alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982; 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983; and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.

§ 4.9 How does the Administrator receive and respond to comments? ( a ) The Administrator follows the procedures in § 4.10 if: ( 1 ) A State office or official is designated to act as a single point of contact between a state process and all Federal agencies, and
( 2 ) That office or official transmits a state process recommendation for a program selected under § 4.6.
( b ) ( 1 ) The single point of contact is not obligated to transmit comments from State, areawide, regional or local officials and entities where there is no state process recommendation.
( 2 ) If a state process recommendation is transmitted by a single point of contact, all comments from state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities that differ from it must also be transmitted.
( c ) If a State has not established a process, or is unable to submit a state process recommendation, State, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments to FEMA.
( d ) If a program or activity is not selected for a state process, State, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments to FEMA. In addition, if a state process recommendation for a nonselected program or activity is transmitted to FEMA by the single point of contact, the Administrator follows the procedures of § 4.10 of this part.
( e ) The Administrator considers comments which do not constitute a state process recommendation submitted under these regulations and for which the Administrator is not required to apply the procedures of § 4.10 of this part, when such comments are provided by a single point of contact, by the applicant or directly to FEMA by a commenting party.
### SUBCHAPTER II—VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.738 Retail packaging materials and containers.

(a) *Effect on tariff shift rule.* Packaging materials and containers in which a good is packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good for which preferential tariff treatment under the AFTA is claimed, will be disregarded in determining whether all non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 28(n), HTSUS.

(b) *Effect on regional value content calculation.* If the good is subject to a regional value content requirement, the value of such packaging materials and containers will be taken into account as originating or non-originating materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional value content of the good.

# Example 1.

Australian Producer A of good C imports 100 non-originating blister packages to be used as retail packaging for good C. As provided in § 10.735(a)(1) of this subpart, the value of the blister packages is their adjusted value, which in this case is $10. Good C has a regional value content requirement. The United States importer of good C decides to use the build-down method, RVC = ((AV − VNM)/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.734(b) of this subpart), in determining whether good C satisfies the regional value content requirement. In applying this method, the non-originating blister packages are taken into account as non-originating. As such, their $10 adjusted value is included in the VNM, value of non-originating materials, of good C.

# Example 2.

Same facts as in Example 1, except that the blister packages are originating. In this case, the adjusted value of the originating blister packages would *not* be included as part of the VNM of good C under the build-down method. However, if the U.S. importer had used the build-up method, RVC = (VOM/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.734(c) of this subpart), the adjusted value of the blister packaging would be included as part of the VOM, value of originating materials.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-62   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 1 of 4

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-62   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 2 of 4

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-62   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 3 of 4

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-62   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 4 of 4
§ 295.31 Reimbursement of claim expenses. ( a ) FEMA will reimburse Claimants for the reasonable costs they incur in copying documentation requested by OCGFC. FEMA will also reimburse Claimants for the reasonable costs they incur in providing appraisals, or other third-party opinions, requested by OCGFC. FEMA will not reimburse Claimant for the cost of appraisals, or other third party opinions, not requested by OCGFC.
( b ) FEMA will provide a lump sum payment for incidental expenses incurred in claims preparation to individual and business Claimants that are awarded compensatory damages under the CGFAA after a properly executed Release and Certification Form has been returned to OCGFC. The amount of the lump sum payment will be the greater of $100 or 5% of CGFAA compensatory damages and insurance proceeds recovered by the Claimant for Cerro Grande Fire related losses (not including the lump sum payment or monies reimbursed under the CGFAA for the purchase of flood insurance), but will not exceed $15,000. No more than one lump sum payment will be made to all Claimants in a Household, regardless of whether the Household filed separate or combined Notices of Loss. The following Claimants will not be eligible to receive the lump sum payment: subrogation Claimants and Claimants whose only Cerro Grande Fire related loss is for flood insurance premiums.
### [§2518. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §139(l), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 43]

Section, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 979, related to certification of Court of Claims judgments for appropriation.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as an Effective Date of 1982 Amendment note under section 171 of this title.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report fy...**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:P 53/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000636144
 
October 31, 2017
To US Department of Transportation Department

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington DC 20591 Re: Exemption No 14292 Regulatory

Docket No. FAA

– 2015

- 4862 Att: John S. Duncan, Director, Flight Standard Services Dear Mr. Duncan and the FAA,
I am writing to you regarding the Exemption y ou recentl y granted my company Klein Creative Media , I nc . I am grateful that y ou took the time to read over m y application and have granted the exemption Ihave requested. For that, I thank you again. During the period of time that I have been awaiting y our response, man y things have changed in m y circumstances, and therefore, I am hoping you will consider adding some more permissions to my

exemptions. Iwould like to add the list of possible drones that my compan y would be allowed to operate, and secondly , I am hoping you can extend Klein Creative Media permission to operate within the film and television industry on closed sets. Shortly after my application i n July

of 2015, I began a sport pilot program where I have become a licensed sport pilot. Upon completion of my certificate, I have found my previous television associates contacting me to inquire about using my services on sets and for television shows. As a DGA television director for over 25 ye ars, it seems like this will very

likel y be a natural transition for m y services

. I am submitting an appendix for y our consideration on the public docket, and hope to hear from y ou to see if this is the right place for the document and if this is something yo u are willing to grant. Thank y ou for y our consideration, Marci Klein Owner, Klein Creative Media, Inc 1620 Spreckels Lane Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (310)990

- 4120
#### Mary Pynchon v. Louis P. Mendham. E. A. Polak Realty Company v. Susan E. Blum. India Wharf Brewing Company v. David Wasser.

Applications denied, with ten dollars costs. Orders signed. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.110 [Reserved]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. (Historicalpurposes)
**Title: Annualreport**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:K 18/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637334
 
October 31, 2017
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4565 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4565

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the copayment 
 requirement for recipients of Department of Veterans Affairs payments 
     or allowances for beneficiary travel, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 20, 2022

  Mr. Boozman (for himself and Mr. Heinrich) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the copayment 
 requirement for recipients of Department of Veterans Affairs payments 
     or allowances for beneficiary travel, 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. REPEAL OF COPAYMENT REQUIREMENT FOR RECIPIENTS OF DEPARTMENT 
              OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PAYMENTS OR ALLOWANCES FOR 
              BENEFICIARY TRAVEL.

    Section 111 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (c);
            (2) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as 
        subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and
            (3) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter before subparagraph 
        (A), by striking ``Except as provided in subsection (c) of this 
        section and notwithstanding subsection (g)(2) of this section'' 
        and inserting ``Notwithstanding subsection (f)(2)''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROGER D. BURRESS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:03-cr-00024-1; 2:10-cv-00034)

Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Joseph Curtis, Ashland, Kentucky; Sebastian M. Joy, 

CAUMMISAR LAW OFFICE, Grayson, Kentucky, for Appellant. Joshua 

Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger D. Burress seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Burress has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### §§ 16.161-16.169 [Reserved]
### Part A—Financial Assistance Provisions
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-14 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson February 25, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

NRC FINES BARNETT INDUSTRIAL X-RAY $4,000

FOR SAFETY LAPSE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $4,000 fine

against Barnett Industrial X-Ray (BIX), of Stillwater, Okla., for violating safety rules

for the use of industrial radiographic equipment.

The incident that led to the proposed fine occurred October 3, 1996, in

Ponca City, Okla., where a BIX radiographer and an assistant were assigned to

inspect welding work. Industrial radiographic equipment utilizes radioactive

sources to examine metal objects for cracks and flaws. As the assistant

radiographer was disassembling the equipment after the job he discovered that the

radioactive source had not been fully retracted into its shielded container. This

could have resulted in a serious radiation exposure for the two workers, although a

prompt investigation by the company indicated that there was no exposure above

NRC limits.

To protect themselves from unnecessary radiation exposure while working

with radiographic equipment workers are required to wear personal radiation

monitors called alarm ratemeters and to check for radiation around the equipment

with a survey meter following a job. Neither the radiographer nor his assistant

wore alarm ratemeters and no survey was conducted when they concluded their

work as required. Meeting either of these safety requirements could have

prevented the incident. The NRC also cited the radiographer for failure to properly

supervise his assistant.

The violations were classified by the NRC as a Severity Level II problem on

the NRC's four-level scale, with Severity Level I being the most serious. A

violation of this type normally carries an $8,000 fine; however BIX took a number

of prompt actions in dealing with the incident, which led the NRC to reduce the fine

by half.

-More-
-2-

BIX conducted an investigation of the incident immediately after it occurred,

took disciplinary action against the workers involved and notified the NRC

promptly. The company also held a safety meeting with all its employees,

increased its audits of radiography personnel and developed a formal disciplinary

program to handle future violations.

NRC Acting Regional Administrator Jim Dyer said in a letter to BIX that the

penalty was imposed to emphasize to this company and others that they bear the

responsibility to assure that employees meet basic radiation safety requirements.

BIX must respond to the Notice of Violation in writing within 30 days. The

response must document specific actions taken to prevent recurrence of the

violations. During this time the company may pay the fine or file a protest.

-30-
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-115 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Tuesday, August 5, 1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

Three subcommittees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a joint

meeting August 28-29 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will

begin each day at 8:30 a.m. in Room T-2B3, of the NRC's Two White

Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The subcommittees

on Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Plant Operations, and on

Fire Protection will continue their review of matters discussed

in a May 27 Staff Requirements Memo. These include acceptance

criteria for plant-specific safety goals; the proposed plan to

improve the Senior Management Meeting process; the NRC program

for risk-based analysis of reactor operating experience and the

results of special studies performed by the staff of operating

events.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for

public comment, will be described in a Notice of Meeting

published in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

#
11/9/22, 2:14 PM Screenshot_2022-08-17-21-31-35-91_a23b203fd3aafc6dcb84e438dda678b6.jpg

https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=bobby keigans 1/1

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
376 P.2d 578

#### Harry D. SMITH, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of New Mexico, Respondents.

No. 10 HC.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 14, 1962.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ, MOISE and NOBLE, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the request for free process be and the same is hereby granted, and the petition for writ of mandamus be and the same is hereby denied for the reason that the petition fails to state grounds for relief.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark L. Lemond, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 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.



|Date:  December 2, 2004 | By:  /s/ Mark L. LemondMark L. Lemond
President and
Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------





---
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS   Document 563   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS   Document 563   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS   Document 563   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023   Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**pursuant to Section 302 of the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, W. Glen Winchell, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Diametrics Medical, Inc.; 

 

2.    Basedon 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 withrespect 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 theregistrant 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 registrant, includingits 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 9, 2004