alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 349.2 Response to notification.

Upon issuance of a Commission order that notes a finding or findings, or proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person has disagreed, the audited person may: Acquiesce in the findings and/or proposed remedies by not timely responding to the Commission order, in which case the Commission may issue an order approving them or taking other action; or challenge the finding or findings and/or any proposed remedies with which it disagreed by timely notifying the Commission in writing that it requests Commission review by means of a shortened procedure, or, if there are material facts in dispute which require cross-examination, a trial-type hearing.
----- Forwarded by David Grounds/R9/USEPA/US on 06/15/2011 02:31 PM

-----

From: Virginia Lau <VLau@baaqmd.gov> To: David Grounds/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/25/2011 10:28 AM Subject: RE: Under

- fired Charbroilers (UFC)

Hi David

– thanks for your message. Here are the responses to your questions: 1. Based on our inspections of new facilities, there hasn’ t been any new restaurants that have installed a grill at or greater than 10 square feet and cook at least 1000 pounds of beef due to the downturn in the economy. For existing restaurants, the requirement for control does not
become effective until 2013.

2 . There is no enforcement action currently for the existing restaurants because the regulation does not apply to them until 2013. We have done spot inspections of existing restaurants to review their meat purchase records and it appears that most res taurants are below the meat cooked standard. With respect to smoke and odor complaints, we receive mostly smoke complaints but from restaurants that use their fireplaces (not from the cooking). The county public health agencies receive most of the odor co mplaints. 3. Existing restaurants that have controls are not required to be certified until 2013 if they meet the requirements. However, because most of these existing restaurants do not meet the throughput limits, they would not be subject to the ru le and consequently, do not require controls, registrations, or enforcement actions.

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Virginia Lau Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: (415) 749

- 46 96 Fax: (415) 749

- 4741

E

- mail: vlau@baaqmd.gov

From: Virginia Lau Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:44 PM
To: 'Grounds.David@epamail.epa.gov' Subject: RE: Under

- fired Charbroilers (UFC)

Dave

– we estimate that there are approximately 4,900 under

- fired charbroilers of various sizes that operate in the Bay Area. There are however less than 200 under

- fired charbroilers that are at or greater than 10 square feet (and would be applicable to the rul e). No under

- fired charbroiler has been installed that have added controls per our rule since no control has been certified. There are charbroilers that have installed controls due to building management policies (restaurant on the bottom floor and office building above)

– these are the restaurants I contacted to estimate costs of operating the controls in the
rule.

Virginia Lau Bay Area Air Quality Management District939 Ellis Street

San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: (415) 749

- 4696 Fax: (415) 749

- 4741

E

- mail: vlau@baaqmd.gov

From: Grounds.David@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Grounds.David@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 3:20 PM
To: Virginia Lau Subject: Under

- fired Charbroilers (UFC)

Virginia,

Any chance you can find out about how many UFCs are in the Bay Area and how many have installed the
different kinds of controls?

Thanks,
Dave
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUGlIN 

not toaoonsa 

rraqtka 

y et’ Alutln or 

oa t&o .0,5tr or AtLatin 

tars8 s wbrequuit to 

our lsttar oi Rot. 13, 

Austin prior to th@ 

188a CivLl statutor, 

uo8tlo.a W8L rboa uhl8b w88 8tt8lfsrsa 

18 arparttrattt, 80. '4491, 8 oopy of whloh 

ArtSolo 6, Bs8titi 2, of the Ctmtitubi& proolder 

tht -the f.e~elatao my, by general law, seat trois tazatlon pbblto ,zopsrtg used tar pub110 purpoea8. . em 
. ..4.@

Eonorabls Paul T. Bolt, paca 2 

By ArtiOlO.~~~~ fSrACUt'8 ROVi8& C&Ill atOtUtO8 

of-1923, thm l’wi8ldU?O l XWQtOd 811 pabllo property f'mm 

8es8t10n ~fbotat any 11mltatioa. 

: 

IA the MOO of Olty OS Ablloae ve 8 ' - 

Civil Appeall, 1937, ll3 fir ** (21) 631 Urlt 

af~.d, the OrrUrt hold that th. l.‘.idW In8 l X@ U~y 

a dd thy p o w TV l xoeutt pttbllr #FOPUQ trmt~Wolr 

roguwllerr 61 1tr OHI Ra tharefora hMo M lo&l~tlaa 

mxsqMttg iram taxatloa Qubllr proparty u.0 for pub110 

pWPOa.8” tmdor mi0iO 6, soor 2, or th0 a~.titutm. 

hrtiole XI, BsOtloa 9, Of the OOAltitutba ot 

Tomb8 uhioh ir li prOVi8iOli tOr l INSlptiO8 Of mpSrty troQI 

tsntlon and thur 8hOUld bo 8trlOtl.l OOA8tX’UOd, gQWldO8 

80. $01b81 

"%M ptOp@Pty Of OOUlbtiOI, OltlSO WId tOWAi, O&d 

and held @nly toy publla mO808, mAo h l 8 @abllo bUi% 

-8 aPa tb. rid.8 LhOX'OOir Tim l nglne1.Snd the iurrdture 

therclof, mob rll proporty ~4, urdntottao’a for rxtiryuirhfAF; ii?08 p ttb lig r o m unad, nd ll& +b hDSrop r Or6~ty lOtdi 

wulus~,cii~ to the 06, &rid benefit or the pub110 8hall br 

sxeqpt irop iorord 8al8 RAd trora t*X8tlOlti pPO*ldOd, 

nothin& h@retn 8htil pTWUt th. l AfOrOOfWUt Ot 8 VO8dOf'tl 

lia tb awhutlo or bulldsr~r 11~1, or other llon8 now l If.8h 4 .î 

yl OS ArtlolotXI BseUott 9, ” 

tax 1 lrsl~ o hi usa and be t?s%@ 

BtbYpropmrty u&or ooa8fAorutlon 

ty 18 dovotoa oxolUltoly to the 
490 
I
# Sample State/Local Provider Agency Disaster Response Program Organizational Chart

State-Funded Positions

Program-Funded Positions

Evaluation/Data Coordinator

Fiscal

Provider D

Provider A

Provider C

Provider B

Program Manager

Administrative Assistant

State Mental Health Authority
# C_2013086EN.01000501.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanța — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against Ciprian Vasile Radu

(Case C-396/11) (1)

1

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution - Grounds for refusing execution)

2013/C 86/07

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curte de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ciprian Vasile Radu

Applicant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Constanța — Interpretation of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), and of Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 6, 48 and 52 thereof — European arrest warrant issued for prosecution purposes — Possibility for the Member State responsible for executing the warrant to refuse the request for surrender of the person sought on grounds of failure to comply with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and also because the Member State which issued the warrant has failed, in whole or in part, to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA into national law

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authorities cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution on the ground that the requested person was not heard in the issuing Member State before that arrest warrant was issued.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER II—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY QUANTUM ACTIVITIES
### §7703. Prohibition against predatory and abusive commercial e-mail

#### (a) Omitted

#### (b) United States Sentencing Commission

#### (1) Directive

Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28 and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, as appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements to provide appropriate penalties for violations of section 1037 of title 18, as added by this section, and other offenses that may be facilitated by the sending of large quantities of unsolicited electronic mail.

#### (2) Requirements

In carrying out this subsection, the Sentencing Commission shall consider providing sentencing enhancements for—

(A) those convicted under section 1037 of title 18 who—

(i) obtained electronic mail addresses through improper means, including—

(I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a website, proprietary service, or other online public forum operated by another person, without the authorization of such person; and

(II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by computer; or

(ii) knew that the commercial electronic mail messages involved in the offense contained or advertised an Internet domain for which the registrant of the domain had provided false registration information; and

(B) those convicted of other offenses, including offenses involving fraud, identity theft, obscenity, child pornography, and the sexual exploitation of children, if such offenses involved the sending of large quantities of electronic mail.

#### (c) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who distribute pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan horses into personal and business computer systems; and

(2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e-mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes, including the tools contained in chapters 47 and 63 of title 18 (relating to fraud and false statements); chapter 71 of title 18 (relating to obscenity); chapter 110 of title 18 (relating to the sexual exploitation of children); and chapter 95 of title 18 (relating to racketeering), as appropriate.

(Pub. L. 108–187, §4, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2703.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 4 of Pub. L. 108–187. Subsec. (a) of section 4 of Pub. L. 108–187 enacted section 1037 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and amended analysis for chapter 47 of Title 18. The provisions of subsec. (b) of section 4 of Pub. L. 108–187 are also listed in a table relating to sentencing guidelines set out as a note under section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 2004, see section 16 of Pub. L. 108–187, set out as a note under section 7701 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7237

GEORGE W. GANTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRISON HEALTH SYSTEMS; JOHN DOE - 1, P.A.;

JOHN DOE - 2, P.A.; ANDERSON, P.A.; RIELEY,

M.T. Supervisor; W. MEADOWS, Director; ALLIED

HEALTH, INCORPORATED; MUNDY, Medical Director;

MOSS, Employee of the United States Parole

Commission, P.A.; WILSON, P.A.; ANDERSON,

P.A.; E. ROBINSON, Medical Technician Supervisor; TANYA NICHOLS; ROBBINS, Medical

Technician,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA93-828-PJM)

Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

George W. Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen, Steven R.

Smith, MEYERS, BILLINGSLEY, SHIPLEY, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, Riverdale, Maryland; Daniel Karp, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his motion filed

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Further,

because we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's

denial of Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion, we affirm. Gantt v. Prison

Health Systems, No. CA-93-828-PJM (D. Md. July 14, 1995; July 28,

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
§ 5.16 Preliminary licensing proposal. ( a ) No later than 150 days prior to the deadline for filing a new or subsequent license application, if applicable, the potential applicant must file for comment a preliminary licensing proposal.
( b ) The preliminary licensing proposal must: ( 1 ) Clearly describe, as applicable, the existing and proposed project facilities, including project lands and waters;
( 2 ) Clearly describe, as applicable, the existing and proposed project operation and maintenance plan, to include measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures with respect to each resource affected by the project proposal; and
( 3 ) Include the potential applicant's draft environmental analysis by resource area of the continuing and incremental impacts, if any, of its preliminary licensing proposal, including the results of its studies conducted under the approved study plan.
( c ) A potential applicant may elect to file a draft license application which includes the contents of a license application required by § 5.18 instead of the Preliminary Licensing Proposal. A potential applicant that elects to file a draft license application must include notice of its intent to do so in the updated study report required by § 5.15(f).
( d ) A potential applicant that has been designated as the Commission's non-Federal representative may include a draft Biological Assessment, draft Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, and draft Historic Properties Management Plan with its Preliminary Licensing Proposal or draft license application.
( e ) Within 90 days of the date the potential applicant files the Preliminary Licensing Proposal or draft license application, participants and the Commission staff may file comments on the Preliminary Licensing Proposal or draft application, which may include recommendations on whether the Commission should prepare an Environmental Assessment (with or without a draft Environmental Assessment) or an Environmental Impact Statement. Any participant whose comments request new information, studies, or other amendments to the approved study plan must include a demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, pursuant to the requirements of § 5.15(f).
( f ) A waiver of the requirement to file the Preliminary Licensing Proposal or draft license application may be requested, based on a consensus of the participants in favor of such waiver.
#### § 9.10 Filing.

Any licensee desiring to lease the project property covered by a license or any part thereof, where the lessee is granted the exclusive occupancy, possession, or use of project works for purposes of generating, transmitting, or distributing power, and the person, association, or corporation, State, or municipality desiring to acquire the project property by lease, must file the proposed lease together with the application in accordance with § 4.32(b)(1) of this chapter. The application and the Commission's action on it will, in general, be subject to the provisions of §§ 9.1 through 9.3.

[Order 737, 75 FR 43403, July 26, 2010]
### §9804. Travel and tourism strategy

Not less frequently than once every 10 years, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, the Tourism Policy Council, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop and submit to Congress a 10-year travel and tourism strategy, which shall include—

(1) the establishment of goals with respect to the number of annual international visitors to the United States and the annual amount of travel and tourism commerce in the United States during such 10-year period;

(2) the resources needed to achieve the goals established pursuant to paragraph (1); and

(3) recommendations for statutory or regulatory changes that would be necessary to achieve such goals.

(Pub. L. 117–328, div. BB, title VI, §606, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5569.)
### SUBCHAPTER I—STATE REGULATION OF INSURANCE
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: Andrew Golt [andrewcouchst@netzero.com] 


Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 10:52 AM 


To: -. Oav;;tny, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 


Subject: Colgan VS Cape Air At Plattsburgh, NY 


tv _.. ,.,;~,: '1: "'::••:! r7' : ' .J ,';, 

Hard tobelie.va:the Plattsburgh legislature chose Colgan. ::"",": "'~"1 .01.-"'''"''''''i',0., 

Hopefully you and the DOT will NOT accept this recomendation. 

Thank you, Andrew Golt, Montreal Qc, and Plattsburgh, NY 

1
# Table 19 MST Samples
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.89a Delegations respecting claims against the FBI. ( a ) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to exercise the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under the Act of December 7, 1989, Public Law 101-203, 103 Stat. 1805 (31 U.S.C. 3724), with regard to claims thereunder not exceeding $50,000 in any one case.
( b ) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to redelegate to the General Counsel of the FBI or his designee within the Office of the General Counsel or to the primary legal advisors of the FBI field offices, any of the authority, functions, or duties vested in him by paragraph (a) of this section and by 28 CFR 0.172. This authority shall not be further redelegated.
[Order No. 884-80, 45 FR 22023, Apr. 3, 1980, as amended by Order No. 1417-90, 55 FR 27808, July 6, 1990; Order No. 1551-91, 56 FR 64192, Dec. 9, 1991; Order No. 1904-94, 59 FR 41242, Aug. 11, 1994; Order No. 2314-2000, 65 FR 44683, July 19, 2000; AG Order No. 3330-2012, 77 FR 26183, May 3, 2012]
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Joseph L. Turner, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Myogen, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors or (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 11, 2004 /s/ Joseph L. Turner Joseph L. TurnerSenior Vice President, Finance andAdministration and Chief FinancialOfficer(Principal Financial Officer)