a Member State - Wrongful removal of the child - Other Member State - Other court - Custody of the child granted to the other parent - Jurisdiction - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)

2010/C 63/24

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jasna Detiček

Applicant:

Defendant: Maurizio Sgueglia

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Provisional and protective measures — Jurisdiction of a court in Member State A to rule provisionally on an application to have custody of the child restored, the court dealing with the substance (disposing of the divorce proceedings) being in Member State B

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not allowing, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a court of a Member State to take a provisional measure in matters of parental responsibility granting custody of a child who is in the territory of that Member State to one parent, where a court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction under that regulation as to the substance of the dispute relating to custody of the child, has already delivered a judgment provisionally giving custody of the child to the other parent, and that judgment has been declared enforceable in the territory of the former Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
|Exhibit 31(d)                                                                                                               
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ESI TRACTEBEL ACQUISITION CORP.(the registrant)Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification                                       
|I, Mark R. Sorensen, Treasurer (equivalent to the Chief Financial Officer) of ESI Tractebel Acquisition Corp., certify that:
|1.                                                                                                                          
|2.                                                                                                                          
|3.                                                                                                                          
|4.                                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|5.                                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|Date:  March 23, 2004                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                            
|
Michael Jon STAUNTON, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA, et al.

No. 16M56.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Rufus WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Duncan MacLAREN, Warden.

No. 16-6636.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
2000, FILED AS PART OF FORM 10-QSB QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-QSB QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,598,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,622,829
<PP&E>                                         914,318
<DEPRECIATION>                               (794,840)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,808,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          937,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,780,138
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,128,768)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,808,855
<SALES>                                          3,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,646,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,587,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,225,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,225,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,225,090)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.056)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.056)


</TABLE>
IV 

House Calendar No. 243 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1682 

[Report No. 111–655] 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 

3081) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2010, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to 

the bill (H.R. 3081) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 3081) making appropriations for the Department 

4 of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the 

5 fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:37 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1682.RH HR1682

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1682 RH 

1 poses, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to con2 sider in the House, without intervention of any point of 

3 order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, 

4 a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 

5 Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in 

6 the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the 

7 motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 

8 debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by 

9 the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 

10 on Appropriations. The previous question shall be consid11 ered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 

12 intervening motion or demand for division of the question. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 243 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1682 

[Report No. 111–655] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendposes. ending September 30, 2010, and for other pur- ations, and related programs for the fiscal year tions for the Department of State, foreign oper- ments to the bill (H.R. 3081) making appropriaSEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Appendix A

CFTC FY 2010 to FY 2015 Expenses

Information Technology Expenses

% Change in % Change in

% Change IT Non-FTE IT FTE IT Total IT Non-FTE IT Total

Fiscal Year Appropriation Appropriation Expenses2

Expenses3Expenses Expenses Expenses

FY 2011 Actual 202,270,000 19.8% 39,130,000 14,110,000 53,240,000 24.3% 28.2%

FY 2012 Actual 205,294,000 1.5% 51,110,000 15,020,000 66,130,000 30.6% 24.2%

FY 2013 Actual1

194,555,000 -5.2% 42,140,000 14,800,000 56,940,000 -17.6% -13.9%

FY 2014 Spend Plan 215,000,000 10.5% 42,900,000 16,233,000 59,133,000 1.8% 3.9%

FY 2015 Budget - President 280,000,000 30.2% 50,000,000 21,070,000 71,070,000 16.6% 20.2%

FY 2015 Budget - OMB4

318,000,000 47.9% 78,180,000 22,830,000 101,010,000 56.4% 42.1%

1) Appropriation number is post sequestration. 3) Office of Data and Technology FTE salary and benefits.

2) Direct IT costs for the Commission. Includes IT contracts. 4) This budget was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in November 2013.

Division Expenses

FY 2015 FY 2015

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Budget Budget % Change % Change FY 14 % Change % Change FY 15

Actual Actual Actual Spend Plan President OMB FY 14 vs FY 14 vs % of FY 15 vs FY 15 vs % of 

Division / Office 666 FTE 684 FTE 682 FTE 667 FTE 920 FTE 990 FTE FY 13 FY 11 Approp. FY 14 FY 11 Approp.

Market Oversight 26,658,000 25,822,000 26,397,000 26,722,000 43,082,000 38,965,000 1.23% 0.24% 12.43% 61.22% 61.61% 15.39%

Clearing & Risk 11,296,000 13,237,000 14,002,000 15,011,000 22,717,000 23,189,000 7.21% 32.89% 6.98% 51.34% 101.11% 8.11%

Swap Dealer & Inter. Oversight 16,040,000 16,057,000 17,467,000 20,233,000 31,955,000 33,337,000 15.84% 26.14% 9.41% 57.94% 99.22% 11.41%

Chief Economist 2,937,000 3,689,000 2,482,000 2,632,000 4,021,000 4,142,000 6.04% -10.38% 1.22% 52.77% 36.91% 1.44%

Enforcement 37,051,000 36,020,000 39,728,000 43,312,000 58,019,000 68,363,000 9.02% 16.90% 20.15% 33.96% 56.59% 20.72%

General Counsel 10,844,000 11,501,000 13,059,000 13,141,000 13,532,000 15,266,000 0.63% 21.18% 6.11% 2.98% 24.79% 4.83%

International Affairs 2,033,000 2,170,000 2,662,000 3,190,000 3,160,000 3,366,000 19.83% 56.91% 1.48% -0.94% 55.44% 1.13%

Agency Direction 8,811,000 8,463,000 7,305,000 8,342,000 9,837,000 9,610,000 14.20% -5.32% 3.88% 17.92% 11.64% 3.51%

Admin. Mgmt. and Support 16,718,000 17,142,000 18,846,000 18,277,000 18,793,000 19,257,000 -3.02% 9.33% 8.50% 2.82% 12.41% 6.71%

Data and Technology 60,073,000 64,958,000 59,781,000 64,140,000 74,884,000 102,505,000 7.29% 6.77% 29.83% 16.75% 24.66% 26.74%

Total 192,461,000 199,059,000 201,729,000 215,000,000 280,000,000 318,000,000 6.58% 11.71% 30.23% 45.48%