alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 524.72 CIM assignment categories. CIM cases are classified according to the following assignments: ( a ) *Witness Security cases.* Individuals who agree to cooperate with law enforcement, judicial, or correctional authorities, frequently place their lives or safety in jeopardy by being a witness or intended witness against persons or groups involved in illegal activities. Accordingly, procedures have been developed to help ensure the safety of these individuals. There are two types of Witness Security cases: Department of Justice (authorized by the Attorney General under title V of Public Law 91-452, 84 Stat. 933); and Bureau of Prisons Witness Security cases (authorized by the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division).
( b ) *Threats to government officials.* Inmates who have made threats to government officials or who have been identified, in writing, by the United States Secret Service as requiring special surveillance.
( c ) *Broad publicity.* Inmates who have received widespread publicity as a result of their criminal activity or notoriety as public figures.
( d ) *Disruptive group.* Inmates who belong to or are closely affiliated with groups (e.g., prison gangs), which have a history of disrupting operations and security in either state or federal penal (which includes correctional and detention facilities) institutions. This assignment also includes those persons who may require separation from a specific disruptive group.
( e ) *State prisoners.* Inmates, other than Witness Security cases, who have been accepted into the Bureau of Prisons for service of their state sentences. This assignment includes cooperating state witnesses and regular state boarders.
( f ) *Separation.* Inmates who may not be confined in the same institution (unless the institution has the ability to prevent any physical contact between the separatees) with other specified individuals who are presently housed in federal custody or who may come into federal custody in the future. Factors to consider in classifying an individual to this assignment include, but are not limited to, testimony provided by or about an individual (in open court, to a grand jury, etc.), and whether the inmate has exhibited aggressive or intimidating behavior towards other specific individuals, either in the community or within the institution. This assignment also includes those inmates who have provided authorities with information concerning the unauthorized or illegal activities of others. This assignment may also include inmates from whom there is no identifiable threat, but who are to be separated from others at the request of the Federal Judiciary or U.S. Attorneys.
( g ) *Special supervision.* Inmates who require special management attention, but who do not ordinarily warrant assignment in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section. For example, this assignment may include an inmate with a background in law enforcement or an inmate who has been involved in a hostage situation. Others may include those who are members of a terrorist group with a potential for violence.
#### § 572.40 Compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g).

18 U.S.C. 4205(g) was repealed effective November 1, 1987, but remains the controlling law for inmates whose offenses occurred prior to that date. For inmates whose offenses occurred on or after November 1, 1987, the applicable statute is 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). Procedures for compassionate release of an inmate under either provision are contained in 28 CFR part 571, subpart G.

[59 FR 1239, Jan. 7, 1994]
#### § 570.40 Purpose and scope.

The Bureau of Prisons provides approved inmates with staff-escorted trips into the community for such purposes as receiving medical treatment not otherwise available, for visiting a critically-ill member of the inmate's immediate family, or for participating in program or work-related functions.
### §§3441 to 3445. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §336(f)(1), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1007

Section 3441, Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1521, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1336, authorized formulation and implementation of reservoir sedimentation reduction program.

Section 3442, Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1522, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1336, related to preparation and contents of plan.

Section 3443, Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1523, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1336, related to approval of plans by Congress.

Section 3444, Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1524, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1336, authorized appropriations for carrying out provisions of subchapter IV.

Section 3445, Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1525, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1337, required report to Congress by Jan. 1, 1987, evaluating program.
# Fourth **Court of**  **Appeals San**  **A ntonio,**  **T exas**  April 10, 2019

No. 04-18-00764- C R, 0 4- 18-00765-CR, 04-18-00774-CR, 04-18-00775-CR, 04-18-00777- CR, 04-18-00778-CR, 04-18-00779-CR, 04-18-00780-CR, 04-18-00781-CR, 04-18-00782- CR, 04-18-00783- CR, 04-18-00784-CR, 04-18-00785-CR, 04-18-00786-CR, 04-18-00787- CR, 04-18-00788-CR, 04-18-00789-CR, 04-18-00790-CR, 04-18-00791-CR, 04-18-00792- CR, 04-18-00794-CR, & 04- 1 8- 00795- CR
The STATE of T exas, Appellant

v. Mark Anthony GONZALEZ , Agustin Perez, Jr ., Gabriel R ene P erez, Jeremias A guilar, Jr., Martin M. Rios , Jr., Steven Negrete, Fernando Jefte M ata, Eloy C anales R omo, Francisco Antonio Rodriguez, Raymond Ryan Robinson, Winston Robert M odisette, Courtney M arie Seilhammer, and Ahme d Mamuth

Appell ees
From t he C ounty C ourt , Kinney C ounty, Texas Trial C ourt N o. 10041CR, 10056CR, 10122CR , 10134CR, 9711CR, 9712CR, 9892CR, 10123CR, 10054CR, 10138CR, 10187CR, 9964CR, 10185CR, 10047CR , 10074CR, 10115CR, 10116CR, 10117CR, 10118CR, 10125CR, 10195CR, 10196C R

Honorable S pencer W . Brown, Judge P residing



### O RDE R

The Real Party in Interest, Kinn e y County’s Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief is GR AN TED.

I t is so ORDERED on April 10, 2019.
PER CURIAM

A TTESTED TO: _________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
§ 32.52 Time for filing Director appeal. ( a ) Unless, for good cause shown, the Director extends the time for filing, no Director appeal shall be considered if it is filed with the PSOB Office later than thirty-three days after the service of notice of the denial (under subpart E of this part) of a claim.
( b ) A claimant may file with his Director appeal such supporting documentary, electronic, video, or other non-physical evidence and legal arguments as he may wish to provide.
[73 FR 76536, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 83 FR 22387, May 15, 2018]
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 1:09 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei

Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MVLI High and Low Price Sensitivity

Dear Committee Members,

Please find the MVLI results with high and low material price sensitivities

(2006‐25%, and 2008+25%).

Thank you,

‐‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐ 

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416‐535‐7546 c. 647‐832‐4021
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-3701 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-015-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Modify check valve 32.0 $2,720.0

0

$0 $2,720.00 88 $239,360.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $239,360

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### § 65.10 Fund availability.

For the previous fiscal year (FY '85), $800,000 was appropriated for emergency Federal law enforcement assistance for the entire country. In FY '86, $1.5 million has been requested. The FY '86 request has not yet been appropriated and is not currently available. The form and extent of assistance provided will be determined by the nature and scope of the emergency presented; but, in any event, no fund award may exceed the amount ultimately appropriated.
### §410ii–1. Establishment

#### (a) Abolition of Chaco Canyon National Monument

There is hereby established in the State of New Mexico, the Chaco Culture National Historical Park comprising approximately thirty three thousand nine hundred and eighty nine acres as generally depicted on the map entitled "Chaco Culture National Historical Park", numbered 310/80,032–A and dated August 1979. The Chaco Canyon National Monument is hereby abolished, as such, and any funds available for the purpose of the monument shall be available for the purpose of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

#### (b) Designation of Chaco Culture Archeological Protection Sites

(1) Thirty-nine outlying sites as generally depicted on a map entitled "Chaco Culture Archeological Protection Sites", numbered 310/80,033–B and dated September 1991, are hereby designated as "Chaco Culture Archeological Protection Sites". The thirty-nine archeological protection sites totaling approximately 14,372 acres 1 identified as follows:

| Name: | Acres |
| --- | --- |
| Allentown | 380 |
| Andrews Ranch | 950 |
| Bee Burrow | 480 |
| Bisa'ani | 131 |
| Casa del Rio | 40 |
| Casamero | 160 |
| Chimney Rock | 3,160 |
| Coolidge | 450 |
| Dalton Pass | 135 |
| Dittert | 480 |
| Great Bend | 26 |
| Greenlee Ruin | 60 |
| Grey Hill Spring | 23 |
| Guadalupe | 115 |
| Halfway House | 40 |
| Haystack | 565 |
| Hogback | 453 |
| Indian Creek | 100 |
| Jaquez | 66 |
| Kin Nizhoni | 726 |
| Lake Valley | 30 |
| Manuelito-Atsee Nitsaa | 60 |
| Manuelito-Kin Hochoi | 116 |
| Morris 41 | 85 |
| Muddy Water | 1,090 |
| Navajo Springs | 260 |
| Newcomb | 50 |
| Peach Springs | 1,046 |
| Pierre's Site | 440 |
| Raton Well | 23 |
| Salmon Ruin | 5 |
| San Mateo | 61 |
| Sanostee | 1,565 |
| Section 8 | 10 |
| Skunk Springs/Crumbled House | 533 |
| Standing Rock | 348 |
| Toh-la-kai | 10 |
| Twin Angeles | 40 |
| Upper Kin Klizhin | 60. |

(2) The map referred to in paragraph (1) shall be kept on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service, the office of the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the office of the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs located in Window Rock, Arizona, and the offices of the Arizona and New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officers.

(Pub. L. 96–550, title V, §502, Dec. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 3227; Pub. L. 104–11, §3, May 18, 1995, 109 Stat. 158.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1995—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–11 designated existing provisions as par. (1), increased number of outlying protection sites from 33 to 39, updated number designation and date on site designation maps, increased total acreage from 8,771 to 14,372 acres, and added par. (2).

1 So in original. Probably should be "acres are".
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Frontiers Marketing
Company,  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2001 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


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
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Parraguirre 

clAA coL_Sce 

rraguirre 

, J. 

J. 

2 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

1111261ESEMMEINNIC iiiiMIE4E 111111111N 

motion is meritorious and consent to granting the motion); Las Vegas 

Fetish & Fantasy Halloween Ball, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc., 124 Nev. 

272, 278 n.15, 182 P.3d 764, 768, n.15 (2008) (stating that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in applying then EDCR 2.20(b) (now 

EDCR 2.20(e)) to an opposition that was eventually filed, but was 

untimely). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

-AAA 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Eva Garcia-Mendoza, Settlement Judge 

Herbert Sachs 

Ranalli & Zaniel, LLC/Henderson 

Eighth District Court Clerk
Feeling Sick?

Stay home when you are sick!

cdc.gov/CORONAVIRUS

CS 316129-B March 22, 2020 6:53 PM

DO NOT ENTER if you have:

If you feel unwell or have the following symptoms 

please leave the building and contact your health care provider. 

Then follow-up with your supervisor.

FEVER COUGH SHORTNESS OF 

BREATH

STOP
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.118 Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.

The Chief Administrative Hearing Officer shall provide general supervision to the Administrative Law Judges in performance of their duties in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1324a, 1324b, and 1324c, and carry out any other responsibilities as provided by law, including the authority to review decisions as provided in 28 CFR part 68.

[AG Order No. 4515-2019, 84 FR 44542, Aug. 26, 2019]
128 STAT. 2076 PUBLIC LAW 113–209—DEC. 16, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2112: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

June 17, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 8, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–209 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 787 State 

Route 17M in Monroe, New York, as the ‘‘National Clandestine Service of the 

Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NATIONAL CLANDESTINE SERVICE OF THE CENTRAL 

INTELLIGENCE AGENCY NCS OFFICER GREGG DAVID 

WENZEL MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘National Clandestine Service 

of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel 

Memorial Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘National Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence 

Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office’’. 

Approved December 16, 2014. 

Dec. 16, 2014 

[H.R. 2112] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
Order entered December 31, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01268-CR

JENNIFER FOLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 26th District Court

Williamson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-0094-K26

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 23, 2019 motion for extension of time to file 

her brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received along with the motion filed as 

of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### § 93.413 Quarantine stations, visiting restricted; sales prohibited.

Visitors are not permitted in the quarantine enclosures during any time that ruminants are in quarantine unless the APHIS representative or inspector in charge specifically grants access under such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the APHIS representative or inspector in charge. An importer (or his or her accredited agent or veterinarian) may be admitted to the yards and buildings containing his or her quarantined ruminants at such intervals as may be deemed necessary, and under such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed, by the APHIS representative or the inspector in charge of the quarantine facility or station. On the last day of the quarantine period, owners, officers, or registry societies, and others having official business or whose services may be necessary in the removal of the ruminants may be admitted upon written permission from the APHIS representative or inspector in charge. No exhibition or sale shall be allowed within the quarantine grounds.

[71 FR 29779, May 24, 2006]
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668, No. 333-26177, No.333-42879, No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463, No. 333-39754, No. 333-116991, and No. 333-130452) of Gerber Scientific, Inc. of our report dated July 28, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### § 301.308 Committee reconsideration.

If the claimant elects to have the Committee reconsider any decision of the Claims Examiner, the claimant may submit documentary evidence which the Committee shall consider in addition to the original record. The Committee must receive evidence no less than 10 days prior to the date of reconsideration, and may request additional documentary evidence from the claimant or any other source.
§ 701.11 Requirements pertaining to requests. ( a ) *How made and addressed.* A requester may make a request under this part for a record of the Office of Independent Counsel by writing to the Office at: FOIA/PA Officer, Office of Independent counsel, Suite 701 West, 555 Thirteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20004. A request should be sent to the Office at its proper address and both the envelope and the request itself should be clearly marked: “Freedom of Information Act Request.”
( b ) *Request must reasonably describe the records sought.* A request must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable Office personnel to locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort. A request for a specific category of records shall be regarded as fulfilling this requirement if it enables responsive records to be identified by a technique or process that is not unreasonably burdensome or disruptive of Office operations. Wherever possible, a request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record. In addition, if the request seeks records pertaining to pending litigation, the request should indicate the title of the case, the court in which the case was filed, and the nature of the case. If the Office determines that a request does not reasonably describe the records sought, the Office shall either advise the requester what additional information is needed or otherwise state why the request is insufficient. The Office also shall extend to the requester an opportunity to confer with Office personnel with the objective of reformulating the request in a manner that will meet the requirements of this section.
( c ) *Agreement to pay fees.* ( 1 ) The filing of a request under this part shall be deemed to constitute an agreement by the requester to pay all applicable fees charged under § 701.18 of this part, up to $25, unless a waiver of fees is sought. The Office shall confirm this agreement in its letter of acknowledgement to the requester. When filing a request, a requester may specify a willingness to pay a greater amount, if applicable.
( 2 ) If a waiver of fees up to $25 is sought in the requester's request to the Office, the Office will make its determination on the fee waiver (and notify the requester as soon as possible) after receipt of the request. The submission of a request for fee waiver will not delay the Office's responsibility to search for responsive records.
( 3 ) If the fee waiver is denied by the Office, and the fees involved total $25 or less, the Office will send the responsive documents to the requester, along with a bill for fees. The collection of the unpaid bill shall follow the procedures found herein at § 701.18 (g)(2) and (h).