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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

      ( print page 55382)    
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) will hold public roundtable discussions on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at the CFTC's headquarters at Three Lafayette Centre, Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1000), 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 and on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at the SEC's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 in the Auditorium, (Room L-002).

The meeting on Tuesday will begin at 8:45 a.m. and the meeting on Wednesday will begin at 9 a.m., with both meetings being open to the public, with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks.

This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meetings.

Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

The agenda for the meeting on September 14, 2010 includes a panel discussion concerning data for swaps and security-based swaps, swap data repositories, security-based swap data repositories, and real-time public reporting in the context of certain authority that Sections 727, 728, and 763 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”) granted the Agencies respectively.

The agenda for the meeting on September 15, 2010 includes a panel discussion concerning swap execution facilities and security-based swap execution facilities in the context of certain authority that Sections 733 and 763 of Act granted the Agencies.

For further information, please contact the CFTC's Office of Public Affairs at (202) 418-5080 or the SEC's office of Public Affairs at (202) 551-4120.

Dated: September 8, 2010.

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-22751 Filed 9-8-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### C. A. Harris v. T. S. McDade.

(No. 1098, Op. Book No. 2, p. 457.)

Appeal from Waller County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 796. *Habeas corpus; rules relating to.*Appellant' was fined for contempt of court by the county court of Austin county, and an attachment .issued to Waller county commanding his arrest, etc. Appellee, sheriff of the latter county, arrested him under the attachment, and appellant applied to the judge of the county court of Waller county for a *habeas corpus,*which writ wTas granted, and upon a hearing thereof he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff, from which judgment this appeal was prosecuted. *Held,*the record contains neither bill of exceptions, statement of facts or assignment of errors. Judging from the case as presented, there was no error in the proceedings and action of the county judge in remanding appellant to the custody of the sheriff, in order that the process by which he held him might be permitted to have effect and take its course. Whatever defense he had to make, the law permitted him to *440make before the court from which the process emanated.

March 23, 1881.

*“*The *habeas corpus*is undoubtedly an immediate remedy for every illegal imprisonment; but no imprisonment is illegal when the process is a justification to the officer; and process, whether by writ or warrant, is legal whenever it is not defective in the frame of it, and has issued in the ordinary course of justice, from a court or magistrate having jurisdiction of the subject matter, though there have been error or irregularity in the proceedings previous to the issuing of it.” [Com. v. Lecky, 1 Watts, 66; Hurd on Hab. Corp. 340.] Whether the judgment or execution be voidable is a point which the sheriff is never permitted to raise; and having arrested the party, he is bound to keep him until he is discharged by due course of law. [Cable v. Cooper, 15 Johns. 152.] It was the duty of the sheriff to convey the appellant to the county and before the court from which the process emanated, that being the proper tribunal for the appellant to •answer before, and *habeas corpus*was not the proper remedy of appellant.

'Affirmed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JESUS M. ALEXANDER.

January 23, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 191 *N.J.Super.*573)
#### Mary Howes v. Moses S. Downing.

*Bill for specific performance of contract*— *Payment*— *Finding of court.*

This case involves a question of fact *purely,*and the conclusion of the circuit judge is adopted as correct, and his decree affirmed.

Appeal from Saginaw. (Gage, J.)

Argued October *4,*1888.

Decided October 19, 1888.

Bill for specific performance of contract. Complainant appeals.

Decree affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Wilber & Brucker,*for complainant.

*Samuel J. Platt,*for defendant.

*42[The briefs of counsel are confined to a discussion of the testimony. — Reporter.]

Morse, J.

The complainant filed her bill in the circuit court for the county of Saginaw, in chancery, for the specific performance of a contract between herself and the defendant, dated November 23, 1882, for the purchase by her of two lots in Emerson’s addition to East Saginaw.

The only controversy between the parties was in regard to the payment of $50. Complainant made her payments upon the contract through her husband, William Howes, and the payments were received by H. P. Smith as agent for the defendant.

The contract was executed in duplicate. All the payments were indorsed upon both duplicates, excepting the disputed payment of $50, and the last payment, which was a tender by complainant of the amount claimed by her to be due.

The complainant claimed that her husband paid Smith $50 upon the delivery of the contract to him, of date November 23, 1882, which payment was not indorsed, and that on December 5, 1882, another $50 was paid and indorsed.

The defendant claimed that the contract was not delivered until the latter date, and that the payment then made was the first payment upon the contract.

. The circuit judge found the defendant’s version to be the correct one, and entered a decree that upon payment to him by the complainant of $64.15, balance found due upon the contract, and interest from the date of the decree, the defendants should convey the lots to her. Costs were also awarded against complainant.

We have carefully examined the evidence, and are satisfied that the circuit judge came to the right conclusion in the premises. We do not think it necessary to set *43out our reasons for this determination, as such reasons would not be of general interest. The question involved is purely one of fact, and we must believe that the husband of complainant is mistaken in his assertion that he made the disputed payment.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 476 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 118
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 476

                          [Report No. 113-64]

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend to the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2013

  Mr. Cardin (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             June 27, 2013

                Reported by Mr. Wyden, with an amendment
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend to the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

<DELETED>SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 
              COMMISSION.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    Section 6(g) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development 
Act (16 U.S.C. 410y-4(g)) is amended by striking ``40'' and inserting 
``50''.</DELETED>

SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 
              COMMISSION.

    The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission 
(referred to in this Act as the ``Commission'') is authorized in 
accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the Chesapeake and Ohio 
Canal Development Act (16 U.S.C. 410y-4), except that the Commission 
shall terminate 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                                       Calendar No. 118

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 476

                          [Report No. 113-64]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend to the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 27, 2013

                       Reported with an amendment
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1288

STEVEN R. GOINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-12212) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven R. Goins, Appellant Pro Se. Loretta C. Argrett, Laurie Allyn Snyder, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the tax court’s order determining a deficiency with respect to his 1989 federal income tax liability.Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s motion to supplement his informal brief and affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Goins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , No. 95-12212 (U.S.T.C. Feb. 9, 1998). 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
#### Olive Nelson et al. v. Jas. A. Baird.

(No. 2017, Op. Book No. 2, p. 566.)

Appeal from Mason County.

October 3, 1881.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1236. *Appeal bond; description of judgment.*The judgment in justice’s court which was appealed from was for §261. The appeal bond described it as a judgment for $260, hut otherwise correctly described it. *Held,*the bond is sufficient. It gives the names of the parties, the court in which the judgment was rendered, and the day of its date. There can be no question that it refers to the very judgment appealed from, and that the discrepancy as to amount was a mere clerical error from which no doubt can arise as to the identity of the judgment.

Affirmed.
#### John A. Miller v. Wm. M. Cunningham.

(No. 1514, Op. Book No. 2, p. 150.)

Error from Limestone County.

May 15, 1880.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 958. *Petition for writ of error.*There is no requirement of the statute directing the form of a petition for a writ of error; the granting thereof is a ministerial act, to be performed by the clerk on the filing of the petition and bond; it is certainly not vitiated by being addressed to the judge of the court to which the clerk officially belonged, when it is in every other respect proper. It is irrelevant for the purposes of jurisdiction whether the plaintiff in error has entitled himself to a writ of *supersedeas*or not, and no facts entitling himself thereto need be stated in the petition.

§ 959. *Assignment of errors; fundamental error luill be noticed without.*A motion to dismiss a writ of error or an appeal will not be sustained because of the want of an assignment of errors, when, upon an inspection of the record, a fundamental error is discovered; but such error, and no other, will be revised by the appellate court. [Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572; Rankert v. Clow, 16 Tex. 9; McLemore v. McClellan, 17 Tex. 122.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### ERNESTO TOLENTINO v. ERVIN ELLIS.

March 9, 1978.

Petition for certification is dismissed as having been improvidently granted. (See 74 *N. J.*277)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-6661-F; LLAK965000-L14100000-KC0000-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision 
approving the conveyance of surface estate for certain lands to 
Eklutna, Inc., pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The 
subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Cook Inlet Region, 
Inc. when the surface estate is conveyed to Eklutna, Inc. The lands are 
in the vicinity of Birchwood, Alaska, and are located in:

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 15 N., R. 1 W.,
    Secs. 5 and 7.

    Containing approximately 69 acres.

    Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Anchorage Daily News.

DATES: Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by 
the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
    1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable 
efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to 
sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the 
decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt 
requested, shall have until October 21, 2010 to file an appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from:

Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh 
Avenue, <greek-i>13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960, by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#086963266a6465266b67667e6d7169666b6d486a6465266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0362682d616f6e2d606c6d75667a626d606643616f6e2d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telecommunication device 
(TTD) through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Christy Favorite,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication II Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-23466 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Quintiles Transnational Corp. and Subsidiaries
Certification Pursuant To
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, John D. Ratliff, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quintiles
Transnational Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238
and 34-47986.](c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):




---



##### 



(a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
    November 12, 2004  /s/ John D. RatliffJohn D. Ratliff
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41425

Conference Calendar

 

NATHANIEL ARTHUR JETTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HERBERT SCOTT ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-215

- - - - - - - - - -

October 20, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Nathaniel Arthur Jetton, Texas prisoner # 684968, appeals

from the judgment in favor of the defendants following a bench

trial on Jetton’s civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

argues that the judgment is in error. Jetton, however, has

failed in his burden pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) of

providing this court with a copy of the trial transcript. 

Accordingly, we cannot review the issue he raises on appeal. See

United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624, 632-33 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Jetton’s appeal is DISMISSED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER

Cause No 01

- 12

- 00704

- CV ; In re Tammy Fountain

, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus from Order Revoking Suspension and for Commitment to County Jail , Cause No. 2010

- 31997 , in the 309th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Relator Tammy Fountain was found in contempt of the trial court’s orders in an order dated May 24, 2012. Fountain filed this original habeas corpus proceeding, and we ordered her released on bail pending resolution of the proceeding. This court denied re lief with written opinions issued on December 28, 2012. On January 2, Fountain filed a motion for rehearing, in which she informed the court of a rule 11 agreement between the parties, dated December 12, 2012, whereby real party in interest Kathy Katcher agreed that “[t]he current enforcement shall be dismissed with prejudice.” Katcher requested that we abate the proceeding until July 1, 2013 to permit the parties to effectuate their agreement. We granted the request for abatement and ordered the parties to file a status report or a motion to dismiss by July 1, 2013. We also ordered the parties to timely notify the court of all events affecting the status of the case.

Katcher filed a status report on July 1, 2013, informing the court that a status conference has been set for July 2, 2013 and that Fountain filed a motion for continuance to hire another

attorney.

The parties shall file an updated status report or a motion to di smiss within 3 days of any

further status conference held in the trial court. Additionally, the parties shall inform this court no later than August 9, 2013 :

a. Whether the trial court has been requested to enter a final order as referenced in paragraph

13 of the parties’ rule 11 agreement dated December 12, 2012, and if not, why not;

b. Whether Katcher has dismissed her enforcement petition with prejudice as referenced in paragraph 14 of the parties’ rule 11 agreement dated December 12, 2012, and if not, why

n ot;

c. Whether this original proceeding has become moot for any reason; and

d. Whether there is any reason why this original proceeding should not be reinstated on the

court’s active docket.

To the extent this original proceeding is not moot, Katcher is request ed to provide the court of appeals with any revised or supplemental response to the motion for rehearing no later than August 9, 2013

.It is so ORDERED.

Judge ’s signature: /s/ Michael M a ssengale

Justice Massengale, A cting I ndividually

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown

Date: July 2, 2013