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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 11, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

*1. Robb B. Kahl*, Monona, Wisconsin; as trustee of the Glenn A. Solsrud Revocable Trust Concerning Caprice Corporation, to acquire voting shares of Caprice Corporation, Augusta, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Unity Bank North, Red Lake Falls, Minnesota.                

*2. Robb B. Kahl*, Monona, Wisconsin; as trustee of the Glenn A. Solsrud Revocable Trust Concerning Augusta Financial Corporation, to acquire voting shares of Augusta Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Unity Bank, both of Augusta, Wisconsin.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 22, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-12378 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Diaster Driving

Earthquakes:

Stay in Car...Bring the care to complete stop, then remain inside until shaking stops.  Don’t stop under near or under buildings, overpasses and utility wires.  When shaking stops, proceed with caution avoiding bridges, overpasses, etc.

Hurricane:

Evacuate Early...Flooding can begin well before a hurricane nears lands. Plan evacuation early, keep full tank of gas during hurricane season.  Learn best evacuation route before a storm forms, make arrangements to stay inland.  Never attempt to drive3 during a hurricane or until the all-clear is given.  Flash flooding can occur after a hurricane.  Avoid driving on coastal and low-lying roads.  Storm surge and hurricane-caused flooding are erratic and may occur with little or no warning.

Flood:

Never drive through water on a road.  Water can be deeper than it appears and water levels can rise very quickly.  Most cars will float dangerously for at least a short while.  A car can be buoyed by flooding and then swept downstream during a flood.  Floodwaters also can erode roads and a missing section of road, even a missing bridge will not be visible with water running over it.  Wade through floodwaters only if the water is not flowing rapidly and only if water is no higher than your knees.  If a car stalls in floodwater, get out quickly and move to higher ground.

Tornado:

A car is the least safe place to be during a tornado.  Do not try to leave any area by car.  If you are in a car, leave it and find shelter in a building.,  If there is no safe structures nearby, lie flat in a ditch or other ground depression with arms over your head.

Blizzards:

Avoid driving.  If you are caught in your car, stay in vehicle and wait for rescue.  Do not attempt to walk unless you can see a definite safe haven at a reasonable distance. Turn on engine for brief periods to provide heat, but leave down-wind windows open for ventilation.  Make sure exhaust pipe is clear of snow.  Exercise occasionally by clapping hands and moving around.  Do not remain in one position for long, but avoid overexertion and exposure from shoveling or pushing the car.  Leave dome light on at night as a signal.  If more than one person in car, sleep only in shifts.

Summer Heat:

Stay out of a parked Car.

Emergency Supplies to Keep in Car:

Blanket or sleeping bag

Jumper Cables

Water

Rain Gear and/or extra clothes

Shovel

Canned fruits and nuts

Can opener

Necessary medication

First Aid Kit

Matches & candles

Flashlight

Chains or ropes
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvira RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-20694.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Alvira Rios, Houston, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Alvira Rios, former federal prisoner # 13646-074, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Rios has not filed a response.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The ease-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole — some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction— must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” *Id.*

Rios has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of her supervised release. The order revoking Rios’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.

MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,366,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,359,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                   197,276
<INVENTORY>                                  3,342,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,456,629
<PP&E>                                       3,355,282
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,789,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,125,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,178,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                       286,847
<OTHER-SE>                                     538,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,125,869
<SALES>                                      7,692,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,692,494
<CGS>                                        3,840,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,840,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,088,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             410,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,580,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,580,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,580,691)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)
        

</TABLE>
Interagency Fire Program Management  Qualifications Standards and Guide 

http://ifpm.nifc.gov  

 Decision Paper #3 August 23, 2005 

  Subject: Temporary Hiring Under the IFPM Standard  Effective Date: This decision is effective August 23, 2005  Background: On November 15, 2004 the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board (NFAEB) signed a decision paper delaying the implementation of the IFPM Standard for temporary employees (new or returning) at the GS-05 and GS-06 level.  This was done based on a concern that fire managers would not be able to fill their temporary Senior Firefighter positions based on the NWCG Incident Management Qualifications as outlined in the IFPM Standard.  That decision is scheduled to expire on October 1, 2005.  Subsequently the NFAEB signed Decision Paper #2 on January 20, 2005 stating that applicants into any of the 14 key fire management positions will have until October 1, 2009 to meet the NWCG qualifications and additional required training as outlined in the IFPM Standard.  It also stated that all OPM requirements must be met at the time of hire.  Employees hired after January 20, 2005 and before October 1, 2009 are required to sign a condition of employment stating that they will meet the NWCG qualifications and additional required training by October 1, 2009.  Temporary firefighters are a very important and significant portion of the workforce during the fire season.    Decision: To ensure that fire management is able to fill these vital positions and to provide consistency in IFPM Implementation all temporary employees will have until October 1, 2009 to meet the NWCG Incident Management Qualifications and Additional Required Training as outlined in the IFPM Standard.  However, all OPM requirements must be met at the time of hire.  Temporary employees will not be required to sign a condition of employment.  After October 1, 2009, all temporary employees must meet all of the Minimum Qualification Standards at the time of hire.  Scope: This decision will apply to all temporary employees being hired into positions that are covered by the IFPM Standard.  Effective dates will be August 23, 2005 to October 1, 2009.    

Interagency Fire Program Management  Qualifications Standards and Guide 

http://ifpm.nifc.gov  

           __/s/ Lyle Carlile________   __/s/ Timothy M Murphy_______ Lyle Carlile, Fire Director   Timothy M. Murphy, Deputy Director USDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs  USDI, Bureau of Land Management            _/s/ Phil Street__________   __/s/ Mike Wallace___________ Phil Street, Fire Director   For Edy Williams-Rhodes, Chief USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service  Division of Fire & Aviation Management       USDI, National Park Service            _/s/ Alice Forbes________   __/s/ Don Artley_____________ For Tom Harbour, Director   Don Artley Fire & Aviation Management   NASF Fire Director USDA, Forest Service
**EXHIBIT
      32.02**





**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350**


**(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the
      "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report")
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
      the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.







/s/
      Daniel J. Dorman





Name:  Daniel
      J.
      Dorman


Title:  President
      and Executive Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)


Date:  March
      5, 2007





The
      foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes
      of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to
      the
      liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated
      by
      reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange
      Act,
      except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates
      it
      by reference.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Sandston Corporation and will be retained
      by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARK J. HUMBERTSON, JR.,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 599, 2015

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1309006247

§ 

§

§

Submitted: March 21, 2016

Decided: March 31, 2016

ORDER

This 31st day of March 2016, it appears to the Court that, on March 2, 2016, 

the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening brief and 

appendix on or before February 18, 2016 and for his failure to pay the Supreme 

Court filing fee in this matter. The appellant has not responded to the notice to 

show cause within the required ten-day period and therefore dismissal of this 

appeal is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 

3(b)(2) and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
(AGENCY) URGES PUBLIC VISITING (UNIT NAME) TO LEAVE DRONES AT HOME THIS (DAY OF WEEK) TO ENABLE U.S. FOREST SERVICE TO SAFELY PERFORM (TYPE OF MISSION, I.E. AERIAL DETECTION SURVEY, SPRAYING, ETC). 

	The (agency) is urging members of the public who are planning to visit the (unit name) on (day), (month) (date) to leave their drones at home to enable the U.S. Forest Service to safely perform (type of mission, i.e. aerial detection survey, spraying, etc.). 

A U.S. Forest Service (airplane or helicopter) will be flying approximately (#) feet above ground level to perform this mission. That is approximately (or close to) the same altitude that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Safety Guidelines instruct members of the public to fly drones for hobby or recreation purposes at, which creates the potential for an accident.

The U.S. Forest Service needs to perform the (type of mission, i.e. aerial detection survey, spraying, etc.) to (explain why the mission is needed).  

	“It would be a real tragedy if a member of the public was flying a drone for fun while the U.S. Forest Service (airplane or helicopter) was performing the (type of mission, i.e. aerial detection survey, spraying, etc.) and either collided with the (airplane or helicopter) or caused the pilot to be distracted and crash, resulting in serious injuries or fatalities,” said (Name), (Title), with the (agency). “We are asking the public to work with us to help prevent that from happening.”

	The (agency) urges members of the public to contact the (unit name) where they want to fly a drone beforehand to see if any natural resource management missions are planned during the time they want to fly and if so, to please plan on flying at another time or location. Contact information for the (agency name) is located at (URL). Information about U.S. Forest Service natural resource management flights is also available on several websites, including the FAA PilotWeb site https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/ and the Defense Internet Notam Service (DINS) https://www.notams.faa.gov/dinsQueryWeb/

###
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5303 September Term, 2021

1:21-cv-03058-UNA

Filed On: June 15, 2022

Jonathan C. Bertanelli,

Appellant

v.

Charlotte A. Burrows, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the emergency

motion to seal, the motion to augment the record, and the motion to exceed page limits,

it is

ORDERED that the emergency motion to seal be granted in part. The Clerk is

directed to maintain under seal the motion to seal. The motion is denied in all other

respects, as appellant has shown no basis to warrant sealing of these judicial records. 

See Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

(noting the “strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial proceedings”). It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to augment the record be denied. 

Appellant has not shown that supplementation of the record on appeal is appropriate

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2)(C), or that it “would establish

beyond any doubt the proper resolution of the pending issues” or is otherwise “in the

interests of justice.” Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158, 166 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted). It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to exceed page limits be granted. It is
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5303 September Term, 2021

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 24,

2021 dismissal order be affirmed. Congress has not authorized, either expressly or

impliedly, a cause of action against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for

challenges to its processing of a claim. See Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C.

Cir. 1997) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**DANIEL L. BROWN,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Appellee :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 83 MAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the order of the**

**Commonwealth Court at No. 24 MD 2014 dated July 1, 2014, exited July 2, 2014.** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: May 27, 2015

AND NOW, **this 27 th**  **day of May, 2015, the order of the Commonwealth Co urt is** 

AFFIRMED

**.**
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Urologic Diseases - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490762142825635" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Plaintiff BelowAppellant,

v.

SEMPRIS, LLC d/b/a BUDGET 

SAVERS,

Defendant BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 646, 2014

§

§

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ C.A. No. N13C-10-096

§

§

§

Submitted: December 5, 2014

 Decided: January 6, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 6th day of January 2015, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The plaintiff-appellant, RSUI Indemnity Company (“RSUI”), has 

petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an 

interlocutory opinion issued by the Superior Court on September 3, 2014 (“the 

Opinion”). The Opinion denied RSUI’s motion for summary judgment and 

granted partial summary judgment to the defendant-appellee, Sempris, LLC 

(“Sempris”), holding that RSUI has a duty to defend Sempris in an Illinois lawsuit 

under the terms of an insurance policy issued by RSUI to Sempris. RSUI also 
-2-

seeks to appeal the Superior Court’s order denying its motion for reargument of the 

Opinion.

(2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 

discretion of this Court under Rule 42(d)(v). In the exercise of our discretion, we 

have examined the Opinion according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42, and we 

have concluded that RSUI’s application for interlocutory review does not meet the 

requirements of Rule 42 and should be refused.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 

interlocutory appeal be REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
## Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS or drones) 

### This website has moved to https://uas.nifc.gov/