alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 0.19 The Regional Offices. ( a ) These offices are investigatory and enforcement arms of the Commission, and have responsibility for investigational, trial, compliance, and consumer educational activities as delegated by the Commission. They are under the general supervision of the Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection and clear their activities through the appropriate operating Bureau.
( b ) The names and geographic areas of responsibility of the respective regional offices are as follows: ( 1 ) Northeast Region (located in New York City, New York), covering Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
( 2 ) Southeast Region (located in Atlanta, Georgia), covering Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
( 3 ) East Central Region (located in Cleveland, Ohio), covering Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
( 4 ) Midwest Region (located in Chicago, Illinois), covering Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
( 5 ) Southwest Region (located in Dallas, Texas), covering Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
( 6 ) Northwest Region (located in Seattle, Washington), covering Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
( 7 ) Western Region Los Angeles (located in Los Angeles, California), covering Arizona, Hawaii, Southern California, Southern Nevada, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
( 8 ) Western Region San Francisco (located in San Francisco, California), covering Colorado, Northern California, Northern Nevada, and Utah.
( c ) Each of the regional offices is supervised by a Regional Director and an Assistant Regional Director, who are available for conferences with attorneys, consumers, and other members of the public on matters relating to the Commission's activities.
[86 FR 38547, July 22, 2021]
**Exhibit 32.2**

**@ROAD, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of @Road, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Martini,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| March 22, 2006     |
|-------------------------|
| /s/ MICHAEL MARTINI     |
| Michael Martini         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
### SUBCHAPTER XVII—OFFENDER REENTRY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
From: Seth Johnson <sjohnson@earthjustice.org>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: James Pew <jpew@earthjustice.org>

Date: 11/08/2010 06:34 PM

Subject: Petition for reconsideration in EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051

Dear Mr. Barnett and Mr. Tsirigotis,

Attached please find a petition for reconsideration on behalf of Sierra Club, Desert Citizens Against 

Pollution, Downwinders At Risk, Friends of Hudson, Huron Environmental Activist League, and 

Montanans Against Toxic Burning in docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051, National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland cement manufacturing industry. We are also sending the 

paper copy to Mr. Barnett by first class mail. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any problem 

reading the attachment.

Sincerely,

Seth Johnson

__________________________________

Seth Johnson

Associate Attorney

Earthjustice

1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Suite 702

Washington, DC 20036

T: 202-667-4500 x245

F: 202-667-2356

www.earthjustice.org

Because the earth needs a good lawyer

The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from 

disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly 

prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by 

reply email and delete the message and any attachments.
#### § 1021.10 Emergencies.

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action without observing all the provisions of these implementing procedures or the NEPA regulations, CPSC will consult with the Council on Environmental Quality about alternative arrangements.
ELLEN ELIZABETH STRICKLAND
, Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THERE OF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5409

Opinion filed April 2, 2015.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Stacy A. Scott, Public Defender, and Phaladya Dean, Assistant Public Defender, Bronson , for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney G eneral, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is granted a belated appeal of the October 15, 2014, judgment and
sentence in Levy County Circuit Court case number 38

- 2014

- CF

- 303A. Upon
issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerkof the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(c)( 6 )(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall

appo int counsel to represent petitioner on appeal

. ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

2
No. IV-11-022

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 860-8128

 Lara Uselding (817) 276-6519

 May 10, 2011 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Bay City, Texas, on Thursday, 

May 19, with representatives of South Texas Project (STP) Nuclear Operating Co., to discuss the 

agency’s assessment of safety performance for the South Texas Project nuclear power plant 

located near Bay City. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. at the 

Wharton County Junior College (Center for Energy Development) 4000 Avenue F, Bay City, 

Texas. In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions from the public on the safety performance of South Texas Project and the NRC’s role 

in ensuring safe plant operation.

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of South Texas Project and the nation’s 

other commercial nuclear power facilities,” said NRC Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins. 

“The meeting provides an opportunity for us to discuss our annual assessment of the plant with 

the company, local officials and the public. We look forward to answering any questions they 

may have about our oversight.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance

of the plant during 2010 and will serve as the basis for discussion. It is available on the NRC 

website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stp_2010q4.pdf.

The NRC said South Texas Project operated safely during 2010 and will receive the 

detailed inspection regime during 2011 used by the NRC for plants that are operating well.

Inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection 

specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC’s website.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125

Telephone: (817) 860-8128

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
### SUBCHAPTER X—FUNDING
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 22, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), American Society of Baking (“ASB”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Society of Baking, Sonoma, CA. The nature and scope of ASB's standards development activities are: As Secretariat for the American National Standard for Bakery Equipment Safety and Sanitation Requirements, ASB administers the standards that apply to the design, construction, installation, safe operation and maintenance of bakery machinery and equipment. The purpose of the standards is to provide reasonable safety for bakery workers; and they are intended as a guide to Federal, State and municipal authorities in drafting regulations; as voluntary application; and as a standard reference for safety requirements for the use of bakery machinery and for equipment manufacturers and concerns employing such machinery. The Baking Equipment Safety and Sanitation Standards are on file with the American National Standards Institute, Inc., 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25854  Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 946.5 Change in operations—commissioning and decommissioning. ( a ) Before commissioning any new NEXRAD or ASOS weather observation system, the NWS shall prepare a Commissioning Report documenting that the system involved will perform to the Government's specifications; the system has been tested on site and performs reliably; satisfactory maintenance support is in place; sufficient staff with adequate training are available to operate the system; technical coordination with weather service users has been completed; and the system satisfactorily supports field office operations.
( b ) The Report required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be based on the scientific and technical criteria set forth in the NWS' NEXRAD and ASOS Commissioning Plans, as appropriate, which criteria shall be published in the Federal Register as the final commissioning criteria in accordance with sec. 704(b)(1) of the Act. In the case of an ASOS commissioning, the Report shall also document that the NWS has consulted with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and has determined that the weather services provided after commissioning will continue to be in full compliance with the applicable FAA flight aviation rules.
( c ) Before decommissioning any NWS radar, the NWS shall prepare a Decommissioning Report documenting that all replacement radars needed to provide equal coverage have been commissioned; confirmation of services with users has been completed; and that the radar being decommissioned is no longer needed to support field office operations. The Decommissioning Report shall be based on the scientific and technical criteria contained in the NWS' Radar Decommissioning Plan, which criteria shall be published in the Federal Register as the final decommissioning criteria in accordance with the requirements of sec. 704(b)(1) of the Act.
( d ) If the final commissioning criteria significantly modify the criteria upon which the previous commissioning of a NEXRAD and/or ASOS were based, the NWS shall confirm that the relevant system conforms with the final criteria adopted. The NWS shall not decommission any NWS radar until the final criteria have been adopted.
§ 923.3 General requirements. ( a ) The management program must be developed and adopted in accordance with the requirements of the Act and this part, after notice, and the opportunity for full participation by relevant Federal and State agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties and persons, and be adequate to carry out the purposes of the Act and be consistent with the national policy set forth in section 303 of the Act.
( b ) The management program must provide for the management of those land and water uses having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters and those geographic areas which are likely to be affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise. The program must include provisions to assure the appropriate protection of those significant resources and areas, such as wetlands, beaches and dunes, and barrier islands, that make the State's coastal zone a unique, vulnerable, or valuable area.
( c ) The management program must contain a broad class of policies for each of the following areas: resource protection, management of coastal development, and simplification of governmental processes. These three broad classes must include specific policies that provide the framework for the exercise of various management techniques and authorities governing coastal resources, uses, and areas. The three classes must include policies that address uses of or impacts on wetlands and floodplains within the State's coastal zone, and that minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and preserve and enhance their natural values in accordance with the purposes of Executive Order 11990, pertaining to wetlands. These policies also must reduce risks of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and preserve the natural, beneficial values served by floodplains, in accordance with the purposes of Executive Order 11988, pertaining to floodplains.
( d ) The policies in the program must be appropriate to the nature and degree of management needed for uses, areas, and resources identified as subject to the program.
( e ) The policies, standards, objectives, criteria, and procedures by which program decisions will be made must provide: ( 1 ) A clear understanding of the content of the program, especially in identifying who will be affected by the program and how, and
( 2 ) A clear sense of direction and predictability for decisionmakers who must take actions pursuant to or consistent with the management program.
#### James D. Williams, trading as Williams Grain Company, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph Krug, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,134.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Reversed with judgment of *nil capiat.*

Opinion filed January 17, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by James D. Williams, trading as Williams Grain Company, plaintiff, against Joseph Krug, defendant, to recover the purchase price of goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.

There was no personal equation between the parties to the transaction nor any prior dealings between them. The order on which the oats, etc., were delivered was by telephone, but the person who gave the order, if any was given, remains unidentified. No attempt was made to verify the order, but the oats, bran, etc., were delivered not to defendant but at a bam near 3927 Prairie avenue, Chicago, where three other Krugs—William, George and Henry—kept horses. The receipts for the oats offered in evidence were signed neither by defendant nor by any person authorized by or acting for him. Furthermore, the testimony demonstrated that at the time the oats, grain, etc., were delivered by plaintiff, defendant had a contract with another firm for these' commodities, which were supplied by said firm to defendant regularly during that time.

L. A. Sherwin, for plaintiff in error.

Pattison & Shaw, for defendant in error; Douglas C. Gregg, of counsel.

*484Abstract of the Decision.

1. Sales, § *329*
      ***
      *—when sending of Mils and retention thereof not evidence of liability for goods.*Where, in an action for the purchase price of goods sold and delivered, there is no evidence that the defendant contracted therefor and it appears that he, in fact, did not receive them, the mere sending to him of bills therefor by the plaintiff and the defendant’s retention of them is of no value as evidence of the defendant’s liability to pay for such goods.

2. Contracts, § *69*
      ***
      *—when no right of action exists at law.*The law affords no relief for simply moral claims, as distinguished from legal claims.

3. Sales, § *329*
      ***
      *—when ¡evidence insufficient to sustain judgment.'*In an action for goods sold and delivered evidence *held*insufficient to sustain a judgment for the plaintiff.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1014.10 Fees.

The Commission shall not charge an individual for the costs of making a search for a record, the costs of reviewing or copying a record, or the cost of correcting or amending a record.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1648

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Lamont Elliott, also known as Lamont William Elliott lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: September 7, 2023 Filed: September 19, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Lamont Elliott appeals after he pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),raising challenges to the voluntariness of Elliott’s plea and the sentence imposed by

the district court. 1 Upon careful review, we conclude that Elliott is precluded from challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea in this appeal because he withdrew his pro se motion to withdraw the plea in the district court. See United States v. Gamboa, 701 F.3d 265, 267-68 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010). We enforce the appeal waiver as to the remaining challenge to his sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-
jfourti) Court of ^pEalsi

^an santonto, tiexas;

October 2,2013

No. 04-13-00600-CR

Marcel Edgar REYES,

Appellant

V.

The STATE ofTexas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR5449W

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court's opinion ofthis date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on October 2, 2013.

\Shnp —, C^heri^ Stone, ChiefJustice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hancj and affixed the seal of the said

court on^siSn^jday of October, 2013.

OF

Clerk

""iiimmw''
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 14 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT JOHN ROBERT LEONARD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 97-1193 (D.C. No. 96-S-1812) (District of Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.- 2 -

We conclude the district court did not err. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s order of dismissal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 20-61543-CIV-ALTMAN 

HOWARD COHAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMERCIAL FOODS, INC., 

d/b/a MCDONALD’S, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, COMMERCIAL FOODS, 

INC., d/b/a MCDONALD’S (“Defendant”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, 

hereby stipulate that this case be dismissed with Prejudice, with each party to bear his/its own 

fees, costs, and disbursements. Plaintiff and Defendant respectfully request that this Court enter 

an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. 

Dated: 

BY: /s/ Jason S. Weiss 

 Jason S. Weiss 

 Jason@jswlawyer.com 

 Florida Bar No. 356890 

 WEISS LAW GROUP, P.A. 

 5531 N. University Drive, Suite 103 

 Coral Springs, FL 33067 

 Tel: (954) 573-2800 

 Fax: (954) 573-2798 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BY: /s/ Justin C. Sorel 

 Justin C. Sorel 

 Justin.Sorel@csklegal.com 

 Florida Bar No. 0016256 

 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 

 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 

 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

 Tel: (561) 383-9200 

 Fax: (561) 683-8977 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 0:20-cv-61543-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 1 of 1
### **CHAPTER 27—LOAN SERVICE OF CAPTIONED FILMS AND EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOR HANDICAPPED**

Sec.
2491 to 2494. Repealed.
2495.
National Advisory Committee on Education of the Deaf.