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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-47-2014]

On June 27, 2014, the Port Everglades Department of Broward County, grantee of FTZ 25, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Prodeco Technologies, LLC, in Oakland Park, Florida.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (79 FR 38007-38008, 7-3-2014). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: October 28, 2014.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-25953 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 824 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 380
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 824

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1997

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                              May 21, 1998

               Reported by Mr. Chafee, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison Place, NW., 
in the District of Columbia, as the ``Howard T. Markey National Courts 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 717 Madison Place, NW., in the 
District of Columbia and known as the National Courts Building shall be 
known and designated as the ``Howard T. Markey National Courts 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Howard T. Markey 
National Courts Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Jeff Trandahl,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 380

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 824

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 717 Madison Place, NW., 
in the District of Columbia, as the ``Howard T. Markey National Courts 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 21, 1998

                       Reported without amendment
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Scientists and Engineers Evaluate Orion Radiation Protection Plan","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ClMGHJEey7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/orion\/scientists-and-engineers-evaluate-orion-radiation-protection-plan\/\">Scientists and Engineers Evaluate Orion Radiation Protection Plan<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/orion\/scientists-and-engineers-evaluate-orion-radiation-protection-plan\/embed\/#?secret=ClMGHJEey7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Scientists and Engineers Evaluate Orion Radiation Protection Plan” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ClMGHJEey7\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/top_view_test_start1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
#### Puntenny *v.*Paddock.

Debt on a sealed note by the assignee against the maker. Plea, that the note was given for certain town lots, and that the defendant was entitled to thebonefit of an act of congress for the relief of purchasers of public lands, which. the plaintiff refused to give him. *Held,*on demurrer, that the plea was bad.

On demurrer to a bad replication, where the plea is bad and the declaration good, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

APPEAL from the *Vigo*Circuit Court. — This action was founded on two sealed notes for the payment of money.

Judah, for the appellant.

Scott, J.

Debt by an assignee. First plea, that the notes declared on were given in consideration of a certain bond alleged to be void. Replication, that the notes were not given for that consideration. Issue on that replication, and verdict. Verdict set aside. Second plea, that the notes were given for the purchase of certain *lots*in Aurora, and that the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the act of congress for the relief of the purchasers of public lands, which the plaintiff refused to give him. Replication, demurrer, and judgment for the defendant. The declaration is without objection. The defendant’s first plea is not complained of here; and as the replication is a bare negative to the plea, and issue is taken upon the replication, we leave it without fu rther notice. The second plea is clearly bad. It does not show who were the purchasers from the government, or that the defendant purchased of any person who had availed himself of the provisions of the act of congress. In determining on a demurrer, it is the duty of the Court to look back to the first error. This plea should have been rejected. The judgment on the demurrer is therefore erroneous.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the issue on the first replication are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Maine Students to Speak with NASA Astronauts Aboard Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"09W3eXA17R\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/maine-students-to-speak-with-nasa-astronauts-aboard-space-station\/\">Maine Students to Speak with NASA Astronauts Aboard Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/maine-students-to-speak-with-nasa-astronauts-aboard-space-station\/embed\/#?secret=09W3eXA17R\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Maine Students to Speak with NASA Astronauts Aboard Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"09W3eXA17R\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/iss062e103549.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cornelius Dozier, IV, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

S. Lake, 

Respondent. 

No. 4:15-CV-00477-TUC-JAS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends denying the petition on the 

merits. (Doc. 17). Petitioner filed an objection (Doc. 18), and Respondent filed a Reply 

to the Objection (Doc. 19). 

 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for 

clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. 

Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 

F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

 After reviewing Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation, the 

Court adopts the reasoning and conclusions of that report. In particular, the Court agrees 

with Judge Bowman’s analysis concluding that this case is controlled by United States v. 

Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008). In that case, the Ninth Circuit explained that 

the BOP's operation of the IFRP does not constitute an unlawful delegation 

Case 4:15-cv-00477-JAS Document 20 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of authority to schedule restitution repayments in violation of the MVRA. 

The MVRA requires the sentencing court to set a restitution repayment 

schedule. The sentencing court did that here. The MVRA does not prohibit 

an inmate from voluntarily making larger or more frequent payments than 

what was set by the sentencing court. Nor does it limit the authority of the 

BOP, through the IFRP, to offer incentives to inmates to pay their 

restitution obligations in larger amounts or at a faster rate than the court has 

required. 

Id. at 1046. The same reasoning applies here. As Judge Bowman explains in her Report 

and Recommendation, the trial court set a restitution amount of $35,317.43 to be paid “at 

the rate of not less than $25 per quarter and payment shall be made through the Bureau of 

Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.” (Doc. 13-3, p.3). After an incident of 

non-payment, the Bureau of Prisons reassessed Petitioner’s financial situation and 

determined that he could increase his payments to $30 per month. Petitioner agreed to 

the new payment schedule. Nothing in the Court’s restitution order prevents the Bureau 

of Prisons and Petitioner from agreeing to a payment plan at a higher rate than that set by 

the trial court. 

 Based on these reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT 

(1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 

(2) The Clerk is ordered to close the file in this case. 

Dated this 21st day of September, 2016. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00477-JAS Document 20 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2
---

EXHIBIT 99.5

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report of Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Shaun Heinrichs, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and                   
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.



|/s/ Shaun Heinrichs           | Date: September 25, 2008
|----------------------------- | ------------------------
|Shaun Heinrichs               |                         
|Chief Financial Officer       |                         
|(principal financial officer) |                         

---
Exhibit 10(a)










	Exhibit 10(a)





	INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT




	We consent to the incorporation by reference in
this Post-Effective Amendment No. 16 to  Registration Statement No. 33-37103 on Form N-1A
of our report dated January 9, 2003  appearing in the November 30, 2002 Annual Report of
Merrill Lynch Utilities and  Telecommunications Fund, Inc. in the Statement of Additional
Information which is part of this  Registration Statement. We also consent to the
reference to us under the caption “Financial  Highlights” in the Prospectus,
which is also part of this Registration Statement.




	
      /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

        

        Princeton, New Jersey 

        March 26, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 99


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the quarterly report of Argo-Tech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 25, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:


         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.



Date:  March 11, 2003
                                             By: /s/  Michael S. Lipscomb
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Michael S. Lipscomb
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                             By: /s/  Frances S. St. Clair
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Frances S. St. Clair
                                                      Chief Financial Officer



         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 13.2

                    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with this Annual  Report of CalPetro  Tankers (IOM) Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended  December 31, 2006, as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the "SEC") on or about the date
hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kate Blankenship,  the Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: June 26, 2007

/s/ Kate Blankenship
---------------------------
    Kate Blankenship
    Principal Financial Officer
#### Scholl & Adams *v.*T. G. & T. C. Bronston

Pleading — Amended- Petition and Replies — Insufficiency.,

Where the original petition distinctly sets out a cause of action, it is not error for the court to refuse the filing of an amendment, and a reply which contains no. available allegations- other than those stated in the originals.

APPEAL PROM POWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

October 10, 1871.

*J. 3.*Scholl, *for appellant.*

Turner, *for appellee.*

Opinion op the Court by

J udge Peters :

A judgment may by a proceeding in equity be avoided for fraud unquestionably. In this case the answers of defendants were filed in August, 1870, denying all fraud and mistake in rendering, and entering the judgment, or in its procurement, and the cause appears to have been heard in March, 1871, without objection on the part of appellants. The denials in the answers are most elaborate and full, and there was no proof taken to sustain the allegations of fraud, or mistake, and consequently the court below could do nothing less than dissolve the injunction, and dismiss the petitions.

The only available grounds for relief were that the judgment was procured by fraud or mistake, those charges were distinctly and sufficiently made in the original petitions. The amended petitions-and replies as they are called contained no available allegations other than these stated in the originals, and no error was committed by the court in refusing to permit them to be filed.

Judgment *affirmed.*
No. 14,568.

#### Jarvis et al. *v.*Robertson, Trustee.

*Township.*— School *and Oivil.*— Pleading.—Parties.—The civil township and the school township are distinct and different corporations. Where an action is brought against a township, and the township name, merely, is given, it is conclusively presumed that the action is against the civil township. To make a complaint effective against the school corporation it must, by appropriate averments, designate the school township, or its representative, as the defendant.

From the Parke Circuit Court.

*W. H. Thompson*and *J. West,*for appellants.

*V. Carter, S. D. Puett*and *L. H. Hadley,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

— Although one officer represents both the civil township and the school township, yet these townships are distinct artificial beings. That they are distinct and different corporations has often been adjudged. *Carmichael*v. *Lawrence,*47 Ind. 554; *McLaughlin*v. *Shelby Tp.,*52 Ind. *282114; *City of Huntington*v. Day, 55 Ind. 7; *Utica Tp.*v. *Miller,*62 Ind. 230; *Harrison Tp.*v. *McGregor,*67 Ind. 380; *Gardner*v. *Haney,*86 Ind. 17; *Middleton*v. *Greeson,*106 Ind. 18, *vide*p. 24; *Braden*v. *Leibenguth, post,*p. 336.

Filed Dec. 10, 1890.

Where an action is brought against a township, or a township trustee, and nothing more is done than to give the township name, it is conclusively presumed that the action is against the civil township. To make a complaint effective against the school corporation, it must, by appropriate averments, designate the school township, or its representative, as the defendant. *Middleton*v. *Greeson, supra; Hornby*v. *State, ex rel.,*69 Ind. 102.

In this case the complaint is against the township trustee, and he is not designated ^as the trustee of the school corporation, so that if it be conceded that a cause of action is stated against the school corporation — and this is what the appellants claim — the concession would not rescue the complaint, for the school corporation is not in court, inasmuch as it is not a party to the action.

Judgment affirmed.