alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 998.27 Service obligations for undergraduate assistance programs. ( a ) *Education Loan Repayment Program.* An individual who enters into a written agreement to serve on active duty in the NOAA Corps as part of an education loan repayment program authorized by 33 U.S.C. 3077 shall serve one year for each maximum annual amount or portion thereof paid on behalf of the individual for qualified loans. If an individual is on active duty when entering into the agreement and has an existing ADSO, the ADSO incurred under this subsection must be served consecutively to any other existing ADSO. If an individual is not on active duty when entering into an agreement, the ADSO under this paragraph (a) may be served concurrently with an ADSO incurred under § 998.23. ADSOs incurred under § 998.24 and § 998.25 after an ADSO is incurred under this paragraph (a) may be served concurrently with the ADSO incurred under this paragraph (a).
( b ) *Student Pre-Commissioning Assistance Program.* An individual entering into a written agreement for pre-commissioning education assistance authorized by 33 U.S.C. 3079 shall agree to serve on active duty for: ( 1 ) Three years if the individual received fewer than three years of assistance; and
( 2 ) Five years if the individual received at least three years of assistance.
( c ) *Concurrent obligations.* An ADSO incurred under paragraph (b) of this section may be served concurrently with an ADSO incurred under §§ 998.23, 998.24, and 998.25.
#### § 2.3 Policy as to private controversies.

The Commission acts only in the public interest and does not initiate an investigation or take other action when the alleged violation of law is merely a matter of private controversy and does not tend adversely to affect the public.

[32 FR 8446, June 13, 1967]
### §10506. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10506 was editorially reclassified as section 50106 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 1302.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this rule is to ban extremely flammable contact adhesives which have been found to present an unreasonable risk of injury to consumers of burns resulting from explosive and flashback fire.
§ 923.53 Federal consistency procedures. ( a ) A State must include in its management program submission, as part of the body of the submission an appendix or an attachment, the procedures it will use to implement the Federal consistency requirements of subsections 307 (c) and (d) of the Act. At a minimum, the following must be included: ( 1 ) An indication of whether the state agency designated pursuant to subsection 306(d)(6) of the Act or a single other agency will handle consistency review (see 15 CFR 930.18);
( 2 ) A list of Federal license and permit activities that will be subject to review (see 15 CFR 930.53);
( 3 ) For States anticipating coastal zone effects from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities, the license and permit list also must include OCS plans which describe in detail Federal license and permit activities (see 15 CFR 930.74); and
( 4 ) The public notice procedures to be used for certifications submitted for Federal License and permit activities and, where appropriate, for OCS plans (see 15 CFR 930.61 through 930.62 and 930.78).
( b ) Beyond the minimum requirements contained in paragraph (a) of this section, States have the option of including: ( 1 ) A list of Federal activities, including development projects, which in the opinion of the State agency are likely to significantly affect the coastal zone and thereby will require a Federal agency consistency determination (see 15 CFR 930.35); and
( 2 ) A description of the types of information and data necessary to assess the consistency of Federal license and permit activities and, where appropriate, those described in detail in OCS plans (see 15 CFR 930.56 and 930.75).
### §11505. Coordination with CDBG and UDAG programs

It is the policy of the Congress that amounts provided under the community development block grant and urban development action grant programs under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.] shall not be reduced in any fiscal year in which the provisions of this chapter are in effect.

(Pub. L. 100–242, title VII, §706, Feb. 5, 1988, 101 Stat. 1964.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 93–383, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 633. Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 is classified principally to chapter 69 (§5301 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of this title and Tables.
§ 2.31 Opportunity to submit a proposed consent order. ( a ) Where time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit, any individual, partnership, or corporation being investigated shall be afforded the opportunity to submit through the operating Bureau or Regional Office having responsibility in the matter a proposal for disposition of the matter in the form of a consent order agreement executed by the party being investigated and complying with the requirements of § 2.32, for consideration by the Commission in connection with a proposed complaint submitted by the Commission's staff.
( b ) After a complaint has been issued, the consent order procedure described in this part will not be available except as provided in § 3.25(b).
[40 FR 15235, Apr. 4, 1975]
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANTTO**EXCHANGEACTRULES 13a-14(a) OR15d-14(a)

I, Melvin L. Flanigan, certify that:

1.      I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Digital Theater Systems, Inc.;

2.      Based onmy knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.      Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)     any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 10,  2004 |   |                      |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                          | By:    | /s/ Melvin L. Flanigan    |
|                          |   | Melvin L. Flanigan        |
|                          |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
§ 904.206 Pleadings, motions, and service. ( a ) The original of all pleadings and documents must be filed with the Judge and a copy served on the Office of Administrative Law Judges and each party. All pleadings or documents when submitted for filing must show that service has been made upon all parties. Such service must be made in accordance with § 904.3(b).
( b ) Pleadings and documents to be filed may be reproduced by printing or any other process, provided the copies are clear and legible; must be dated, signed; and must show the docket description and title of the proceeding, and the title, if any, address, and telephone number of the signatory. If typewritten, the impression may be on only one side of the paper and must be double spaced, if possible, except that quotations may be single spaced and indented.
( c ) Motions must normally be made in writing and must state clearly and concisely the purpose of and relief sought by the motion, the statutory or principal authority relied upon, and the facts claimed to constitute the grounds requiring the relief requested.
( d ) Unless otherwise provided, the answer to any written motion, pleading, or petition must be served within 20 days after service of the motion. If a motion states that opposing counsel has no objection, it may be acted upon as soon as practicable, without awaiting the expiration of the 20-day period. Answers must be in writing, unless made in response to an oral motion made at a hearing; must fully and completely advise the parties and the Judge concerning the nature of the opposition; must admit or deny specifically and in detail each material allegation of the pleading answered; and must state clearly and concisely the facts and matters of law relied upon. Any new matter raised in an answer will be deemed controverted.
( e ) A response to an answer will be called a reply. A short reply restricted to new matters raised in the answer may be served within 15 days after service of an answer. The Judge has discretion to dispense with the reply. No further responses are permitted.
[71 FR 12448, Mar. 10, 2006, as amended at 87 FR 38938, June 30, 2022]
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1A                    3,079,600.59       5,311,781.47         0.00         59,688,218.52
A1F                    2,719,562.10      11,483,986.77         0.00         41,816,013.22
A2F                    1,290,494.97               0.00         0.00         22,700,000.00
A3F                    1,747,552.50               0.00         0.00         30,300,000.00
A4F                      911,115.00               0.00         0.00         15,300,000.00
A5F                      904,057.47               0.00         0.00         14,900,000.00
A6F                      590,249.97               0.00         0.00         10,000,000.00
B                        644,671.89               0.00         0.00         10,625,000.00
BIO                      345,954.38               0.00         0.00                  0.00
IOF                    2,775,999.99               0.00         0.00                  0.00
M1                     1,001,137.50               0.00         0.00         16,500,000.00
M2                       690,178.14               0.00         0.00         11,375,000.00
P                        313,959.17               0.00         0.00                100.00
R1                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R2                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R3                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00

</TABLE>
#### § 716.9 Report of inspection-related costs.

Pursuant to section 309(b)(5) of the Act, any facility that has undergone any inspections pursuant to the CWCR during a given calendar year must report to BIS within 90 days of an inspection on its total costs related to that inspection. Although not required, such reports should identify categories of costs separately if possible, such as personnel costs (production-line, administrative, legal), costs of producing records, and costs associated with shutting down chemical production or processing during inspections, if applicable. This information should be reported to BIS on company letterhead at the address given in § 716.6(d) of the CWCR, with the following notation: “Attn: Report of inspection-related costs.”
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEON EUGENE MORRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PETERSEN, Sergeant; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15088 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02169-WHO 

MEMORANDUM*

LEON EUGENE MORRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

IPPOLITO, Sergeant; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15091 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01858-WHO 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William H. Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision 

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

FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-15088 

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Leon Eugene Morris appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgments dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions under the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

dismissal under § 1915(g). Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 & n.6 (9th Cir. 

2005). We vacate and remand.

The district court denied Morris’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) on the basis that Morris had brought at least three prior actions in federal 

court that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, and 

Morris failed to show that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury” at the time that he lodged his complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, 

at the time of its decisions, the district court did not have the benefit of El-Shaddai 

v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016), in which this court concluded that an 

appeal dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee after the revocation of IFP status 

on appeal does not constitute a strike under § 1915(g) if this court makes no 

finding that the appeal falls within one of the grounds enumerated in § 1915(g). 

See id. at 1043. We vacate the judgments and remand for the district court to 

reconsider Morris’s IFP motions in light of this intervening opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.2 

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 

I, Mark H. McKinnies, as Chief Financial Officer of ADA-Es, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 theCompany. 

/s/ Mark H. McKinnies 

Name: Mark H.McKinnies 

Title: Chief Financial Officer 

Date: May 7,2008
No: III-13-021 June 3, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Will Hold a June 11 Open House 

on Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant 2012 Performance 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold an open house June 11 to discuss the agency’s 

assessment of the Davis-Besse nuclear station’s safety performance for last year. The plant is located in Oak 

Harbor, Ohio, approximately 21 miles southeast of Toledo.

During the open house scheduled for 6-7:30 p.m., at the Carroll Township Service Complex, 11080 W. 

Toussant Road, in Oak Harbor, attendees will have an opportunity to talk one-on-one with NRC staff members 

about the plant’s 2012 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. NRC staff on hand will include 

the inspectors assigned to the plant on a full-time basis and staff from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill. In 

addition, NRC staff responsible for the oversight of the upcoming steam generator replacement at the plant will 

be available to talk about their activities.

“When the NRC evaluates Davis-Besse’s performance for the previous year, we take a look at any and 

all issues that might be of concern,” said Region III Administrator Charles Casto. “Then we map out our 

inspection plans for that specific facility, issue inspection reports and hold public meetings near the plant in 

order to discuss our oversight and answer questions from local residents.”

The assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2012 and will serve as the basis for the discussion.

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant 

performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow, or red, commensurate with the 

safety significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical measurements of plant and 

equipment performance. 

Overall, the Davis-Besse plant operated safely during 2012. The plant had a greater-than-green security 

finding and therefore is getting increased NRC oversight. NRC security inspectors made sure the issue was 

corrected before they left the site. The inspection report and NRC’s determination of the significance can be 

found on the NRC’s website.

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

specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the 

areas of performance to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are activities associated with emergency 
Page | 2

preparedness, radiological safety, the requalification program for licensed plant operators, and steam generator 

replacement.

The most current performance information for Davis-Besse is available on the NRC website.
§ 301.6 Appeals. ( a ) An appeal from a final decision made by the Director under § 301.5(f) may be taken in accordance with U.S. Note 6(e), Subchapter X, Chapter 98, HTSUS, only to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and only on questions of law, within 20 days after publication of the decision in the Federal Register. If at any time while its application is under consideration by the Court of Appeals on an appeal from a finding by the Director an institution cancels an order for the instrument to which the application relates or ceases to have a firm intention to order such instrument, the institution shall promptly notify the court.
( b ) An appeal may be taken by: ( 1 ) The institution which makes the application;
( 2 ) A person who, in the proceeding which led to the decision, timely represented to the Secretary of Commerce in writing that he/she manufactures in the United States an instrument of equivalent scientific value for the purposes for which the instrument to which the application relates is intended to be used;
( 3 ) The importer of the instrument, if the instrument to which the application relates has been entered at the time the appeal is taken; or
( 4 ) An agent of any of the foregoing.
( c ) Questions regarding appeal procedures should be addressed directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Clerk's Office, Washington, DC 20439.
[47 FR 32517, July 28, 1982, as amended at 66 FR 28834, May 25, 2001]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

872

KA 09-00579

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HENDELL PHILLIPS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THOMAS J. EOANNOU, BUFFALO (JEREMY D. SCHWARTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered March 9, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court erred in instructing the jury on accessorial liability with respect to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree inasmuch as his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not “ ‘specifically directed’ at the alleged error[s]” now asserted on appeal ( People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, that contention is without merit. Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he possessed a loaded firearm outside of his home or place of business ( see Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), and that such possession was knowing and unlawful. Defendant, however, admitted to the police that he sold the gun at issue to his accomplice and hid the gun on the night of the shooting upon the accomplice’s request, and the People presented evidence establishing that defendant’s DNA was found on both the gun and the bandana wrapped around the gun. The People also presented evidence-2- 872

KA 09-00579

establishing that defendant told the police that the house where the gun was located was his accomplice’s house; he never told the police that it was his home and, indeed, there is no evidence to support that inference. Further, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to that crime ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the sentence is not unduly

harsh or severe.

Entered: September 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court