alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Draft Proposal CB-43 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Alteration Definition (CB-43) 

Objective:  Clarify “alterations” to include changes to HVAC, service heating water, or lighting systems

involving extension, addition, or change to arrangement, type, or purpose.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise the definition of ALTERATION in Section C202 as follows:

ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition 

that requires a permit. Also a change in a mechanical, plumbing, electrical or other building system that 

involves an extension, addition or change to the arrangement, type, or purpose of the original installation 

that requires a permit. 

Reason: Certainly a change in a mechanical system as currently described in the code is an appropriate

target for compliance and alterations to such systems should meet the applicable provisions of the

energy code.  Plumbing, electrical (lighting), and other building systems also use energy and, if altered as

defined in the code, they should be equally addressed as mechanical systems are in the current code.  

As an example, the extension of a potable hot water system to serve additional lavatories could involve

additional hot water piping that should be insulated.  Another situation involves the change of a lighting

system arrangement involving new fixtures and wiring.  It is not a repair or an addition, and as such

currently would not be subject to the provisions of the code when it should be.  The proposed change

ensures that alterations no matter what systems are involved should comply with the code.

Cost Impact: There is a cost impact associated with this proposed change to the degree that the subject

systems are not clearly covered in the current code and as a result alterations that should be subject to

the energy code are not now being required to meet the energy code.
### §2622. Taxable amount in case of taxable termination

#### (a) In general

For purposes of this chapter, the taxable amount in the case of a taxable termination shall be—

(1) the value of all property with respect to which the taxable termination has occurred, reduced by

(2) any deduction allowed under subsection (b).

#### (b) Deduction for certain expenses

For purposes of subsection (a), there shall be allowed a deduction similar to the deduction allowed by section 2053 (relating to expenses, indebtedness, and taxes) for amounts attributable to the property with respect to which the taxable termination has occurred.

(Added Pub. L. 94–455, title XX, §2006(a), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1888; amended Pub. L. 99–514, title XIV, §1431(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2720.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–514 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to taxable amount in case of a taxable termination for former provisions which authorized the Secretary to promulgate regulations. See section 2663 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Section applicable to generation-skipping transfers (within the meaning of section 2611 of this title) made after Oct. 22, 1986, except as otherwise provided, see section 1433 of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.
COURT MINUTES

Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres

King Building Courtroom 10-5 Date: 1/22/2021 Time: 10:00 a.m.

Defendant: 2) JORDAN P. GRENON J#: 73682-018 Case #: 20-MJ-3050-OTAZO-REYES

AUSA: Michael Homer Attorney: Pro se 

Violation: Consp. Defraud the US and to Deliver Misbranded Drugs/Criminal Contempt

Proceeding: Arraignment CJA Appt:

Bond/PTD Held:

Yes No Recommended Bond:

Bond Set at: PTD Co-signed by:

Surrender and/or do not obtain passports/travel docs Language: English

Report to PTS as directed/or x’s a week/month by Disposition:

phone: x’s a week/month in person Defendant appears by VTC 

TAKEN OFF CALENDAR 

AUSA Homer to schedule when 

Indictment or Information is filed

Random urine testing by Pretrial Services

Treatment as deemed necessary

Refrain from excessive use of alcohol

Participate in mental health assessment & treatment

Maintain or seek full-time employment/education

No contact with victims/witnesses

No firearms

Not to encumber property

May not visit transportation establishments

Home Confinement/Electronic Monitoring and/or

Curfew pm to am, paid by

Allowances: Medical needs, court appearances, attorney visits, 

religious, employment

Travel extended to: 

Other: 

NEXT COURT APPEARANCE Date: Time: Judge: Place:

Report RE Counsel:

PTD/Bond Hearing:

Prelim/Arraign or Removal:

Status Conference RE:

D.A.R. EGT-01:-1-22-2021-ZOOM-10:48 am Time in Court: 5

Time from today to ________ excluded 

from Speedy Trial Clock

Page 10

Case 1:20-mj-03050-AOR Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2021 Page 1 of 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPlanning and scheduling research at NASA Ames Research CenterPlanning and scheduling is the area of artificial intelligence research that focuses on the determination of a series of operations to achieve some set of (possibly) interacting goals and the placement of those operations in a timeline that allows them to be accomplished given available resources. Work in this area at the NASA Ames Research Center ranging from basic research in constrain-based reasoning and machine learning, to the development of efficient scheduling tools, to the application of such tools to complex agency problems is described.Document ID19920017547Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsFriedland, Peter*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1990Subject CategoryAdministration And ManagementReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107888FIA-90-11-01-01NASA-TM-107888Accession Number92N26790Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920017547.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
#### § 9239.5 Minerals.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-61120-CIV-MORENO

FLORIDA FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE, 

INC., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

PMG 11TH STREET HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a 

SOCIETY LAS OLAS,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND 

ORDER DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Notice of Settlement (D.E. 4), filed on June 

10, 2020. It is

ADJUDGED that in light of the parties settling this action, this case is DISMISSED in 

accordance with the settlement agreement. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for six months to 

enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. It is also 

ADJUDGED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th of June 2020.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-61120-FAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61120-FAM Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2020 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7155** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WILLIAM C. PETTIS, a/k/a Bobby , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 5:02

- cr - 30041

- SGW

- 4; 5:11

- cv - 80353

- SGW )

Submitted : December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William C. Pettis, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William C. Pettis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his “motion to discontinue sentence , ” which the court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion and dismissed it on that basis . The order is not appealable un less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U .S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pettis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss th e appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
### §3307. Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee

(a) Good Faith Transfer.—A transfer or obligation is not voidable under section 3304(b) with respect to a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any transferee or obligee subsequent to such person.

(b) Limitation.—Except as provided in subsection (d), to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action or proceeding by the United States under section 3306(a)(1), the United States may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, but not to exceed the judgment on a debt. The judgment may be entered against—

(1) the first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or

(2) any subsequent transferee, other than a good faith transferee who took for value or any subsequent transferee of such good-faith transferee.

(c) Value of Asset.—For purposes of subsection (b), the value of the asset is the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.

(d) Rights of Good Faith Transferees and Obligees.—Notwithstanding voidability of a transfer or an obligation under this subchapter, a good-faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to—

(1) a lien on or a right to retain any interest in the asset transferred;

(2) enforcement of any obligation incurred; or

(3) a reduction in the amount of the liability on the judgment.

(e) Exceptions.—A transfer is not voidable under section 3304(a) or section 3304(b)(2) if the transfer results from—

(1) termination of a lease upon default by the debtor when the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law; or

(2) enforcement of a security interest in compliance with article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code or its equivalent in effect in the State where the property is located.

(f) Limitation of Voidability.—A transfer is not voidable under section 3304(a)(2)—

(1) to the extent the insider gives new value to or for the benefit of the debtor after the transfer is made unless the new value is secured by a valid lien;

(2) if made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the insider; or

(3) if made pursuant to a good-faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured both present value given for that purpose and an antecedent debt of the debtor.

(Added Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVI, §3611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4963.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Nov. 29, 1990, and applicable with respect to certain actions for debts owed the United States pending in court on that effective date, see section 3631 of Pub. L. 101–647, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Part 51 Review of Amendment Request From Boston University

## HPPOS-209 PDR-9111210367

See the memorandum from V. L. Miller to J. E. Glenn dated January 27, 1986.

This memo states that the proposed amendment request from Boston University to conduct a limited field study involving 15 microcuries of Zn-65, Sr-85, or Se-75 for each of 30 prairie dogs would not need an environmental assessment since the study fell within the categorical exclusion of 10 CFR 51.22 (c) (14) (v).

The proposed action was a limited field study involving about 15 microcuries of zinc-65, strontium-85, and selenium-75 for each of 30 prairie dogs. An environmental assessment for the proposal was not needed because the half-lives of the radioactive material were short and 10 microcuries is an exempt quantity. The proposed study would have negligible radiological impact and falls within the categorical exclusion of 10 CFR 51.22 (c) (14) (v).

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 51.22

**Subject codes:** 11.5, 11.8, 12.8

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsLine identification studies using traditional techniques and wavelength coincidence statisticsTraditional line identification techniques result in the assignment of individual lines to an atomic or ionic species. These methods may be supplemented by wavelength coincidence statistics (WCS). The strength and weakness of these methods are discussed using spectra of a number of normal and peculiar B and A stars that have been studied independently by both methods. The present results support the overall findings of some earlier studies. WCS would be most useful in a first survey, before traditional methods have been applied. WCS can quickly make a global search for all species and in this way may enable identifications of an unexpected spectrum that could easily be omitted entirely from a traditional study. This is illustrated by O I. WCS is a subject to well known weakness of any statistical technique, for example, a predictable number of spurious results are to be expected. The danger of small number statistics are illustrated. WCS is at its best relative to traditional methods in finding a line-rich atomic species that is only weakly present in a complicated stellar spectrum.Document ID19900019151Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsCowley, Charles R.*(Michigan Univ. Ann Arbor., United States)*Adelman, Saul J.*(Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria, British Columbia , Canada)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryAstronomyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186901NASA-CR-186901Accession Number90N28467Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG5-921Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900019151.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
Editorial Note on Part 126
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 126.600 What are HUBZone contracts? HUBZone contracts are contracts awarded to a certified HUBZone small business concern, regardless of the place of performance, through any of the following procurement methods: ( a ) Sole source awards to certified HUBZone small business concerns;
( b ) Set-aside awards, including partial set-asides, based on competition restricted to certified HUBZone small business concerns;
( c ) Awards to certified HUBZone small business concerns through full and open competition after a price evaluation preference is applied to an other than small business in favor of certified HUBZone small business concerns;
( d ) Awards based on a reserve for certified HUBZone small business concerns in a solicitation for a Multiple Award Contract (*see* § 125.1); or
( e ) Orders set-aside for certified HUBZone small business concerns under a Multiple Award Contract that was awarded in full and open competition.
[78 FR 61144, Oct. 2, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 48591, July 25, 2016; 84 FR 65247, Nov. 26, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.522 Payment of accrued interest to the Lender or Registered Holder when SBA purchases the guaranteed portion. ( a ) *Rate of interest.* If SBA purchases the guaranteed portion from a Lender or from a Registered Holder (if sold in the Secondary Market), it will pay accrued interest at: ( 1 ) The rate in the note if it is a fixed rate loan; or
( 2 ) The rate in effect on the date of the earliest uncured payment default, or of SBA's purchase (if there has been no default).
( b ) *Payment to Lender* — ( 1 ) *For loans approved on or after May 14, 2007.* SBA will pay up to a maximum of 120 days interest to a Lender at the time of guarantee purchase.
( 2 ) *For loans approved before May 14, 2007.* The regulations applicable to the amount of interest that SBA will pay to a Lender upon loan default that were in effect immediately prior to this date will govern such loans.
( c ) *Payment to Registered Holder.* SBA will pay a Registered Holder all accrued interest up to the date of payment.
[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 72 FR 18361, Apr. 12, 2007]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CR-20163-SCOLA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

vs. 

CARLOS ENRIQUE URBANO FERMIN, 

Defendant.

 / 

MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 

Pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline Section 5K1.1 and Title 18, United States 

Code, Section 3553(e), the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant 

United States Attorney, hereby moves for a downward departure from Carlos Enrique Urbano 

Fermin’s advisory sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, in order to 

reflect his substantial assistance in the prosecution of others. In support of this motion, the 

Government states the following: 

1. On April 19, 2021, the defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit 

an offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. 

2. The defendant has provided substantial assistance to the government in the 

investigation and prosecution of others who have committed crimes against the United States. 

3. At the sentencing hearing scheduled for May 23, 2022, the United States will 

provide the Court with further information regarding the nature and quality of the defendant’s 

cooperation and make a specific recommendation regarding an appropriate sentence reduction. 

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant this 

motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline 5K1.1, following 

a hearing on this matter. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 By: s/Michael N. Berger _______________ 

MICHAEL N. BERGER

ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 Court No. A5501557 

 99 NE 4th Street 

 Miami, Florida 33132 

 Tel: 305-961-9445 

 E-mail: Michael.berger2@usdoj.gov 

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically 

filed with the Court's CM/ECF system on May 20, 2022: 

 

 By: /s/ Michael N. Berger 

 Assistant United States Attorney

Case 1:20-cr-20163-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2022 Page 3 of 3