alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60568 Summary Calendar

ELISA SARA MENDES, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 478 339

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lisa Sara Mendes, a native and citizen of Angola, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Mendes’ applications, the IJ found that Mendes lacked credibility. Generally, we review the decision of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influencedNo. 04-60568 -2- the BIA’s determination. Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). When, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision without a written opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Id. The IJ articulated cogent reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting Mendes’ testimony as incredible. See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Absent credible testimony by Mendes, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Mendes failed to establish that she was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. Because Mendes makes only a conclusory statement that she is entitled to relief under the CAT, she has shown no error in the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, her petition for review is DENIED.
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/19 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50371 Summary Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus JOE CLINTON SEGLER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-88-CR-128 - - - - - - - - - - March 6, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joe Clinton Segler appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his prison term, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that his 1989 sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), would have been lower under a retroactive 1993 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, under which “mixtures or substances” is given a different meaning. He contends that theNo. 95-50371 -2- district court abused its discretion by applying the 1994 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines to his 1989 sentence, thus violating his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. Although Segler is correct that the district court erred, the court’s error is harmless because, even if the correct guidelines were applied, Segler’s guideline sentencing range would be above the statutory maximum sentence. See United States v. Montoya-Ortiz , 7 F.3d 1171, 1182 (5th Cir. 1993). On that basis, the district court's denial of the motion is AFFIRMED.
#### § 10010.32 Tiering.

An environmental document prepared by or for the Commission may incorporate by reference, either in part or in its entirety, an earlier environmental impact statement or environmental assessment when the subject matter of the earlier document is directly applicable. The Commission may also choose to prepare, or cause to have prepared, a broad environmental document to cover an entire program or, alternatively, a series of projects within a distinct geographic area, with the intent of later undertaking project-specific documentation and “tiering” to the more general statement or assessment.
### §1143. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–93, §3, Sept. 27, 1967, 81 Stat. 229, which related to assistance of the Secretary of the Interior in preparing membership rolls and eligibility for enrollment, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### § 3174.15 Immediate assessments.

Certain instances of noncompliance warrant the imposition of immediate assessments upon the BLM's discovery of the violation, as prescribed in the following table. Imposition of any of these assessments does not preclude other appropriate enforcement actions.

Table 1 to [§ 3174.15](/on/2024-09-06/title-43/section-3174.15)—Violations Subject to an Immediate Assessment

| Violations subject to an immediate assessment | |
| --- | --- |
| Violation: | Assessment amount per violation: |
| 1. Missing or nonfunctioning FMP LACT system components as required by [§ 3174.8 of this subpart](/on/2024-09-06/title-43/part-3174/section-3174.8) | $1,000 |
| 2. Failure to notify the AO within 72 hours, as required by [§ 3174.7(e) of this subpart](/on/2024-09-06/title-43/part-3174/section-3174.7#p-3174.7(e)), of any FMP LACT system failure or equipment malfunction resulting in use of an unapproved alternate method of measurement | 1,000 |
| 3. Missing or nonfunctioning FMP CMS components as required by [§ 3174.9 of this subpart](/on/2024-09-06/title-43/part-3174/section-3174.9) | 1,000 |
| 4. Failure to meet the proving frequency requirements for an FMP, detailed in [§ 3174.11 of this subpart](/on/2024-09-06/title-43/part-3174/section-3174.11) | 1,000 |
| 5. Failure to obtain a written approval, as required by [§ 3174.13 of this subpart](/on/2024-09-06/title-43/part-3174/section-3174.13), before using any oil measurement method other than tank gauging, LACT system, or CMS at a FMP | 1,000 |
### §2807. Uniform allowance

Notwithstanding the limitation in section 5901(a) of title 5, the Secretary may provide a uniform allowance for uniformed law enforcement officers under section 2803 of this title of not more than $400 a year.

(Pub. L. 101–379, §8, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 477.)
================================================================================

                                   EXHIBIT 32

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 Annual Report of Hybrid Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Holly
Roseberry, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                            /s/ Holly Roseberry
                                            ----------------------
                                            Holly Roseberry
                                            Chief Executive Officer and
                                            Principal Financial Officer

November 15, 2007


                                       44
#### § 30.190 Are renunciations that predate the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 valid?

Any renunciation filed and included as part of a probate decision or order issued before October 27, 2004, the effective date of the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004, remains valid.
#### § 29.12 Borrowing.

In the event the Fund is unable to satisfy a claim determined to be justified, or is in need of money with which to initiate the operation of the Fund, the Fund may borrow the money needed from any commercial credit source at the lowest available rate of interest. If the amount to be borrowed is $500,000 or less, the Administrator may arrange to pledge the credit of the Fund pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Trustees. If the proposed borrowing exceeds $500,000, the Administrator shall, prior to issuance of a note or other security pledging the credit of the Fund, secure the approval of the Secretary. No money may be borrowed from any of the Permittees or their affiliates.
§ 431.110 Expedited review procedures for certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research. ( a ) The Secretary of HHS has established, and published as a Notice in the Federal Register, a list of categories of research that may be reviewed by the IRB through an expedited review procedure. The Secretary will evaluate the list at least every 8 years and amend it, as appropriate, after consultation with other federal departments and agencies and after publication in the Federal Register for public comment. A copy of the list is available from the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office.
( b ) ( 1 ) An IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review the following: ( i ) Some or all of the research appearing on the list described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless the reviewer determines that the study involves more than minimal risk;
( ii ) Minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized; or
( iii ) Research for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption under § 431.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7) and (8).
( 2 ) Under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among members of the IRB. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the IRB except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the nonexpedited procedure set forth in § 431.108(b).
( c ) Each IRB that uses an expedited review procedure shall adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals that have been approved under the procedure.
( d ) The department or agency head may restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize an institution's or IRB's use of the expedited review procedure.
#### Times Square Concessions, Inc., Appellant, v. Sheffield Farms Company, Inc., Respondent. Capital Milk Bars Corp., as Assignee of Times Square Concessions, Inc., Appellant, v. Sheffield Farms Company, Inc., Respondent.

— Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 30.411 How will the interests to be purchased at probate be valued? ( a ) For each parcel for which a request to purchase has been submitted, BIA will obtain appraisal(s) or other fair market valuation(s) in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) or other approved valuation methods under 25 U.S.C. 2214.
( b ) Any appraisal/valuation must be made on the basis of the fair market value of the parcel as of the date of the decedent's death.
( c ) No valuation document filed by the BIA, aside from an appraisal, will be used to determine the fair market value of trust land during a purchase at probate unless the document clearly states that it assesses the fair market value of the real property interest or is accompanied by a certification that it does so.
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

DAY ELEV

 503.44

 502.49

 501.73

 500.15

 501.02

 501.28

 501.49

 501.28

 499.81

 499.45

 500.55

 500.67

 499.88

 499.92

 500.03

 500.40

 500.53

 499.83

 500.10

 499.57

 499.15

 499.99

 499.56

 500.33

 499.95

 500.74

 502.20

 501.92

 59,112

 58,039

 57,192

 55,466

 56,409

 56,696

 56,927

 56,696

 55,100

 54,716

 55,899

 56,029

 55,175

 55,218

 55,336

 55,737

 55,878

 55,122

 55,411

 54,844

 54,396

 55,292

 54,834

 55,661

 55,250

 56,105

 57,714

 57,402

STORAGE

-638

-1,073

-847

-1,726

+943

+287

+231

-231

-1,596

-384

+1,183

+130

-854

+43

+118

+401

+141

-756

+289

-567

-448

+896

-458

+827

-411

+855

+1,609

-312

CHANGE

22

35

162

-280

1,069

574

811

819

130

745

1,563

1,054

551

991

1,027

1,167

1,053

571

1,131

709

773

1,458

766

1,380

739

1,380

1,761

721

INFLOW

 341

 575

 588

 589

 594

 429

 695

 935

 934

 938

 966

 987

 980

 966

 966

 964

 978

 636

 981

 993

 997

 996

 994

 962

 945

 947

 940

 875

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 314

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 3

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 3

 2

 1

 4

 2

 4

 2

 2

 10

 3

 1

 1

 2

 10

 3

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2010 TULLOCH RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 03/01/2010

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -2,348 22,882 23,691 0 314 62

ACRE-FEET -2,348 45,386 46,991 0 623 123

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 46,991

SPILL 0 47,614

 59,750

OUTLET 623

TOTAL 

NEW

MELONES

RELEASE (1)

 11

 10

 9

 16

 838

 449

 566

 736

 11

 1,081

 1,077

 1,000

 502

 940

 979

 1,127

 995

 589

 1,091

 686

 727

 1,402

 698

 878

 559

 1,110

 692

 482

 19,261

 38,204

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND

EVAPORATION.
§ 11.40 What are type A procedures? ( a ) A type A procedure is a standardized methodology for performing Injury Determination, Quantification, and Damage Determination that requires minimal field observation. There are two type A procedures: the type A procedure for coastal and marine environments; and the type A procedure for Great Lakes environments. The type A procedure for coastal and marine environments incorporates a computer model called the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environments Version 2.51 (NRDAM/CME). The NRDAM/CME technical document (incorporated by reference, see § 11.18) includes and explains the NRDAM/CME. The type A procedure for Great Lakes environments incorporates a computer model called the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Model for Great Lakes Environments Version 1.51 (NRDAM/GLE). The NRDAM/GLE technical document (incorporated by reference, see § 11.18) includes and explains the NRDAM/GLE. The authorized official must follow §§ 11.41 through 11.44 when using the type A procedures.
( b ) The reasonable and necessary costs incurred in conducting assessments under this subpart shall be limited to those costs incurred or anticipated by the authorized official for, and specifically allocable to, incident-specific efforts taken in the assessment of damages for natural resources for which the agency or Indian tribe is acting as trustee. Such costs shall be supported by appropriate records and documentation, and shall not reflect regular activities performed by the agency or the Indian tribe in management of the natural resource. Activities undertaken as part of the damage assessment shall be taken in a manner that is cost-effective, as that phrase is used in this part.
[52 FR 9096, Mar. 20, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 5175, Feb. 22, 1988; 61 FR 20611, May 7, 1996; 62 FR 60459, Nov. 10, 1997; 65 FR 6014, Feb. 8, 2000]
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3625]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on September 15, 2004, and a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—on September 18, 2004, I find that George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Perry, Stone, and Wayne Counties in the State of Mississippi constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Hurricane Ivan occurring on September 13, 2004, and continuing. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on November 15, 2004, and for economic injury until the close of business on June 15, 2005, at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Clarke, Forrest, Jasper, Jones, and Pearl River in the State of Mississippi; Choctaw, Mobile, and Washington counties in the State of Alabama; and St. Tammany Parish in the State of Louisiana. The interest rates are: For Physical Damage Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
6.375Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.187Businesses with credit available elsewhere
5.800Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
2.900Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
4.875*For Economic Injury:*Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
2.900
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 362508. For economic injury the number is 9ZW600 for Mississippi; 9ZW700 for Alabama; and 9ZW800 for Louisiana. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: September 20, 2004. Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 04-21899 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0099. FRANK LESLIE BOND III v. JULIET WINDHAM BOND.

Frank Leslie Bond III seeks discretionary review of the trial court’s order

granting JulietWindhamBond’smotion for temporary alimony, extending discovery,

and reserving the issue of attorney fees until the trial of this divorce case. Because

the case remains pending below, Frank Bond wasrequired to follow the interlocutory

appeal procedure to obtain appellate review at thisjuncture. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266

Ga. 832, 832 (471 SE2d 213) (1996) (“an order awarding temporary alimony is

interlocutory and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the interlocutory appeal

procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)”); see also Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 (646

SE2d 469) (2007). Although he filed an application for discretionary appeal,

compliance with the discretionary appeal statute, OCGA § 5-6-35, does not excuse

a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the

additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833. Frank

Bond’sfailure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction

over this discretionary application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 10, 2017

10/10/2017
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- 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 ou t of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 / h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Modification 6.0 $ 510.00 $279 $ 789.00 

### 43 $ 33,927.00 $ 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 compli ance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 33,927 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition**  **Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Optional Modification 1 12.7 $ 1,079.50 $6,130 $ 7,209.50 

### Optional M o dification 2 286.5 $ 24,352.50 $65,331 $ 89,683.50
$ 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? E xplain 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 

### :