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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [NM-952-01-1020-BJ]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, (30) thirty calendar days from the date of this publication.

## New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

T. 29 N., R. 5 W., approved April 25, 2001, for Group 980 NM;

T. 26 N., R. 31 E., approved May 7, 2001, for Group 983 NM;

T. Sangre de Cristo Tract within the Sangre de Cristo Grant, approved April 25, 2001, for Group 982 NM;

If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.

A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the NM State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.

A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed. The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, surveys, and subdivisions.

These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502-0115. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet.

Dated: June 8, 2001.

Stephen W. Beyerlein,

Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for New Mexico.

[FR Doc. 01-16216  Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16163]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38, 725]


Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado; Including Temporary 
Workers of SOS Staffing Services, Inc. Employed at Ametek/Dixson Grand 
Junction, Colorado; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 17, 2001, applicable to 
workers of Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22262).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information provided 
by the company shows that some employees of Ametek/Dixson were 
temporary workers from SOS Staffing Services, Inc., employed to produce 
instrumentation for trucks at the Grand Junction, Colorado location of 
Ametek/Dixson.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include temporary workers of SOS Staffing Services, 
Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado leased to Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, 
Colorado.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38, 725 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Ametek/Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado including 
temporary of SOS Staffing Services, Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado, 
engaged in the production of instrumentation for trucks for Ametek/
Dixson, Grand Junction, Colorado who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after February 9, 2000, through 
April 17, 2003, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of June, 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16163 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228,

88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the writ petition and appendices, we conclude that the district court did not arbitrarily exercise its discretion in striking petitioners' witnesses and permitting petitioners to procure new witnesses, and petitioners have failed to otherwise demonstrate that the law compels relief in their favor. Id.; Int'l Game Tech, Inc., 124 Nev. at 197; 179 P.3d at 558. We therefore decline to grant this petition for extraordinary relief. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 679; 818 P.2d at 853. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

# L R f act 

# r i

a.

Saitta J. cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, & McKenna Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk 'The stay imposed by our November 20, 2014, order is hereby vacated.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A .434.
II-00487

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard Cooper <richardcooper57@hotmail. com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:03 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Richard Cooper

5631 Castle Dr

Oakland, CA 94611-2727
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1778

RONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WAL MART STORES, c/o Mendelson, GSO 2301 McGee St, 8th Floor, Kansas 

City, MO 64108,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DAVID ZILENSKI, Store Manager; WILLIAM JOEY, Shift Lead Manager; DELINDA 

BUTLER, Shift Lead Manager; MICHAEL ADAMS, Asst Manager No. 4487,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 

Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:17-cv-00734-DCC)

Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Ronnie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Molly Mitchell Shah, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Williams appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and dismissing Williams’ employment discrimination suit for failure to 

participate in discovery. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Williams’ informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Williams has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Capital Return Futures
                    Fund 2, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000851786
<NAME>              P-B Capital Return Futures Fund 2, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          6,605,995

<SECURITIES>                    19,099,347

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                25,705,342

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  25,705,342

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,551,627

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      23,153,715

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    25,705,342

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (3,531,216)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,806,561

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (5,337,777)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (44.66)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
Santos MIRANDA-MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8076.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Kevin Scott KARSJENS, et al., petitioners, v. Emily Johnson PIPER, et al.

No. 16-1394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*107Motion of Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2024 KW 0035

VERSUS

WESLEY RICKS MARCH 13, 2024

In Re: Wesley Ricks, applying for supervisory writs, 20th

Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, No. 

16259. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT APPLICATION DISMISSED. The writ application is

dismissed at relator' s request.
Mick DORSEY, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.

No. 17-7810.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Neelam UPPAL, petitioner, v. THE HEALTH LAW FIRM.

No. 17-517.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Daimeyahn STEVENSON, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 17-6770.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2012032EN.01000602.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (formerly Merck & Co.) v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-125/10) (1)

1

(Intellectual and industrial property - Patents - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Article 13 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Possibility of granting that certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date of the lodging of the basic patent application and the first marketing authorisation in the European Union is less than five years - Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 - Article 36 - Extension of the duration of the supplementary protection certificate)

2012/C 32/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., formerly Merck & Co. Inc.

Applicant:

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Possibility of granting the certificate if the period of time between the filing of the application for the basic patent and the date of first authorisation for marketing in the Community is shorter than five years

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, read in conjunction with Article 36 of Regulation No 1901/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that medicinal products can be the object of the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date of lodging the basic patent application and the first marketing authorisation in the European Union is less than five years. In such a case, the period of the paediatric extension provided for by the latter regulation starts to run from the date determined by deducting from the patent expiry date the difference between five years and the duration of the period which elapsed between the lodging of the patent application and the grant of the first marketing authorisation.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
In re Michael EGGERS, petitioner.

No. 16-5861.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
# C_2009153EN.01004401.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/44

---

Action brought on 27 April 2009 — Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-159/09)

2009/C 153/86

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda (Linda-a-Velha, Portugal) (represented by: A. Magalhães e Menezes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 16 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the sum of EUR 41 271,09 and ordering that that amount be entered into the accounts a posteriori; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 16 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the sum of EUR 41 271,09 and ordering that that amount be entered into the accounts a posteriori;

a posteriori

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Between September 2003 and February 2005, the applicant imported a number of consignments of frozen prawns from Indonesia, for which it sought remission of import duties pursuant to Articles 220(2)(b), 236 and 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. (1)

1

The applicant submits that the Commission infringed, at the very least, those provisions in so far as: first, it made no observations on any of the arguments put forward by the applicant in its request for remission of import duties; secondly, the reasons given by the Commission were inadequate, misleading and incomprehensible; thirdly, it misinterpreted the error made by the Indonesian authorities themselves; fourthly and last, the Commission deemed to be proved facts which are not actually proved, the burden of proving which fell, subsequently, to the bodies involved in the procedure and not the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 97, p. 38.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF CONTROLLER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Form 10-Q fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated. No purchaser or seller
of securities shall be entitled to rely on the foregoing statement for any
purpose, and the undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the
foregoing statement except as required by law.

FIRST FEDERAL CAPITAL CORP/s/ Kenneth C. Osowski
    
    November 12, 2003Kenneth C. OsowskiVice President and Controller


37
<PAGE>


Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
                           COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended       Six Months Ended
                                                      June 30,                June 30,
                                               ----------------------  ----------------------
                                                  1999        1998        1999        1998
                                               ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
                                              (In thousands, except share and per share data)
<S>                                           <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>

Average common shares outstanding               6,581,451   6,201,733   6,566,643   6,164,965

Average common stock equivalents of
   warrants and options outstanding - based
   on the treasury stock method using market
   price                                           44,313     513,270      86,482     508,750
                                               ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------

                                                6,625,764   6,715,003   6,653,125   6,673,715
                                               ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income                                     $    1,345  $    1,077  $    2,347  $    1,704

Basic earnings per common share                      0.20        0.17        0.36        0.28

Diluted earnings per common share                    0.20        0.16        0.35        0.26
</TABLE>


                                30
Raul RANGEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7838.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Antonio MEDINA-LEON, aka Antonioleon Medina, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-876.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41198

Summary Calendar

THE ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; BROWN

& WILLIAMSON TOBAC CO CORPORATION; B.A.T. INDUSTRIES PLC; PHILIP

MORRIS INCORPORATED; LIGGETT GROUP INC.; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY

INC.; UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY; HILL & KNOWLTON INC.; THE

COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH USA INC.; Successor to the Tobacco

Institute Research Committee; THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CV-596

-------------------- July 15, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas (“the Tribe”) appeals the

dismissal of its complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues that its sovereign status and the2

fact that the injuries were alleged to have been suffered by the

Tribe itself, apart from its members, refute the district court’s

determination that the Tribe could not establ ish the requisite

proximate cause because it had suffered no direct injury.

We review the district court’s ruling de novo

. S hipp v.

McMahon

, 234 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied

, 532 U.S.

1052 (2001). After fully reviewing the parties’ briefs, the

applicable law, and the record, we find that the Tribe’s sovereign

status and their “direct injury” argument do not make this case

distinguishable from our decision in Texas Carpe nters Health

Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.

, 199 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2000).

See Service Employees International Union Health and Welfare Fund

v. Philip Morris Inc.

, 249 F.3d 1068, 1073 (D.C. Cir.), cert.

denied

, 122 S. Ct. 463 (2001)(foreign government’s status as a

sovereign does not eliminate or adequately substitute for proximate

cause requirement); Laborers Local 17 Health and Benefit Fund v.

Philip Morris, Inc.

, 191 F.3d 229, 239 (2nd Cir. 1999), cert.

de nied , 120 S. Ct. 799 (2000)(labor union funds’ contention that

they suffered direct injury because of “infrast ructure harm” did

not change fact that the alleged injury was entirely derivative of

the harm suffered by the plan participants as a result of using

tobacco products). Therefore, we AFFIRM for essentially the same

reasons stated by the district court in its August 30, 2001 order.

AFFIRMED.3