alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 700.24 Security of systems of records. ( a ) The Office Administrator or Security Officer shall be responsible for issuing regulations governing the security of systems of records. To the extent that such regulations govern the security of automated systems of records, the regulations shall be consistent with the guidelines developed by the National Bureau of Standards.
( b ) The Office shall establish administrative and physical controls to prevent unauthorized access to its systems of records, to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of records, and to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of records, and to prevent the physical damage or destruction of records. The stringency of such controls shall reflect the sensitivity of the records the controls protect. At a minimum, however, the Office's administrative and physical controls shall ensure that— ( 1 ) Records are protected from public view,
( 2 ) The area in which records are kept is supervised during business hours to prevent unauthorized persons from having access to the records, and
( 3 ) Records are inaccessible to unauthorized persons outside of business hours.
( c ) The Office shall establish rules restricting access to records to only those individuals within the Office who must have access to such records in order to perform their duties. The Office also shall adopt procedures to prevent the accidental disclosure of records or the accidental granting of access to records.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

VINCENT JAMES PIERCE,

Appellant.

PER CURIAM. Vincent Pierce challenges his conviction for second degree

assault and third degree assault of a child. His court-appointed attorney has filed a

motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on

review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the motion

to withdraw must:

(1) be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might

arguably support the appeal. (2) A copy of counsel's brief should be

furnished the indigent and (3) time allowed him to raise any points that he

chooses; (4) the court-not counsel-then proceeds, after a full examination

of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.

Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).

This procedure has been followed. Pierce's counsel on appeal filed a brief with

the motion to withdraw. Pierce was served with a copy of the brief and informed of his

right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Pierce did notfile a

supplemental brief.

) No. 69715-3-1 o

po ifiCJ

) DIVISION ONE

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Q o-n,.

CP ::r^.l

s ^

) FILED: October 28, 2013 o3 c3.:::
No. 69715-3-1/2

The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel's brief in support of the

motion to withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has

independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the

following potential issue raised by counsel:

Did the State prove each element of the offenses beyond a reasonable

doubt?

The issue raised by counsel is wholly frivolous. The motion to withdraw is

granted and the appeal is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT:

\ihJJQ<L
### §410eeee–5. Mineral lands

#### (a) Mining; prohibition and limitation

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no surface mining of any kind shall be permitted on federally owned lands within the boundary of the national river where the subsurface estate is not federally owned. Underground mining on such lands may be permitted by the Secretary only if—

(1) the mining operation will have no significant adverse impact on the public use and enjoyment of the national river;

(2) the mining operation will disturb the minimum amount of surface necessary to extract the mineral; and

(3) the surface is not significantly disturbed, unless there is no technologically feasible alternative.

#### (b) Timber harvesting

The harvesting of timber on federally owned lands within the national river boundary is prohibited, except insofar as it is necessary for the Secretary to remove trees for river access, historic sites, primitive campgrounds, scenic vistas, or as may be necessary from time to time for reasons of public health and safety.

#### (c) Civil action; jurisdiction; recovery

The owner of a mineral estate subject to this section who believes he has suffered a loss by operation of this section, may bring an action only in a United States district court to recover just compensation, which shall be awarded if the court finds that such loss constitutes a taking of property compensable under the Constitution.

(Pub. L. 95–625, title XI, §1105, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3546.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 460m–19 of this title.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

Release No. 10261 / December 5, 2016

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-17363

In the Matter of 

The Registration Statement of 

SAND INTERNATIONAL, INC.

13 Stusa Street, Lvov Region

Zvirka, Ukraine, 8000

NOTICE THAT INITIAL DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL

The time for filing a petition for review of the initial decision in this proceeding has 

expired. No such petition has been filed by Sand International, Inc., and the Commission has not 

chosen to review the decision on its own initiative.

Accordingly, notice is hereby given, pursuant to Rule 360(d) of the Commission's Rules 

of Practice,1that the initial decision of the administrative law judge has become the final 

decision of the Commission with respect to Sand International, Inc.2The order contained in that 

decision is hereby declared effective. The initial decision ordered that, pursuant to Section 8(d) 

of the Securities Act of 1933, the effectiveness of the registration statement filed by Sand 

International, Inc., is suspended.

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Brent J. Fields

 Secretary

 

1

 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(d).

2

 Sand Int’l, Inc., Initial Decision Release No. 1066 (Oct. 14, 2016), 115 SEC Docket 04,

2016 WL 6023902.
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  September 30, 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.
§ 545.24 Inmate work conditions. ( a ) The scheduled work day for an inmate in a federal institution ordinarily consists of a minimum of seven hours.
( b ) An inmate is expected to report to the place of assignment at the required time. An inmate may not leave an assignment without permission.
( c ) An inmate, regardless of assignment, is expected to perform all assigned tasks diligently and conscientiously. Disciplinary action may be taken against an inmate who refuses to work, who otherwise evades attendance and performance standards in assigned activities, or who encourages others to do so.
( d ) Work, vocational, and education programs are to meet the appropriate minimum standards for health and safety. Safety equipment is to be available where needed.
( e ) An inmate is expected to perform the work assignment in a safe manner, using safety equipment as instructed by the work supervisor. In the event of any work related injury, the inmate shall notify the work supervisor so that appropriate action (for example, medical attention, and submission of necessary reports) may be taken.
[49 FR 38915, Oct. 1, 1984, as amended at 56 FR 23478, May 21, 1991; 56 FR 31531, July 10, 1991; 61 FR 379, Jan. 4, 1996]
## Project Links

- Project Home
- Plan Process
- Links
- Document List

# Document List

### Kalaupapa National Historical Park » Kalaupapa NHP General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment

### Select a document to review or comment:

Revised General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment 2021Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 2021Kalaupapa GMP Programmatic Agreement 2021General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment 2018GMP/EA Questions and Answers 2018Draft GMP/EIS: Public Comments 2015Draft GMP/EIS Public Review: Meeting Notes July 2015Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 2015Newsletter #4 Draft GMP/ EIS Executive Summary 2015Draft Alternatives Public Review: Comment Summary Dec 2011Draft Alternatives Public Review: Written Comments Aug 2011Draft Alternatives Public Review: Meeting Notes June 2011Draft Foundation Statement June 2011Newsletter #3 Preliminary Alternatives 2011Draft Foundation Statement June 2010Public Scoping: Follow-up Meeting Notes Dec 2009Newsletter #2 Results of Scoping 2009Public Scoping: Written Comments May 2009Public Scoping: Meeting Notes May 2009Draft Foundation Statement April 2009Newsletter #1 Public Scoping 2009
#### § 512.17 Monitoring approved research projects.

The BRRB shall monitor all research projects for compliance with Bureau policies. At a minimum, yearly reviews will be conducted.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00508-CR

NO. 03-06-00510-CR

Stephen Walker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 3030475 & D-1-DC-2005-300438, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Stephen Walker appeals two orders revoking community supervision. In a single

point of error, appellant contends that the district court erred by admitting testimony from an

unqualified witness regarding the results of a urinalysis. We overrule this contention and affirm the

revocation orders.

The witness in question, a “substance abuse monitor” employed by the probation

department, testified that he performed a “dip stick” test on a sample of appellant’s urine. According

to the witness, the test indicated the presence of the active ingredient in marihuana. Appellant

objected to this testimony on the ground that the witness was unfamiliar with the scientific basis for

the test. Although the trial court overruled the objection and permitted the witness to testify to the
2

test result, the court stated that “those results really could not be given any weight unless we had

someone coming in to testify about them.”

The court found that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his supervision

by failing to pay various fees and costs, by failing to submit a urine specimen as directed by

his probation officer, and by committing the subsequent offense of unlawfully operating a vehicle.

The “dirty” urine test alleged in the motions to revoke was not a reason for the revocation. Any

error in the admission of the challenged testimony regarding that test was, therefore, harmless.

Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).

The orders revoking community supervision are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: July 13, 2007

Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Administrative Proceedings Rulings

Release No. 6845 / April 26, 2022

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of

DF Growth REIT II, LLC

Notice of Hearing 

Location

The hearing in this proceeding will commence on Monday, June 6, 2022. 

The following courtroom has been reserved for the entire week:

Courtroom D-4

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of California

The Jacob Weinberger Courthouse

325 West F Street

San Diego, CA 92101

/s/ Jason S. Patil

Administrative Law Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6864/August 23, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20531

In the Matter of :

:

HORTER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, : ORDER

and DREW K. HORTER :

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Instituting Proceedings, pursuant to Sections 203(e), 203(f), and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers 

Act of 1940, on September 8, 2021, and the Commission ordered that the matter be heard by an 

Administrative Law Judge on April 14, 2022. The hearing, scheduled to commence October 24, 

2022, is to be conducted remotely, through video hearing sessions. A prehearing conference will be 

held by telephone on Tuesday, October 18, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. EDT (10:00 a.m. CDT), a date and 

time convenient to the parties. The Division of Enforcement should arrange for a court reporter and 

circulate dial-in instructions to participants before the conference. 

Procedural questions will be addressed at the prehearing conference. As to those listed in 

the Division’s August 22, 2022, letter: 

1. The hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. EDT, unless the parties prefer a different time; 

2. Prehearing briefs, to be filed by October 1, 2022, and posthearing briefs will substitute for 

opening statements and closing arguments; 

3. Expert reports will substitute for direct examination of the parties’ expert witnesses; 

4. The hearing will be conducted via WebEx. Since the Division will be responsible for arranging

for a court reporter, it will issue the WebEx invitation to all participants.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge
§ 58.14 Automatic expiration of agencies' status as approved agencies. ( a ) Except as provided in § 58.15(c), if an approved agency was not an approved agency immediately prior to the date it last obtained approval to be an approved agency, such an approved agency shall cease to be an approved agency six months from the date on which it was approved unless the United States Trustee approves an additional one year period.
( b ) Except as provided in § 58.15(c), if an approved agency was an approved agency immediately prior to the date it last obtained approval to be an approved agency, such an agency shall cease to be an approved agency one year from the date on which it was last approved to be an approved agency unless the United States Trustee approves an additional one year period.
[78 FR 16150, Mar. 14, 2013]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 80 

To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. GARDNER, and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers 

enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jobs and Premium 

5 Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTING PATIENTS FROM HIGHER PREMIUMS. 

7 Section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Afford8 able Care Act (26 U.S.C. 4001 note prec.) is repealed. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 on Form 10-QSB of North Shore
Capital IV, Inc., (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gerard Werner,
Chief Executive 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) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: October 11, 2005


/s/ Gerard Werner
Chief Executive Officer
October 11, 2005



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/28

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
§ 725.7 Regional or river basin planning. ( a ) In agreements between river basin commissions or other regional planning sponsors and the Council for the preparation and revision of regional and river basin Level B Studies and regional water resource management plans, the responsible official representing the river basin commission or regional planning sponsor shall certify to the Council that the following criteria have been or will be utilized as part of the planning process: ( 1 ) Determination of whether proposed activities would be located in floodplains or wetlands, or, even if located outside of them, would have the potential to affect floodplains or wetlands;
( 2 ) Avoidance of performing activities within floodplains or wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative;
( 3 ) Where avoidance of floodplains cannot be achieved, minimization of adverse impacts and support of floodplain development, and preservation and restoration of natural and beneficial floodplain values;
( 4 ) Where avoidance of wetlands cannot be achieved, minimization of adverse impacts and support of new construction in wetlands, and preservation and enhancement of natural and beneficial wetlands values; and
( 5 ) Involvement of the public in the floodplain management and wetlands protection decisionmaking process.
( b ) The Council's Floodplain Management Guidelines (43 FR 6030) shall be used as the basis for implementing the criteria in § 725.7(a)(1) through (5).
( c ) The responsible official representing the regional planning sponsor shall, to the fullest extent of his or her authority, ensure that any activities carried out under his or her plans and programs meet the criteria in § 725.7(a)(1) through (5).
Fw: Our response to your first set of comments

Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/12/2011 03:53 PM

Jan King

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group

phone: (919) 541-5665

fax: (919) 541-2664

Mailcode: C404-05

----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/12/2011 03:53 PM -----

From: "Laity, Jim" <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J." 

<Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea 

Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ginger 

Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Waite/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich 

Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/12/2011 03:03 PM

Subject: RE: Our response to your first set of comments

Set 2 looks fine. I don't understand why you are reluctant to say explicitly 

up front that you are retaining the current secondary standard to protect 

against direct exposure to gaseous NOx/SOx. This is key info for the public 

and several folks who read this were initially confused. What's the big deal 

here. Am I missing something?

Please call... 202-395-5168

-----Original Message-----

From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:12 PM

To: Laity, Jim; Mancini, Dominic J.

Cc: Karen Martin; John Hannon; Lea Anderson; Janet McCabe; Ginger Tennant; 

Randy Waite; Rich Scheffe; Jan King

Subject: Our response to your first set of comments

Jim, and Dom,

Attached is our response to your comments on page one of the notice in the 

first set of comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you 

are in agreement with these edits. Thanks.

Lydia

(See attached file: NOxSOx 7-12-11 set 1 comments 7-12-11 response.docx)
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 71 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 71

  Withdrawing approval of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
                             Organization.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2020

 Mr. Hawley introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Withdrawing approval of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
                             Organization.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress withdraws 
its approval, provided under section 101(a) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, of the WTO Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE> 		           	   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>				    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START> 			       APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>				         JUN-30-1999
<CASH>				      	              5,989
<SECURITIES>			      	             0
<RECEIVABLES>			       	      74,582
<ALLOWANCES>				                 647
<INVENTORY>					              11,051
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              94,007
<PP&E>					                   82,956
<DEPRECIATION>	       	      (45,815)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>        		     395,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>			     460,521
<BONDS>				                       	0
<COMMON>				         	     1,165,716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           			0
<PREFERRED>					                   0
<OTHER-SE>					                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		57,170
<SALES>					                  34,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>	 		          34,994
<CGS>						                    4,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>			              	4,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>				               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>				               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>		         	(4,413)
<INCOME-PRETAX>				          (65,256)
<INCOME-TAX>				                  (0)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			             0
<DISCONTINUED>				                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>				                0
<CHANGES>					                     0
<NET-INCOME>			             	(65,256)
<EPS-BASIC>				              (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>			              	(0.06)


</TABLE>