alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1631.1 Definitions. In addition to the definitions given in section 2 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended (sec. 1, 81 Stat. 568; 15 U.S.C. 1191), and the procedures under that act for setting standards (part 1607 of this chapter), the following definitions apply for the purposes of this Standard: ( a ) *Acceptance Criterion* means that at least seven out of eight individual specimens of a small carpet or rug shall meet the test criterion as defined in this Standard.
( b ) *Test Criterion* means the basis for judging whether or not a single specimen of small carpet or rug has passed the test, i.e., the charred portion of a tested specimen shall not extend to within 2.54 cm. (1.0 in.) of the edge of the hole in the flattening frame at any point.
( c ) *Small Carpet* means any type of finished product made in whole or in part of fabric or related material and intended for use or which may reasonably be expected to be used as a floor covering which is exposed to traffic in homes, offices, or other places of assembly or accommodation, and which may or may not be fastened to the floor by mechanical means such as nails, tacks, barbs, staples, adhesives, and which has no dimension greater than 1.83 m. (6 ft.) and an area not greater than 2.23 m.2 (24 sq. ft.). Products such as “Carpet Squares” with dimensions smaller than these but intended to be assembled, upon installation, into assemblies which may have dimensions greater than these, are excluded from this definition. They are, however, included in the Standard for the surface flammability of carpets and rugs (FF 1-70) (subpart A of part 1630 of this chapter). Mats, hides with natural or synthetic fibers, and other similar products are included in this definition if they are within the defined dimensions, but resilient floor coverings such as linoleum, asphalt tile and vinyl tile are not.
( d ) *Small Rug* means, for the purposes of this Standard, the same as small carpet and shall be accepted as interchangeable with small carpet.
( e ) *Traffic Surface* means a surface of a small carpet or rug which is intended to be walked upon.
( f ) *Timed Burning Tablet* (pill) means a methenamine tablet, flat, with a nominal heat of combustion value of 7180 calories/gram, a mass of 150 mg ±5mg and a nominal diameter of 6mm.
( g ) *Fire-Retardant Treatment* means any process to which a small carpet or rug has been exposed which significantly decreases the flammability of that small carpet or rug and enables it to meet the acceptance criterion of this Standard.
[40 FR 59935, Dec. 30, 1975, as amended at 72 FR 60767, Oct. 26, 2007]
### §13364. Study of utilization of coal combustion byproducts

#### (a) "Coal combustion byproducts" defined

As used in this section, the term "coal combustion byproducts" means the residues from the combustion of coal including ash, slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials.

#### (b) Study and report to Congress

(1) The Secretary shall conduct a detailed and comprehensive study on the institutional, legal, and regulatory barriers to increased utilization of coal combustion byproducts by potential governmental and commercial users. Such study shall identify and investigate barriers found to exist at the Federal, State, or local level, which may have limited or may have the foreseeable effect of limiting the quantities of coal combustion byproducts that are utilized. In conducting this study, the Secretary shall consult with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, appropriate State and local governments, and the private sector.

(2) Not later than one year after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress containing the results of the study required by paragraph (1) and the Secretary's recommendations for action to be taken to increase the utilization of coal combustion byproducts. At a minimum, such report shall identify actions that would increase the utilization of coal combustion byproducts in—

(A) bridge and highway construction;

(B) stabilizing wastes;

(C) procurement by departments and agencies of the Federal Government and State and local governments; and

(D) federally funded or federally subsidized procurement by the private sector.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1334, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2984.)
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69446-69447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26268]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

November 19, 2004.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before December 29, 
2004 to be assured of consideration.
    Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
    OMB Number: 1545-1594.
    Regulation Project Number: REG-51520-96 Final.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Classification of Certain Transactions Involving Computer 
Programs.
    Description: The information requested in regulation Section 1.861-
18(k) is necessary for the Commissioner to determine whether a taxpayer 
properly is requesting to change its method of accounting.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.
    Estimated Burden Hours Respondent: 1 hour.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 1 hour.

[[Page 69447]]

    Clearance Officer: R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, 
Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, (202) 
622-3634.
    OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503, (202) 395-7316.

Lois K. Holland,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26268 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No: II-15-029 April 20, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

 Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Open House April 28 to Discuss Agency’s 

2014 Assessment of Brunswick Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have scheduled an open house for April 28 to provide 

information on the agency’s assessment of the two units at the Brunswick nuclear plant during 2014. 

The informal open house is scheduled from 5 to 6 p.m. in the Southport Community Building, 

223 E. Bay St. in Southport, N.C. There will be informational posters and NRC staff will be available 

to answer questions about the safety performance of the Brunswick plant as well as overall NRC 

oversight and inspection. 

The Brunswick plant is operated by Duke Energy and located near Southport, about 30 miles 

south of Wilmington. 

Overall, the NRC staff concluded that Brunswick Units 1 and 2 operated safely in 2014, and the 

plant will continue to receive the detailed routine, or baseline, inspections conducted at all nuclear 

power plants.

“NRC inspectors continually evaluate each nuclear plant’s safety, and each year we take a 

detailed look at that information to identify any trends and help plan future inspections,” said 

NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “Inspection results are available throughout the year, but 

these annual meetings allow us to talk to local residents and answer any questions they may have.”

Routine inspections are carried out by the NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant and by 

inspection specialists from the Region II office in Atlanta.

The annual assessment letter for the Brunswick plant, as well as current performance 

information for Unit 1 and Unit 2, is available on the NRC website.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 04, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 04, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A2397. ROBERT H. BUTTRUM, JR. v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### Fred J. Sichel, Appellant, v Louis Polak et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 177]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered February 8, 2006, which confirmed the report and recommendations of a Special Referee, dated March 11, 2003, and accepted the 1997 accounting submitted by defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 25, 2006, which *735referred the issue of allocation and reimbursement for the parties’ net contributions to the partnership, unanimously-dismissed as abandoned, without costs.

The report and recommendations of a special referee should be confirmed if its findings are supported by the record *(Baker v Kohler,*28 AD3d 375 [2006]). The findings of the Special Referee herein were clearly supported by the record *(see R.V.R. Realty v Tenants Alliance,*305 AD2d 289 [2003]). Defendants’ expert accountant testified at the hearing that his accounting firm had reviewed not only tax returns but extensive supporting documentation, which material was then cross-checked for accuracy. Under these circumstances, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the second accounting was insufficiently documented so as to require disturbing the report of the Special Referee. Plaintiffs arguments are unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2523 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2523

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 125 Bull Street in 
   Savannah, Georgia, as the ``Tomochichi United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 125 Bull Street in 
Savannah, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ``Tomochichi 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tomochichi 
United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Michael M. Megless, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Spectrum Sciences & Software HoldingsCorp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the issuer and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.5. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.       By: /s/ Michael M. Megless           Michael M. Megless    Chief Financial Officer    Spectrum Sciences & Software Holdings Corp.           Date: December 23,2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Diana L. Hope, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 482]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Pelella, J.), rendered September 20, 2005, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

*1116Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging her with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and alleging that she presented two forged prescriptions for Vicodin at a pharmacy. Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain agreement, defendant pleaded guilty as charged and agreed to enter a drug treatment program which, among other things, prohibited her unauthorized use or possession of drugs. Defendant was informed at this time that noncompliance with the program could lead to sanctions, including termination from the program and a sentence of up to 21⁄3 to 7 years in prison, and she was thereafter sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge. After defendant was found with a large amount of prescription drugs in her possession and admitted to a relapse, County Court summarily revoked her conditional discharge and resentenced her to 2 to 6 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, inasmuch as defendant did not contest County Court’s finding that she violated the conditional discharge and was afforded the opportunity to be heard on the violation, no formal hearing was required before her conditional discharge was revoked *(see*CPL 410.70 [1]; *People v Valencia,*3 NY3d 714, 715 [2004]). Moreover, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s claim that her sentence is harsh and excessive. Defendant has a lengthy criminal record characterized by drug and alcohol-related offenses and has been provided numerous opportunities to address her addiction. Considering that defendant failed to meet the conditions she accepted in connection with her voluntary, knowing and intelligent guilty plea, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of her sentence *(see People v Garner,*28 AD3d 875, 875 [2006]; *People v Johnson,*12 AD3d 727, 727-728 [2004], *lv denied 4*NY3d 745 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.3








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Anthony J. Branca, Chief Financial Officer of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of the Registrant, in connection with the Quarterly Report of ICON Income Fund Ten, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly
Report”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the LLC.









Date: August 13, 2009





/s/Anthony J. Branca__


Anthony J. Branca


Chief Financial Officer


ICON Capital Corp.


Manager of ICON Income Fund Ten, LLC
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6432

DALE A. FOSTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-685-R)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale A. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dale A. Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his challenge to his participation in the

“Therapeutic Community,” and denying relief on the remainder of his

claims filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Foster v. Angelone, No. CA-97-685-R (E.D. Va. Feb. 11,

1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Scoma, Respondent, against Wright Associates Bldg. Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from that part of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which held that the provisions of subdivision 8 of section. 15 were not applicable to the claim and discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability thereunder. The corporate employer was engaged in the general contracting business in the city of Buffalo, New York. Claimant had been working for it in the capacity of a mason for about forty years. On December 22, 1947, claimant sustained an industrial accident in the course of his employment and suffered a compressed fracture of the first lumbar vertebra with a resultant limitation of back motion. Nearly three years later, on November 21, 1950, he again sustained an accidental injury resulting in a lumbo-sacral area strain. Between the two accidents claimant worked from time to time but after the second accident he claimed *1097he was no longer able to work. The employer and carrier filed a claim for reimbursement against the Special Disability Fund on the theory that the combined effects of the two accidents resulted in a permanent disability that was materially and substantially greater than that which would have resulted from the second accident alone. If such were the fact appellants would be entitled to reimbursement under the provisions of subdivision 8 of section 15 of the statute. However, the board found that although claimant suffered from a permanent impairment as a result of the compressed fracture caused by the first accident, the injuries which he subsequently sustained in the second accident were only of a temporary nature from which he fully recovered, and hence the combined injuries did not result in a permanent injury caused by both conditions. As we read the record there is substantial medical evidence to sustain this viewpoint. Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Halpern, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREEDOM DEANTRE WHITFIELD
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 3 163

[ July 28, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Lawrence Michael Mirman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

562017CF003160A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahas see, and Kimberly T. Acuna, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

M AY
, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 1510.1 Scope and purpose of part 1510.

This part 1510 sets forth the requirement whereby rattles (as defined in § 1510.2) are not banned articles under § 1500.18(a)(15) of this chapter. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that certain infant rattles which may cause choking and/or suffocation because their design or construction permits them to enter into an infant's mouth and become lodged in the throat are eliminated from interstate commerce.