alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0115 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2010-NE-40-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3121EN-E

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP3121EN-E

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Melvin SMITH v. Arthur T. PRASSE, Commissioner, Bureau of Correction.

Misc. No. 3635.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 14, 1967.

*392Neil Leibman, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Charles A. Haddad, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, District Judge.

Relator, in his habeas corpus petition, asks us to set bail while he appeals his state court conviction. The state courts have refused his request for bail.

Habeas corpus relief is only available where one has been deprived of a constitutional right. Relator claims that the state courts’ denial of his request for bail violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. This contention raises two separate questions. Does the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against “excessive bail” apply to the states, and, if so, does it proscribe excessive bail pending appeal from a conviction or is it limited to the pretrial stage ?

■Assuming, without deciding, that the Eighth Amendment does apply to the states and that it has effect after conviction,1 relator is still not entitled to relief.

The right contained in the Eighth Amendment, although fundamental, is not absolute. States can still provide that those accused of certain offenses are not entitled to bail and for those offenses where bail is allowed the judge has discretion in this regard. “ * * * The proscription is only that the state (speaking through the legislature) and the trial court must act reasonably and not arbitrarily or discriminatorily.” Wansley v. Wilkerson, 263 P.Supp. 54, 57 (D.C.Va., 1967).

We do not find the state courts’ denial of bail to be arbitrary. Here, relator’s conviction resulted from a crime of violence. Thus, the state courts might well have concluded that relator’s release would jeopardize the safety of .the community. Also, there is no showing that the questions on appeal are substantial. From the above circumstances we can not say that the denial of bail was arbitrary and therefore violative of the Eighth Amendment.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

It is so ordered.

1

. We also must assume that the proscription against “excessive bail” is also a proscription against “no bail.” See United States v. Motlow, 7 Cir., 10 F. 2d 657, 659 (Butler, Circuit Justice, 1926).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 162

 163

 163

 158

 155

 153

 151

 150

 147

 150

 151

 151

 150

 151

 150

 150

 150

 151

 151

 153

 155

 157

 160

 156

 159

 160

 156

 159

 159

 163

 171

 151

 151

 150

 150

 149

 148

 145

 143

 143

 146

 146

 145

 144

 143

 126

 143

 143

 142

 143

 143

 142

 143

 137

 142

 143

 144

 130

 137

 142

 149

 153

 155

 154

 154

 153

 151

 149

 148

 146

 145

 149

 149

 148

 147

 147

 144

 147

 146

 146

 147

 148

 149

 149

 148

 148

 149

 150

 144

 147

 151

 157

 162

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 13, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
#### § 229.3 Other regulations related to this part.

This part is related to a number of other parts of this chapter (listed numerically):

Part 216 describes when a person is eligible for an annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act.

Part 217 describes how to apply for an annuity or for lump-sum payments.

Part 218 sets forth the beginning and ending dates of annuities.

Part 219 sets out what evidence is necessary to prove eligibility and the relationships described in this part.

Part 220 describes when a person is eligible for a disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act or a period of disability under the Social Security Act.

Part 222 describes the family relationships which may cause an annuity to be increased under this part.

Part 225 explains how Primary Insurance Amounts (PIA's) are computed.
---

Exhibit 99.10

March 31, 2014

CONSENT OF JAMES TURNER

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

In connection with Silver Wheaton Corp.s (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Annual
Report), I, James Turner, BSc (Hons) MSc CEng MIMMM, Senior Mineral Process
Engineer, Micon International Ltd., hereby consent to the inclusion in, or
incorporation by reference into, the Annual Report and the Companys
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-128128), Form F-10 (File No.
333-185152) and Form F-3D (File No. 333-194702), of the following:

| | 1. | Technical Report on the Mineral Reserves and Mineral
      Resources of the Salobo Copper-Gold Mine Carajas, Pará State, Brazil,
      dated March 19, 2013.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yours truly,

/s/ James Turner
______________________________________James Turner, BSc (Hons)
MSc CEng MIMMMSenior Mineral Process EngineerMicon International
Ltd.

---
Exhibit 32.2

                    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 Presidential
 Realty Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending March 31, 2006, as
 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
 "Report"), I, Thomas Viertel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


                                      Presidential Realty Corporation

                                      By:/s/ Thomas Viertel
                                      ----------------------
                                      Thomas Viertel
                                      Chief Financial Officer




         Date: May 11, 2006
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Mathew H. Wong, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Dejour Enterprises Ltd.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  October 24, 2007

|                                        |  |                    
|--------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|By:                                     |  | /s/  Mathew H. Wong
|                                        |  |                    
|Mathew H. Wong,
Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 44

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

#### § 44.244 Amount of bond.

The amount of the bond filed by the customs warehouse proprietor, as required by § 44.243, shall be not less than the estimated amount of tax which may at any time constitute a charge against the bond: *Provided,* That the amount of any such bond (or the total amount where original and strengthening bonds are filed) shall not exceed $25,000 nor be less than $1,000. The charges against such bond shall be subject to increase as withdrawals are made and decrease as required evidence of exportation is received by the appropriate TTB officer with respect to cigars withdrawn. When the limit of liability under a bond given in less than the maximum amount has been reached, further withdrawals shall not be made thereunder until a strengthening or superseding bond is filed as required by § 44.245 or § 44.246.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 7,650

 6,845

 5,027

 3,799

 2,866

 3,400

 3,773

 4,399

 4,334

 4,891

 5,480

 7,108

 9,132

 8,302

 7,595

 6,242

 3,726

 2,001

 1,378

 1,335

 1,848

 2,959

 653

 367

 295

 288

 281

 229

 197

 188

 188

 1,231

 1,327

 1,086

 859

 733

 691

 703

 710

 725

 782

 761

 873

 1,616

 1,514

 1,588

 1,253

 802

 570

 465

 413

 401

 396

 344

 271

 240

 212

 207

 191

 179

 174

 172

 3,482

 3,305

 2,581

 1,775

 1,298

 1,325

 1,534

 1,723

 2,062

 2,374

 2,721

 3,262

 4,856

 4,612

 4,246

 3,349

 1,915

 999

 688

 610

 683

 888

 432

 321

 259

 242

 237

 207

 187

 179

 177

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 3, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 220.53 When the Board will purchase a consultative examination and how it will be used. ( a ) ( 1 ) *General.* The decision to purchase a consultative examination for a claimant will be made after full consideration is given to whether the additional information needed (e.g., clinical findings, laboratory tests, diagnosis, and prognosis, etc.) is readily available from the records of the claimant's medical sources. Upon filing an application for a disability annuity, a claimant will be required to obtain from his or her medical source(s) information regarding the claimed impairments. The Board will seek clarification from a medical source who has provided a report when that report contains a conflict or ambiguity, or does not contain all necessary information or when the information supplied is not based on objective evidence. The Board will not, however, seek clarification from a medical source when it is clear that the source either cannot or will not provide the necessary findings, or cannot reconcile a conflict or ambiguity in the findings provided from the source's records. Therefore, before purchasing a consultative examination, the Board will consider not only existing medical reports, but also the background report containing the claimant's allegations and information about the claimant's vocational background, as well as other pertinent evidence in his or her file.
( 2 ) When the Board purchases a consultative examination, we will use the report from the consultative examination to try to resolve a conflict or ambiguity if one exists. The Board will do this by comparing the persuasiveness and value of the evidence. The Board will also use a consultative examination to secure needed medical evidence the file does not contain such as clinical findings, laboratory tests, a diagnosis or prognosis necessary for decision.
( b ) *Situations requiring a consultative examination.* A consultative examination may be purchased when the evidence as a whole, both medical and non-medical, is not sufficient to support a decision on the claim. In addition, other situations, such as one or more of the following, will normally require a consultative examination (these situations are not all-inclusive): ( 1 ) The specific additional evidence needed for adjudication has been pinpointed and high probability exists for obtaining it through purchase.
( 2 ) The additional evidence needed is not contained in the records of the claimant's treating sources.
( 3 ) Evidence that may be needed from the claimant's treating or other medical sources cannot be obtained for reasons beyond his or her control, such as death or noncooperation of the medical source.
( 4 ) Highly technical or specialized medical evidence which is needed is not available from the claimant's treating sources.
( 5 ) A conflict, inconsistency, ambiguity or insufficiency in the evidence must be resolved.
( 6 ) There is an indication of a change in the claimant's condition that is likely to affect his or her ability to function, but current severity is not documented.
( 7 ) Information provided by any source appears not to be supported by objective evidence.
Order entered January 23, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01245-CR

No. 05-13-01246-CR

CHAD EUGENE APPLETON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 28881, 28882

ORDER

Appellant has informed the Court that he wishes to file a pro se response to the Anders

brief filed by appellate counsel. In her motion to withdraw, counsel states she sent appellant 

copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s January 10, 

2014 request for an extension of time to file his pro se response.

Appellant’s pro se response is due by MARCH 17, 2014. If the response is not received 

by the date specified, the appeals will be submitted on the Anders brief alone.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to Chad 

Appleton, TDCJ No. 01879585, Telford Unit, 3899 State Hwy 98, New Boston, TX 75570.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3883 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3883

 To improve the provision of health care by the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2015

 Mr. Wittman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To improve the provision of health care by the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran's Choice Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF FEE-BASIS CARE PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall evaluate all programs of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs under which the Secretary furnishes 
hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care to determine the 
most intensively used specialized care programs of the Department and 
to ensure such programs are maintained as centers of excellence.

SEC. 3. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF VA BUDGET AND CHOICE 
              IMPROVEMENT ACT.

    Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress an 
evaluation of the implementation by the Secretary of the VA Budget and 
Choice Improvement Act (title IV of Public Law 114-41).
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3895 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for two years 

the credit for combined heat and power system property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2015 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for two years the credit for combined heat and power 

system property. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR COMBINED HEAT 

4 AND POWER SYSTEM PROPERTY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 48(c)(3)(A)(iv) of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘Jan7 uary 1, 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2019’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3895 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 19,051

 19,499

 19,577

 19,914

 20,244

 19,864

 17,643

 16,827

 16,552

 17,621

 16,935

 17,977

 18,563

 20,294

 19,911

 20,390

 20,147

 19,210

 18,689

 17,859

 17,265

 16,227

 16,283

 16,580

 17,426

 18,957

 19,560

 19,986

 19,910

 21,058

 9,226

 8,604

 8,865

 8,680

 9,037

 8,986

 8,338

 8,369

 7,156

 8,367

 9,044

 8,755

 9,835

 10,706

 10,112

 9,037

 7,583

 8,799

 8,587

 8,353

 7,958

 8,093

 7,996

 9,071

 10,358

 10,388

 11,170

 10,334

 10,267

 9,945

 13,653

 13,615

 13,645

 13,727

 14,004

 13,970

 13,305

 12,736

 12,934

 12,608

 12,359

 12,318

 14,147

 14,627

 14,322

 13,728

 13,175

 13,206

 13,382

 13,110

 12,935

 12,594

 12,075

 12,740

 13,153

 14,185

 15,043

 14,786

 14,761

 14,633

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BRUCE TIMOTHY BLAND, JR.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (0:06-cr-01255-JFA-1)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Timothy Bland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Bruce Timothy Bland, Jr. appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Bland , No. 0:06-cr-01255-JFA-1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2009). 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