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

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Southwest Washington Province Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, March 9, 2007, at the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Headquarters, 10600 NE 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to share information and receive feedback on: Northwest Forest Plan monitoring ten-year results; Gifford Pinchot National Forest's Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 timber sale plan; flood and storm damage within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; and to share information among Committee members.

All Southwest Washington Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The “open forum” provides an opportunity for the public to bring issues, concerns, and discussion topics to the Advisory Committee. The “open forum” is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Interested speakers will need to register prior to the open forum period. The committee welcomes the public's written comments on Committee business at any time.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Strebig, Public Affairs Officer, at (360) 891-5005, or write Forest Headquarters Office: Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 10600 NW. 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

Dated: February 1, 2007.

Claire Lavendel,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 07-550  Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# EUR-Lex - - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

#

**EU-Central African Republic Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the EU *** European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 April 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) (14034/2011 – C7-0046/2012 – 2011/0127(NLE)) **

*
Official Journal C 258 E , 07/09/2013 P. 0130 - 0130 *

EU-Central African Republic Voluntary Partnership Agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the EU ***

P7_TA(2012)0131

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 April 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) (14034/2011 – C7-0046/2012 – 2011/0127(NLE))

2013/C 258 E/21

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the draft Council decision (14034/2011),

- having regard to the draft Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT) (14036/2011),

- having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(3) and (4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0046/2012),

- having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0082/2012),

1. Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;

2. Calls on the Commission to regularly report to Parliament on progress in the implementation of existing Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) and in negotiating and implementing new VPAs;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Central African Republic.

--------------------------------------------------
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000659 01-APR-2019 09:36 AM
# C_2009088EN.01000601.xml

| 17.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 April 2009

2009/C 88/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3196 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,50 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4488 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88560 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,9340 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5127 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,920 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 293,34 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2910 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2128 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1164 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8315 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5874 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2273 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,3137 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9757 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 761,10 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,9100 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0163 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3733 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 119,72 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7492 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,810 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,0470 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,681 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8771 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,1911 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,6600 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3196

JPY

Japanese yen

130,50

DKK

Danish krone

7,4488

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88560

SEK

Swedish krona

10,9340

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5127

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,920

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

293,34

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2910

RON

Romanian leu

4,2128

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1164

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8315

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5874

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2273

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,3137

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9757

KRW

South Korean won

1 761,10

ZAR

South African rand

11,9100

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0163

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3733

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 119,72

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7492

PHP

Philippine peso

62,810

RUB

Russian rouble

44,0470

THB

Thai baht

46,681

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8771

MXN

Mexican peso

17,1911

INR

Indian rupee

65,6600

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### IRA HAUPT & CO., Respondent-Appellant, v. Bernard KLEBANOW, George Lewis and Michael Sloan, Petitioners-Appellees.

No. 377, Docket 29454.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 16, 1965.

Decided June 24, 1965.

*908Krause, Hirsch, Gross & Heilpern, and Delson & Gordon, New York City (Sydney Krause, Charles Singer, and Norman Moloshok, New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Rosenman, Colin, Kaye, Petschek & Freund, New York City (Max Freund and Jerome E. Sharfman, New York City, of counsel), for petitioners-appellees.

Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.*

*

 The appeal was initially heard by a panel consisting of Chief Judge Lumbard and Judges Moore and Marshall. Chief Judge Lumbard having later determined that he preferred not to participate, Judge Friendly was designated to act in his stead and the parties were given an opportunity to submit further briefs taking account of the decisions relating to Ira Haupt & Co. reported at 343 F.2d 726 and 344 F.2d 294.

PER CURIAM:

As recounted in In re Ira Haupt & Co., 343 F.2d 726 (2 Cir. 1965), Klebanow, Lewis and Sloan, limited partners, filed an involuntary petition in bankruptcy against the partnership, and the six general partners countered with a Chapter XI petition, as permitted by § 321. The limited partners moved to dismiss the Chapter XI petition, and the partnership moved for a stay of adjudication under § 325 Judge Palmieri upheld the referee’s grant of the former motion and denial of the latter; the partnership, which has been adjudicated a bankrupt and is being administered as such, appeals from this action.

The same principles by which a court of bankruptcy was held to have inherent power to dismiss a Chapter XI petition where relief was properly to be had under Chapter X, without benefit of the express authority now contained in § 328, SEC v. United States Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434, 60 S.Ct. 1044, 84 L.Ed. 1293 (1940), authorize it to dismiss a Chapter XI petition when it finds that there is no prospect of rehabilitation and that ordinary bankruptcy is the appropriate vehicle. This is obviously true of a Chapter XI petition filed in a pending bankruptcy since § 325 makes the grant of a stay of adjudication discretionary. The circumstances here abundantly justified the conclusion that there was no prospect of rehabilitating the partnership. Upholding Judge Palmieri’s order on this ground we have no occasion to consider other arguments advanced by appellees in its support, or their motion to dismiss the appeal for alleged lack of authority to take it.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PLANET BINGO, LLC, 

a California limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-64/RS-MD

WILD BILL’S BINGO, INC., 

A Florida corporation,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is the Report of Mediation (Doc. 55), noting that the result of the 

mediation is a settlement. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. 16.2 it is ordered: 

1. The case is dismissed from the active docket of the court. 

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves 

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this 

Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative purposes, 

and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is direct to 

close the case in its entirety for all purposes. 

ORDERED on October 25, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SYLVIA ARDLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 1:09CV185-MMP/AK

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brings this cause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review

of the administrative denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits

under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). Defendant has moved to remand

this matter to the Commissioner under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) which

provides that:

The court may, on motion of the Commissioner of Social Security made

for good cause shown before the Commissioner files the Commissioner’s

answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for

further action by the Commissioner of Social Security...

The complaint in this cause was filed on August 31, 2009, and the 
Page 2 of 2

Commissioner was served on September 8, 2009, but no answer has been filed. 

Defendant moves to remand this action because the claim file and hearing tape have

been lost and the Appeals Council will continue to search for them or determine that the

file must be reconstructed. Plaintiff has no objection to the motion to remand.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion to remand (doc. 12)

be GRANTED, and this cause is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner under

sentence six for further proceedings by the Appeals Council. The parties are directed to

file a Status Report on or before March 16, 2009, advising the Court of the status of the

administrative proceedings.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2009.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

No. 1:09cv185-MMP/AK
2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-7-2005 

# U SA v . Quince no -M ont oya P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1299

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Quinc e no -M ont o ya" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 926. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/926UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. : 04- 1299 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA A ppel l ee

v. VI CT OR HUGO Q UI CE NO MONTO YA A p p e llan t
O n A ppeal fr om Fi nal J udgementof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey Subm i t t ed: M ar ch 8, 2005 B efor e: N Y G A A R D , M cK E E and R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udges

OR DE R A M E ND I NG OP I NI ON I T I S HEREBY O RDERED , t hatt he O pi ni on fi l ed i n t hi s cas e on J une 1, 2005, be am end ed as fo l l ow s: O n p ag e 4 , d elete the sen tenc e b eg inn ing “T h e lett er d ec lares M o n toy a’s inn o ce n se . . . . ” a n d rep lace itw ith “T h e lett er d ec lares M o n toy a’s in n o c e n c e . . . .” On P a g e 6 , d e l e t e “ M o n t e s - L e n y a ” a n d r e p l a c e wi t h “ M o n t e s - L e yv a . ” On th a t sa m e p a g e , d e lete th e se n ten c e “ H o w e v e r, th a t ev id e n c e w o u ld ‘if an y thing
. . . a p o ssible d iscrep an cy . ’ A 1 0 9 , ” a n d rep lace w ith “H o w ev er, th a t e v id e n c e w o u ld ‘i f

a n y th in g . . . p re s e n t[ ] a p o s s ib le d is c re p a n c y .’ A 1 2 5 . ”. A g ain, on the s am e p ag e, de let e “
. . . w as g u il tyas c h arg ed
. ’ I d. ,” a n d re p la c e w ith “ . . . w a s g u ilty a s c h a rg e d .’ A 1 0 9 .” O n p a g e 7 , d e lete th e f

o llo w in g se n ten c e f

ro m th e O p in io n : “H o w e v e r, itis no w cl ear that the co urtcou l d n ot r el yup on t hat drug qu anti t yt o incr easeM ont oy a’ s s ent ence unl es s he admi t t ed i t , ort he quant i t yw as pr oven

b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t to th e ju ry.”
BY THE C OURT

/ s /T heodor e A
. M cK ee C i r cui tJ udge
D at ed: J une 7, 2005 CM H / c c : BPR , SG C, D BL , G SL
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6653

JOHN D. SIMPSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SUPREME COURT JUDGE OF RICHMOND STATE OF

VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-01-538-3)

Submitted: July 3, 2002 Decided: August 5, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John D. Simpson appeals the district court’s orders denying

his petition for a writ of mandamus and his motion filed under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Simpson v. Supreme

Court Judge, No. CA-01-538-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2002; Apr. 18,

2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SUE ANN ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00125-MP -GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 16, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the decision denying benefits be reversed and this matter

remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Both parties agree to this reversal and

remand. On remand the administrative law judge should obtain psychological testing regarding

Plaintiff’s level of intellectual functioning and to further evaluate Plaintiff’s mental functioning

under Listing 12.05(B).

Absent a court order stating otherwise, a successful Plaintiff’s counsel has fourteen days

after final judgment to file a motion with the District Court requesting an award of attorney fees. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). This Rule has been interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit to apply to a

request for fees to be paid from Plaintiff’s past due benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). 

Bergen v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1273, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2006). However, Plaintiff's counsel

in such a case will not know the amount of benefits - and therefore fees - until after the

Commissioner awards benefits, which typically takes longer than fourteen days after the entry of

judgment. Thus, an extension of time to seek such fees is warranted, and was 
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00125-MP -GRJ

recommended by the Bergen opinion. Id. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 16, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Remand, Doc. 15, is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s

decision denying benefits to Plaintiff is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

3. On remand the administrative law judge should obtain psychological testing

regarding Plaintiff’s level of intellectual functioning and to further evaluate

Plaintiff’s mental functioning under Listing 12.05(B). 

4. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment accordingly, terminate any pending

motions, and close the file. 

4. Pursuant to Bergen, proceedings on attorney fees under the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. § 406(b) are stayed until the matter is fully adjudicated upon remand. 

The Plaintiff shall file a motion to award fees under 406(b) within 30 days after

counsel receives notice from the Defendant Commissioner as to Plaintiff’s past

due benefits.

5. This stay relates only to attorney fee proceedings under § 406(b) of the Social

Security Act, not to attorney fee proceedings under the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the latter of which may be adjudicated at this time.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7691
JAMES CALVIN ROTHWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROLL A. CAMPBELL, Governor, State of South Carolina; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; GENE BAKER; TONY ELLIS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-2194-2-2AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 25, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Calvin Rothwell, Appellant Pro Se. John Gregg McMaster, Jr.,TOMPKINS & MCMASTER, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COR RECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rothwell v. Campbell , No. CA-93-2194-2-2AJ (D.S.C. Oct. 3, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL LITTLE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv213/RV/EMT

WALTER A. McNEIL, et al.,

Respondents.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated October 5, 2010 (Doc. 13). Petitioner has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE