alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3503 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3503

    To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to make Public Company 
Accounting Oversight Board disciplinary proceedings open to the public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2011

 Mr. Westmoreland introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to make Public Company 
Accounting Oversight Board disciplinary proceedings open to the public.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS.

    Section 105 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7215) is 
amended--
            (1) by amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
            ``(2) Public hearings.--Hearings under this section shall 
        be public unless the Board, on its own motion or after 
        considering the motion of a party, orders otherwise.''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(1)(C), by striking ``(once any stay 
        on the imposition of such sanction has been lifted)''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 970.207 Antitrust information. ( a ) *General.* Section 103(d) of the Act specifically provides for antitrust review of applications by the Attorney General of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission.
( b ) *Contents.* In order to provide information for this antitrust review, the application must contain the following: ( 1 ) A copy of each agreement between any parties to any joint venture which is applying for a license, provided that said agreement relates to deep seabed hard mineral resource exploration or mining;
( 2 ) The identity of any affiliate of any person applying for a license; and
( 3 ) For each applicant, its affiliate, or parent or subsidiary of an affiliate which is engaged in production in, or the purchase or sale in or to, the United States of copper, nickel, cobalt or manganese minerals or any metals refined from these minerals: ( i ) The annual tons and dollar value of any of these minerals and metals so purchased, sold or produced for the two preceding years;
( ii ) Copies of the annual report, balance sheet and income statement for the two preceding years; and
( iii ) Copies of each document submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Eva B. Sleight et al., Respondents, against Harris Structural Steel Co., Inc., Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

All concur.
### Part A—Research, Demonstration, and Pilot Projects
#### § 1.6 How promulgated.

Industry guides[1] are promulgated by the Commission on its own initiative or pursuant to petition filed with the Secretary pursuant to § 1.31, by any interested person or group, when it appears to the Commission that guidance as to the legal requirements applicable to particular practices would be beneficial in the public interest and would serve to bring about more widespread and equitable observance of laws administered by the Commission. In connection with the promulgation of industry guides, the Commission at any time may conduct such investigations, make such studies, and hold such conferences or hearings as it may deem appropriate. All or any part of any such investigation, study, conference, or hearing may be conducted under the provisions of subpart A of part 2 of this chapter.

[86 FR 59852, Oct. 29, 2021]

###### Footnotes -
  1.6

[1] In the past, certain of these have been promulgated and referred to as trade practice rules.
Power of Attorney


Know all by these presents, that the undersigned (the "Reporting Person")
hereby constitutes and appoints each of Melanie A. DeMorrow, Assistant Vice
President-Shareholder Relations; Richard M. Lavers, Secretary; Joseph P.
Tomczak, Executive Vice President & C.F.O.; Ellen C. Padesky, Assistant
Secretary; and Jessica L. Long, Assistant Secretary,  signing singly, as the
Reporting Person's true and lawful attorney-in-fact, to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the Reporting Person, in the Reporting
Person's capacity as an officer or trustee of Coachmen Industries, Inc.
(the "Company"), Forms 3, 4, and 5 and such other similar forms as may be
required for filing in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the rules
thereunder;

(2) do and perform all acts for and on behalf of the Reporting Person
which may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such forms
and timely file such forms with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and any stock exchange or similar authority or other federal
agency; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit
to, and in the best interest of, or legally required by, the Reporting
Person.

The Reporting Person hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and
authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite,
necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers
herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the Reporting Person
might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution or
revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or
such attorney-in-facts substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to
be done by the virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights and powers
herein granted.  The Reporting Person acknowledges that the foregoing
attorneys-in fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the Reporting
Person, are not assuming, nor is the company assuming, any of the Reporting
Persons responsibilities to comply with any of the above specified laws or
regulations.

This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
Reporting Person is no longer required to file such forms with respect to the
Reporting Person's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the
Company, unless earlier revoked by the Reporting Person in a signed writing
delivered to the Secretary of  the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Reporting Person has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 9th day of July, 2003.



						s/Claire C. Skinner
No: III-14-006 March 4, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Prairie Island Nuclear Station

The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Paul LaFlamme as 

the new Resident Inspector at the Prairie Island nuclear power plant in Welch, 

Minn., approximately 28 miles southeast of Minneapolis. The nuclear power 

facility is operated by Northern States Power Co.-Minnesota.

LaFlamme joined the NRC as a reactor engineer in Region III in 2007. 

Before joining the NRC he worked for the Department of the Navy at the Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard as a nuclear shift test engineer. He received a bachelor’s of science 

degree in mechanical engineering from Michigan Technological University and a 

bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Wisconsin. Most recently he was a resident 

inspector at the D.C. Cook nuclear power plant in Michigan.

"Paul LaFlamme is an experienced inspector with a firm commitment to safety. He will help the 

NRC fulfill its mission of protecting people and the environment by ensuring operators of the Prairie 

Island plant meet the high standards set by the NRC,” said Region III Administrator Cynthia D. 

Pederson.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant site has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as 

the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects and 

interacting with plant workers and the public. LaFlamme joins Senior Resident Inspector Karla Stoedter. 

The resident inspectors can be reached at (651) 388-8209.
###### Editorial Note on Part 922

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

#### § 922.3 Issuance of regulations for fishing.

If a proposed Sanctuary includes waters within the exclusive economic zone, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate Regional Fishery Management Council(s). The appropriate Council(s) shall have one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of such notification to make recommendations and, if appropriate, prepare draft fishing regulations for the area within the exclusive economic zone and submit them to the Secretary. In preparing its recommendations and draft regulations, the Council(s) shall use as guidance the national standards of section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1851) to the extent that they are consistent and compatible with the goals and objectives of the proposed Sanctuary designation. Any fishing activities not proposed for regulation under section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA may be listed in the draft Sanctuary designation document as being subject to regulation, without following the procedures specified in section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA. If the Secretary subsequently determines that regulation of fishing is necessary, then NOAA will follow the procedures specified in section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA.
### **CHAPTER 19A—WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH PROGRAM**
§ 970.2402 Notice of pre-enactment exploration. ( a ) *General.* NOAA encourages any United States citizen who engaged in exploration for deep seabed hard mineral resources before June 28, 1980, to file not later than February 1, 1981, a written notice with the Administrator, in care of: The Director, Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Page Building 1, Suite 410, 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20235. Such notice shall not constitute an application for a license or permit and shall not confer or confirm any priority of right to any site.
( b ) *Content of pre-enactment exploration Notice.* If a notice of exploration commenced prior to June 28, 1980, is filed pursuant to paragraph (a) it should be in writing and include the following: ( 1 ) Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the United States citizens responsible for exploration operations to whom notices and orders are to be delivered;
( 2 ) A description of the citizen or citizens engaging in such exploration including: ( i ) Whether the citizen is a natural person, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other form of association;
( ii ) The state of incorporation of state in which the partnership or other business entity is registered;
( iii ) The name of registered agent and places of business;
( iv ) Certification of essential and non-proprietary provisions in articles of incorporation, charter, or articles of association; and
( v ) Membership of the association, partnership, or joint venture, including information about the participation of partners and joint venturers, and/or ownership of stock.
( 3 ) A general description of the exploration activities conducted prior to June 28, 1980, including: ( i ) The approximate date that the citizen, or predecessor in interest, commenced exploration activities;
( ii ) A general estimate of expenditures made on the exploration program prior to June 28, 1980;
( iii ) A statement of whether the citizen intends to file an application for an exploration license pursuant to section 101(b)(1)(A) of the Act after NOAA issues regulations implementing section 103(a) of the Act; and
( iv ) A statement of whether the citizen intends to continue to engage in exploration as allowed by section 101(b) of the Act, pending a final determination on his application for an exploration license.
( c ) *Exclusion of location information.* The information submitted in the notice of pre-enactment exploration required by this section shall *not* include the location of past or future exploration or prospective mine sites.
[45 FR 76662, Nov. 20, 1980]
§ 1101.43 Section 6(b)(4)(A) exception. ( a ) *Statutory provision.* Section (6)(b)(4)(A) provides that the requirements of section 6(b)(1) do not apply to public disclosure of information about any consumer product which the Commission has reasonable cause to believe is in violation of any consumer product safety rule or provision under the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 *et seq.*) or similar rule or provision of any other act enforced by the Commission.
( b ) *Scope of exception.* This exception applies once the Commission has “reasonable cause to believe” there has occurred a violation of any consumer product safety rule or provision under the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 *et seq.*) or similar rule or provision of any other act enforced by the Commission. Once the exception applies, the Commission may disclose information to the public without following the requirements of section 6(b)(1) if the information concerning the product is reasonably related to the violation.
[73 FR 72335, Nov. 28, 2008]
#### § 30.19 Other Federal agency regulations.

Other Federal agencies have requirements regarding the reporting of certain types of export transactions. The USPPIs and/or authorized agents are responsible for adhering to these requirements.
# NACHi NACHI TECHNOLOGY INC. 713Pushville Road Greenwood, IN 46143 317.535.5000 Fax: 317.535.8484

March 17,2010

The Honorable Ray LaHood UnitedStates Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary LaHood: On behalfofNachi Technology, Inc and Nachi America, I am writing to express our strong support for the application ofDelta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda Airport in Toyko, Japan. Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for our region,**:w~e.remanycc()rpotations** have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There fife 'almost'2S0 Jipan'esc companies located in Indiana and hundreds more whose**1)usinessa.~tiyiti~s** rely on access to Japan and 

### its market. The growth ofourbusiness ties with Japan had created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Indiana corporate representatives look to the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown I-Ianeda airport. Indianapolis does not offer international service to Asia, and many ofour business travelers use Detroit as their hub when flying to Japan. Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia and is an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the Commitment Deltamade to DTW to make 

### itthe airline's gateway to Asia. The /\ddition ofHancd

### a as 

### a destination is 

### anatumlfitthat would 

### dearly belletlt'out region. Thank you for consideration ofthis request.

# Slnc~ly, ",.

# ~

# ~,M"", ,. Daniel:E.Nebesfo
.... VicePresident-Operations
.. Sales and Marketing.
.. 

# ®

ISOlTS 16949: 2009 ISO 14001 : 2004

10001.41 &
BPIP/PRIME Workgroup

9th Conference on Air Quality October 9, 2008Research Triangle Park, NCRoger W. BrodeU.S. EPA, OAQPS

Air Quality Modeling Group

Research Triangle Park, N
Ad Hoc BPIP/PRIME Workgro

 Emerged from 2007 R/S/L Modelers Wo

BPIP/PRIME issues did not make “Top Tlist; not directly linked with AIWG

 Members include Dennis Becker, MN; Jo

Roth, WI; Jerry Freeman, NC; and Ken RWY. Alan Huber has also participated.

 Several potential issues to address, have 

a few meetings (conference calls) so far
Potential BPIP/PRIME Issue

 "Split-building" phenomenon - model produces 

lower estimates when a building is entered as adjacent tiers of equal height

 Long narrow buildings - projected length is mu

than actual along-wind fetch over the building some wind angles, and the cavity is rotated bathe wind angle and is positioned relative to the projected building rather than the actual buildin

 Original criterion in BPIP for selecting dominan

old downwash algorithms (tier with highest GEmay not be applicable in PRIME 
Potential BPIP/PRIME Issues (c

 Use of wind tunnel derived "equivalent building 

dimensions" (EBDs) needs to be reviewed and pstandard procedures and/or guidance developed use in regulatory modeling – procedures develouse in previous downwash algorithms may not bappropriate for PRIME downwash due to cavity and more refined treatment of stack/building geo

 Capped/horizontal stack procedures for PRIME 

downwash sources – draft BETA-test options in 

AERMOD provide a starting point, but some ver

and validation is needed
Potential BPIP/PRIME Issues (c

 Discontinuities can occur for stacks that straddle 

formula height” for GEP (Hb + 1.5L); AERMOD mchange being considered to remove this disconti

 Horizontal meander algorithm currently not incor

in PRIME component of AERMOD

 AERMOD-PRIME does not account for upwind d

for plume released within the cavity due to recirc

 PRIME includes partial plume entrainment into th

but the wake effects switch is "all-or-nothing" - a formulation change to allow partial entrainment iwake may reduce some discontinuities in model especially for CBL conditions where near field updraft/downdraft influences could be important

 Is there a minimum WS needed to generate a wa
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL LEE MELLINGER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

UNKNOWN GRABER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-17222

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00129-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017**

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Daniel Lee Mellinger appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a section 

2241 petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 23 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-17222 

affirm.

Mellinger contends that the decision of the United States Parole Commission 

(“Commission”) revoking his parole unlawfully extended his original sentence. 

Judicial review of the Commission’s discretionary decisions is limited to 

determining whether the Commission’s action lacked good cause or was so 

arbitrary as to violate due process. See Walker v. United States, 816 F.2d 1313, 

1316 (9th Cir. 1987). Thompson v. Crabtree, 82 F.3d 312 (9th Cir. 1996), upon 

which Mellinger relies, is factually distinguishable and does not support 

Mellinger’s argument that he is entitled to credit for time served on his 2000 

conviction. The Commission retains the discretion to determine whether to grant 

parole release and whether to grant credit towards a parolee’s unexpired sentence 

for terms of imprisonment imposed for offenses committed subsequent to parole 

release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 4206(c), 4210(b)(2). In light of Mellinger’s lengthy and 

violent criminal history and unacceptable risk to public safety, the Commission’s 

determination that good cause existed to deny reparole and deny Mellinger credit 

for time served on an unrelated sentence was not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, 

irrelevant, capricious, or unconstitutional. See Walker, 816 F.2d at 1316.

Mellinger’s motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal Number 15-
 3 15-17222 

16984 is denied because that appeal has been dismissed.

Mellinger’s motion for expedited resolution is denied as moot. 

AFFIRMED.
### SUBCHAPTER II—STANDBY ENERGY AUTHORITIES
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 30, 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”), Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Intellisync Corporation, San Jose, CA has been added as a party to this venture. Also, Symbian Ltd., London, United Kingdom has been dropped as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 24, 2004, Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 23, 2004 (69 FR 44062).                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-26210  Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### subpart ii—emergency discretionary fund