alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 418.26 Charges for water use.

The District must maintain a financing and accounting system which produces revenue sufficient to repay its operation and maintenance costs and to discharge any debt to the United States. The District should give consideration to adopting a system which provides reasonable financial incentives for the economical and efficient use of water.
Exhibit 32.1





                                  CERTIFICATION








In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Integrated Surgical
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peter B. Mills, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, that:


     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.






/s/ Peter B. Mills
---------------------------------------
Peter B. Mills, Chief Executive Officer

November 16, 2007
### PART III—RULES RELATING TO MINIMUM FUNDING STANDARDS AND BENEFIT LIMITATIONS

Subpart
A.
Minimum funding standards for pension plans.
B.
Benefit limitations under single-employer plans.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–280, title I, §113(a)(1)(A), Aug. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 846, substituted "RULES RELATING TO MINIMUM FUNDING STANDARDS AND BENEFIT LIMITATIONS" for "MINIMUM FUNDING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS" in part heading and added subpart analysis.
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 #3629]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on September 18, 2004, I find that Carroll, Cherokee, Cobb, Dawson, DeKalb, Early, Franklin, Fulton, Gilmer, Madison, Rabun, Towns, Union, and White Counties in the State of Georgia constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Hurricane Ivan occurring on September 14, 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 17, 2004, and for economic injury until the close of business on June 20, 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: Baker, Banks, Bartow, Calhoun, Clarke, Clay, Clayton, Coweta, Douglas, Elbert, Fannin, Fayette, Forsyth, Gordon, Gwinnett, Habersham, Hall, Haralson, Hart, Heard, Henry, Jackson, Lumpkin, Miller, Murray, Oglethorpe, Paulding, Pickens, Rockdale, Seminole and Stephens in the State of Georgia; Cleburne, Henry, Houston and Randolph counties in the State of Alabama; Oconee county in the State of South Carolina; Cherokee, Clay, Jackson and Macon counties in the State of North Carolina. The interest rates are: PercentFor 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
4.875For Economic Injury:Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.900
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 362908. For economic injury the number is 9ZX900 for Georgia; 9ZY100 for Alabama; 9ZY200 for South Carolina; and 9ZY300 for North Carolina. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008). Dated: October 1, 2004. Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 04-22491 Filed 10-5-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### § 3501.5 What terms do I need to know to understand this part?

You need to know the following terms, which are used frequently in this part:

*Acquired lands* means lands or interests in lands, including mineral estates, which the United States obtained through purchase, gift, or condemnation. It includes all lands BLM administers for hardrock mineral leasing other than public domain lands.

*Chiefly valuable,* for the purposes of this part, means the land is more valuable for the development of sodium, sulphur or potassium than for any non-mineral use of the land.

*Hardrock minerals* include base metals, precious metals, industrial minerals, and precious or semi-precious gemstones. Hardrock minerals do not include coal, oil shale, phosphate, sodium, potassium, or gilsonite deposits. Also, hardrock minerals do not include commodities the government sells such as common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice or cinder. The term hardrock minerals as used here includes mineral deposits that are found in sedimentary and other rocks.

*Leasable minerals,* for purposes of this part, means the chlorides, sulfates, carbonates, borates, silicates or nitrates of potassium or sodium and related products; sulphur on public lands in the States of Louisiana and New Mexico and on all acquired lands; phosphate, including associated and related minerals; asphalt in certain lands in Oklahoma; and gilsonite (including all vein-type solid hydrocarbons).

*MMS* means the Minerals Management Service.

*Permit* means prospecting permit, unless otherwise specified.

*Valuable deposit,* for the purposes of this part, means an occurrence of minerals of such character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his or her labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a profitable mine.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 31 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
v. Tomm ie Lee Tho m

ps on ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa- Dav enpo rt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: May 3, 20 18 Fi le d: May 7, 20 18 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, andSTRAS, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Tomm ie Lee Tho m

ps on ap pe al s th e se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d up on 1 hi m aft er it rev ok ed hi s supe rv is ed rel eas e. Tho m ps on ’s co un se l ha s m ov ed fo r le av e
Th e Hon or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa .to wit hd raw an d ha s fil ed a br ie f ch al le ng in g t he su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of

Tho m ps on ’s sen te nc e. Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we c o nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce was no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Se e U

n i t e d St at es v. Mer ri va l , 52 1 F.3 d 88 9, 89 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (rev i ewin g th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a po st -rev oc at io n se nt en ce un de r an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Petr ei kis , 55 1 F.3 d 82 2, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ap pl y in g a pr es um pt io n of su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss to a po st
rev oc a t i o n , withi n- Gui de li ne s- ran ge pr is on se nt en ce). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t an d g ran t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose CHAPA-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40874.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 3, 2006.

*421James Lee Turner, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendan1>-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Jose Chapa-Contreras (Chapa) appeals following his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for being found in the United States after a previous deportation. Chapa first argues that his sentence should be vacated because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines, in violation of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

The Government concedes the error, and it further concedes that Chapa’s objection under *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), preserved the issue for appellate review. However, the Government contends that the error is harmless.

The Government bears the burden of showing that a *Booker*error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *United States v. Pineiro,*410 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government has failed to show “that the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the error.” *Id.*at 286. Accordingly, we will vacate Chapa’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

For the first time on appeal, Chapa challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Chapa contends that his conviction should be reduced to one under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) and the judgment reformed to reflect conviction only under that provision.

*422Chapa’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Chapa contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Chapa properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Chapa’s conviction is affirmed.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Chester W. Conant and Others, as Water Commissioners of a Certain Water District in the Town of Sodus, Wayne County, New York, Appellants, v. Emma S. Harrison and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred; Robson, J., not sitting.
### §180. Expenditures by farmers for fertilizer, etc.

#### (a) In general

A taxpayer engaged in the business of farming may elect to treat as expenses which are not chargeable to capital account expenditures (otherwise chargeable to capital account) which are paid or incurred by him during the taxable year for the purchase or acquisition of fertilizer, lime, ground limestone, marl, or other materials to enrich, neutralize, or condition land used in farming, or for the application of such materials to such land. The expenditures so treated shall be allowed as a deduction.

#### (b) Land used in farming

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "land used in farming" means land used (before or simultaneously with the expenditures described in subsection (a)) by the taxpayer or his tenant for the production of crops, fruits, or other agricultural products or for the sustenance of livestock.

#### (c) Election

The election under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be made within the time prescribed by law (including extensions thereof) for filing the return for such taxable year. Such election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such election may not be revoked except with the consent of the Secretary.

(Added Pub. L. 86–779, §6(a), Sept. 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 1001; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 86–779, §6(d), Sept. 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 1001, provided that: "The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) [enacting this section and amending section 263 of this title] shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1959."
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptical measurement of propeller blade deflections in a spin facilityA nonintrusive optical system for measuring propeller blade deflections has been used in the NASA Lewis dynamic spin facility. Deflection of points at the leading and trailing edges of a blade section can be obtained with a narrow light beam from a low power helium-neon laser. A system used to measure these deflections at three spanwise locations is described. Modifications required to operate the lasers in a near-vacuum environment are also discussed.Document ID19910007689Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRamsey, John K.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Meyn, Erwin H.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Mehmed, Oral*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Kurkov, Anatole P.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-103115NAS 1.15:103115E-5439Accession Number91N17002Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-1BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910007689.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
September 24, 2015 

Memorandum to Docket ID # EPA-ROS-OAR-2015-0493 

Subject: 

From: 

Communication with the State of Colorado regarding questions on the proposed 

rule 

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Sean Hackett, State of Colorado, contacted Jaslyn Dobrahner, EPA Region 8, via email on 

September 16, 2015 requesting a telephone call to discuss questions the state had on EPA' s 

proposed rule Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; 

Revisions to Common Provisions and Regulation Number 3; Correction (80 FR 55055). A 

telephone call to discuss Colorado's questions took place on September 22, 2015 . Sean asked 

questions about following aspects of the proposed rule (Jaslyn's responses are in italics): 

• May 16, 2012 submittal, Part D, II.A.26.d.: Was it EPA's understanding that the state 

would revise this section in an upcoming revision? Yes, EPA is proposing not taking 

action on this revision with the understanding that this section will be revised in a future 

submittal. 

• May 16, 2012 submittal, Part A, II.D.1.ttt: Was this revision identified in the column 

'Revision in disapproved section of SIP' of Table 2 because EPA never approved this 

section and therefore could not approve the deletion of the section? Correct, because 

section Il.D.1.ttt was never approved into the federal SIP there is nothing/or EPA to take 

action on. 

• May 13, 2013 submittal, Part D, revisions in the 'Revision in disapproved section of SIP' 

column of Table 2: Is that the same case for all of the revisions in the May 13, 2013 

submittal that fall into this column? Yes, many of the state revisions to Part D of this 

submittal were deleting text that were never a part of the federal SIP. 

In addition, in an earlier voicemail, Dena Wojtach from the State of Colorado, asked ifthere 

were any revisions being proposed for disapproval in this action. Jaslyn explained to Sean that 

there were no revisions being proposed for disapproval. 

Finally, Sean mentioned that the state may be submitting a comment on the exclusion of tertiary 

butyl acetate from the incorporation by reference material because a corresponding rulemaking 

made clarifications on how the State was going to handle tertiary butyl acetate. Jaslyn noted 40 

CFR 51.1 OO(s)(5) for reference to the federal regulations regarding tertiary butyl acetate as a 

volatile organic compound and reiterated that this was one of the parts in the submittal that was 

neither in the current SIP or noted in the submittal as a revision. The call concluded shortly 

thereafter.
§ 3902.27 Heirs and devisees. If an applicant or successful bidder for a lease dies before the lease is issued: ( a ) The BLM will issue the lease to the heirs or devisees, or their guardian, if probate of the estate has been completed or is not required. Before the BLM will recognize the heirs or devisees or their guardian as the record title holders of the lease, they must provide to the proper BLM office: ( 1 ) A certified copy of the will or decree of distribution, or if no will or decree exists, a statement signed by the heirs that they are the only heirs and citing the provisions of the law of the deceased's last domicile showing that no probate is required; and
( 2 ) A statement signed by each of the heirs or devisees with reference to citizenship and holdings as required by § 3902.23 of this chapter. If the heir or devisee is a minor, the guardian or trustee must sign the statement; and
( b ) The BLM will issue the lease to the executor or administrator of the estate if probate is required, but is not completed. In this case, the BLM considers the executor or administrator to be the record title holder of the lease. Before the BLM will issue the lease to the executor or administrator, the executor or administrator must provide to the proper BLM office: ( 1 ) Evidence that the person who, as executor or administrator, submits lease and bond forms has authority to act in that capacity and to sign those forms;
( 2 ) A certified list of the heirs or devisees of the deceased; and
( 3 ) A statement signed by each heir or devisee concerning citizenship and holdings, as required by § 3902.23 of this chapter.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 30, 2001

By the Court:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ] Appeal from the United

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court for

 ] the Western District of

No. 01-2471 v. ] Wisconsin.

 ] 

MICHAEL R. SIEGLER, ] No. 00-CR-75-C-01

 Defendant-Appellant. ] 

 ] Barbara B. Crabb,

 ] Chief Judge.

The opinion of this Court issued on this date is corrected

as follows:

Within the caption, the district court case number

should be No. 00-CR-75-C-01.
### §45. Preference to Indians qualified for duties

In all cases of the appointments of interpreters or other persons employed for the benefit of the Indians, a preference shall be given to persons of Indian descent, if such can be found, who are properly qualified for the execution of the duties.

(R.S. §2069.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2069 derived from act June 30, 1834, ch. 162, §9, 4 Stat. 737.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 21

- 00285

- CR

__________________
KATHRYN ZIEHL BROADWAY , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21

- 05

- 07184

- CR

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a criminal case, Kathryn Ziehl Broadway filed a “Public and Judicial Notice of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 USCS § 1333 in the United States District Court by Savings to Suitor Claiming Lawful Right to Common Law Venue

– Demanding Proof of Jurisdiction in the Record.” We questioned our jurisdiction. In response, the State inform s the Court that Broadway has not been convicted. In her response, without citing authority for an interlocutory appeal Broadway argues an2 appeal is necessary beca use after being challenged the trial court has failed to establish proof of jurisdiction.
In criminal cases, “[t] he standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law. ” Abbott
v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 69 6

- 9 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) . The general right to appeal under article 44.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to appeal from a final judgment. Id. at 697 n.8; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02

. Bro adway identifies no other state statute that authorizes an appeal at this time. W e dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 26, 2021 Opinion Delivered October 27, 2021 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
### **Subchapter D—Recreational Equipment**

Part
I.
Sporting goods.
[II.
Repealed.]
III.
Firearms.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1965**—Pub. L. 89–44, title II, §205(b), June 21, 1965, 79 Stat. 140, struck out item relating to part II.
#### § 428.10 Districts' responsibilities concerning certain formerly excess land.

Districts must not make irrigation water available to formerly excess land that meets the criteria under § 428.9(a), unless an exception provided in § 428.9(b) applies.
#### John H. Blackburn, Respondent, v. Andrew V. Clements et al., Constituting the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 1, Town of Coeymans, et al., Appellants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. The court certifies that questions of law have arisen which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals, which questions are hereby certified as follows: (1) Is a school district a municipal corporation within the meaning of section 51 of the General Municipal Law? (2) May a taxpayer’s action under section 51 of the General Municipal Law be maintained against the officials of a school district? Hill, P. J., Heffeman, Foster, Russell and Deyo, JJ., concur. [See 272 App. Div. 1098.]