alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 306.6 Certification. In each transfer you make to anyone who is not a consumer, you must certify the automotive fuel rating of the automotive fuel consistent with your determination. You can do this in either of two ways: ( a ) Include a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of automotive fuel. It may be an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal ticket, delivery ticket, or any other written proof of transfer. It must contain at least these four items: ( 1 ) Your name;
( 2 ) The name of the person to whom the automotive fuel is transferred;
( 3 ) The date of the transfer;
( 4 ) The automotive fuel rating. Octane rating numbers may be rounded off to a whole or half number equal to or less than the number determined by you.
( b ) Give the person a letter or other written statement. This letter must include the date, your name, the other person's name, and the automotive fuel rating of any automotive fuel you will transfer to that person from the date of the letter onwards. Octane rating numbers may be rounded to a whole or half number equal to or less than the number determined by you. This letter of certification will be good until you transfer automotive fuel with a lower automotive fuel rating, except that a letter certifying the fuel rating of biomass-based diesel, biodiesel, a biomass-based diesel blend, a biodiesel blend, or an ethanol flex fuel will be good only until you transfer those fuels with a different automotive fuel rating, whether the rating is higher or lower. When this happens, you must certify the automotive fuel rating of the new automotive fuel either with a delivery ticket or by sending a new letter of certification.
( c ) When you transfer automotive fuel to a common carrier, you must certify the automotive fuel rating of the automotive fuel to the common carrier, either by letter or on the delivery ticket or other paper.
[58 FR 41373, Aug. 3, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 48798, Sept. 23, 1994; 73 FR 40163, July 11, 2008; 76 FR 19691, Apr. 8, 2011; 81 FR 2063, Jan. 14, 2016]
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the amended quarterly Report of Hitor Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ken Martin, CEO and CAO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.     /s/ Ken Martin Ken Martin, CEO, CAO Dated:  August 23, 2010
### §14011. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14011 was editorially reclassified as section 12391 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph M. Palumbos, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 669]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 30, 2005, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

We find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely. Claimant testified that he received the initial determination on February 17, 2005 which notified him that he was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Although claimant read the back of the notice of determination which set forth the strict 30-day time limit in which to request a hearing *(see*Labor Law § 620 [1] [a]), his request for a hearing was not mailed until March 23, 2005. Inasmuch as claimant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his delay in failing to comply with the 30-day statutory time period, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision *(see Matter of Bryant [Commissioner of Labor],*24 AD3d 942, 943 [2005]; *Matter of Havens [Commissioner of Labor],*276 AD2d 987 [2000], *appeal dismissed*96 NY2d 730 [2001]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1269

WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv
- 00369

- REP )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 22, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his motion to amend his complaint . We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense , No. 3:18

- cv
- 00369

- REP (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before this court an d argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No: 16-041 July 11, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

Commission to Meet With Wide Array of Stakeholders July 26

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet Tuesday, July 26, with numerous invited 

stakeholders to hear their views on the NRC’s regulatory activities.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and last through the day in the NRC Auditorium at 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. Chairman Stephen Burns and Commissioners Kristine Svinicki and Jeff 

Baran will hear perspectives on any topic the participants raise. Participants were specifically informed 

that they could present on any topic of interest to them; however, the Commission expects the 

discussion topics will likely include such matters as the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC regulatory 

programs, effectiveness of public engagement, and the use of risk insights in regulations and decisionmaking. Participants in the meeting will include states, Native American tribes, public interest groups, 

nuclear power plant operators, new reactor vendors, and former NRC Commissioners.

“The unique format of this meeting will provide the Commission a rare and valuable 

opportunity to meet at the same time with a diverse set of participants on a potentially broad array of 

topics,” said Chairman Burns. “I am looking forward to hearing perspectives on the agency from our 

invitees and I feel confident that the meeting will inform the NRC’s ongoing efforts to take a fresh look 

at how it does business.”

The meeting will be open to public observation and will be webcast. Those planning to attend 

should arrive at least 30 minutes early to allow time for security screening. A detailed agenda and 

presentation slides will be available in advance on the Commission’s meeting transcript page. 

Broadcast media outlets interested in attending should contact the Office of Public Affairs by noon on 

Monday, July 25.
#### § 1209.32 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions set forth in section 3 of the act and in § 1209.2 of the standard, the following definitions shall apply to this subpart:

*Private labeler* means an owner of a brand or trademark which is used on the label of cellulose insulation subject to the standard which bears a private label as defined in section 3(a)(7) of the act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(7)).

*Production interval* means a time span determined by the manufacturer, private labeler, or importer to be appropriate for conducting a test or series of tests on samples of the cellulose insulation being produced to demonstrate that the product meets the requirements of the standard. An appropriate production interval may vary from test to test. The time period for a production interval shall be short enough to ensure that if the samples selected for testing comply with the standard or a portion of the standard, the insulation produced during the period will meet the standard or the appropriate portion of the standard.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OPA.Resource@nrc.gov

 www.nrc.gov

No. 01-110 September 20, 2001

NRC PROHIBITS A FORMER RADIATION SAFETY OFFICER FROM

PARTICIPATING IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITY FOR FIVE YEARS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an order prohibiting a former radiation safety officer from involvement in NRC-licensed activities

for five years due to his deliberate violation of various NRC regulations.

The action was taken against Virgil J. Hood, Sr., president of Moisture Protection Systems Analysts, Inc. (MPSA), which was formerly located in McLean,

Virginia, following his failure to control licensed nuclear material and deliberate failure to notify the NRC of a missing or stolen portable moisture

density gauge containing material licensed by the agency.

The nuclear gauge, which incorporates a radioactive source of Americium-241, was used to measure the moisture density of roof surfaces. The missing

gauge was received at a Virginia landfill. Hood, Sr. may submit a response to the NRC's order and request a hearing within 20 days of the date of the

order.

In addition, the NRC has issued a Demand for Information to the president's son, Virgil J. Hood, Jr., as a result of an investigation begun in December

of 1997 that concluded he used the moisture density gauge even though he wasn't named as an authorized user.

Among other things, the Demand requests a description of Hood, Jr.'s responsibilities as vice president of MPSA , an explanation as to whether he was

an authorized user of the gauge, the reasons as to why he did not heed two NRC subpoenas for interviews in 1998 and 1999, as well as why he did not

respond to an NRC letter dated March 23 of this year, and a statement that demonstrates Hood, Jr.'s commitment to compliance with regulatory

requirements and that provides a basis for why the agency should have confidence that he will comply with applicable NRC requirements in the future.

The NRC revoked MPSA's license after they failed to submit answers to agency inquiries.

Hood, Jr. has 30 days to respond from the date of the information request if his current employment involves NRC-licensed activities or within 20 days

of acceptance of employment involving agency-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities for five years from the date of the

Demand.

NRC news releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html.

The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers

when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.
#### § 1028.122 Use of Federal funds.

Federal funds administered by a Federal department or agency may not be expended for research involving human subjects unless the requirements of this policy have been satisfied.
#### § 303.30 Textile fiber products in form for consumer.

A textile fiber product shall be considered to be in the form intended for sale or delivery to, or for use by, the ultimate consumer when the manufacturing or processing of the textile fiber product is substantially complete. The fact that minor or insignificant details of the manufacturing or processing have not been completed shall not excuse the labeling of such products as to the required information. For example, a garment must be labeled even though such matters as the finishing of a hem or cuff or the affixing of buttons thereto remain to be completed.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1477 Prepped byOllie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 34 ) ll-J-2 5 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/31/200811:40:24 AM Sheet 34of 36P. 2

Jennife rGreenamoye r 05/03/200 0 02:1 5 P M 

# A-<*W-5 *

To : Keit h Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Dou g Bell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Diann e Byrne/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , To m Eagles/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , Yvonne W Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Penn y Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Dian e McConkey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , To m Kelly/DC/USEPA/US , Stuart Miles-McLean/DC/USEPA/US , Patric k Easter/DC/USEPA/US , Jennife r Vernon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , Pau l Lapsley/DC/USEPA/US , Shirley m Howard/DC/USEPA/US , Da n Brown/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Jennife r Greenamoyer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , Amand a Aldridge/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Kare n Brown/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , Patrici a Grim/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , Arnol d Medbery/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , Austin.Perez@sba.gov , Jonathan.Pawlow@sba.gov , Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.go v

cc : Subject : Plastics : Materia l distribute d byCFA Fo rth e record , th e followin g si xdocument s wer e distribute d b yCF At o eac h o fth e Pane l members : 1 . Affordabilit yo fCaptur e an d Contro l o fHazardou s Ai rPollutan t Emission s Fro m th e Ope n Moldin g o fReinforce d Plastic s Composites . Prepare d fo rth e Composite s Fabricator s Assoc , Apri l 6 , 200 0 b yEnvironomic s Inc . 2 . Non-Economi cImpact s o n th e Reinforce d Plastic s Composite s Industr yo fEmissio n Contro l b y Oxidize rSystems . Prepare d fo rth e Composite s Fabricator s Assoc , April , 200 0 b yEnvironmenta l Complianc e an d Ris k Managemen t Inc . 3 . Emissio n Contro l vs . Pollutio n Preventio n fo rOpe n Moldin g o fComposites : Incrementa l Benefit s an d Impacts , b yD . Pipriro , Environmenta l Complianc e an d Ris k Management , (n o date ) 4 . CF ARevie wo f"Critica l Issues " fo rOpe n Moldin g MAC T- Revise d Apri l 18 , 200 0 ( 4 pages) . 5 . Pollutio n Preventio n fo rOpe n Moldin g o fComposites . Rober t Lacovara , Composit e Fabricator s Assoc , Apri l 2000 . 6 . Feasibilit yan d Cos t o fth e Captur e an d Contro l o fHazardou s Ai rPollutan t Emission s for m th e Ope n Moldin g o fReinforce d Plastic s Composites . Prepare d fo rth e Composite s Fabricator s Assoc , Apri l 6 , 200 0 b yR . Haberiein , Engineerin g Environmental .
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3742 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3742

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 North Church 
   Street in Las Cruces, New Mexico, as the ``Edwin L. Mechem United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Edwin L. Mechem was a land surveyor with the United 
        States Reclamation Service in Las Cruces, New Mexico, from 
        1932-1935.
            (2) He served as a member of the New Mexico State Police 
        Commission.
            (3) He was a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation.
            (4) He attended the New Mexico College of Agriculture and 
        Mechanic Arts, which later became the New Mexico State 
        University in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
            (5) He was admitted to the New Mexico bar in 1939, and 
        practiced law in Albuquerque and Las Cruces, New Mexico.
            (6) He served in the New Mexico House of Representatives 
        from 1947-1948.
            (7) He was the first New Mexico governor born in New Mexico 
        after statehood.
            (8) He served four terms as Governor of New Mexico between 
        1951 and 1962.
            (9) He served as a United States Senator from New Mexico 
        from 1962-1964.
            (10) He was confirmed by the United States Senate as a 
        United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico on 
        October 8, 1970, and served in that position until his death in 
        2002.
            (11) He led a rich and accomplished life dedicated to 
        public service which warrants recognition.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 100 North Church Street in 
Las Cruces, New Mexico, shall be known and designated as the ``Edwin L. 
Mechem United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 3. 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 2 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Edwin L. Mechem 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3742

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 North Church 
   Street in Las Cruces, New Mexico, as the ``Edwin L. Mechem United 
                          States Courthouse''.
```
#### Andrea Friedman et al., Appellants, v Stephen H. Marcus et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[821 NYS2d 136]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered July 20, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants Stephen H. Marcus and South Island Orthopedic Group, EC., and against them dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, and (2) an order of the same court dated June 7, 2005, which denied their motion, inter alia, pursuant to CFLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs contend that the respondents’ attorney improperly argued in summation that a second injury, a month after the first, triggered the injured plaintiffs reflex sympathetic dystrophy (hereinafter RSD). This argument was offered to explain why the injured plaintiffs RSD was not in an acute stage when the defendant Stephen H. Marcus previously saw the injured plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ attorney never objected to those comments and never sought a curative instruction or a mistrial. Consequently, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see *Ritz v Lee,*273 AD2d 291 [2000]; *Savarese v City of N.Y. Hous. Auth.,*172 AD2d 506, 509 [1991]). In any event, the challenged remarks were based on the evidence in the trial record and thus were proper (see *Alexander v City of New York,*240 AD2d 603, 604 [1997]; *Kasman v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*224 AD2d 590 [1996]).

Further, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The jury found that the defendant Stephen H. Marcus did not depart from good and accepted medical practice by placing the injured plaintiffs arm in *821a cast. This verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, and, hence, was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Mendoza v Kaplowitz,*215 AD2d 735 [1995]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Crane, J.R, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### Part F—Model Comprehensive Program for Treatment of Substance Abuse
### §13286. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for purposes of this part $50,000,000 for the 10-year period beginning with the first full fiscal year after October 24, 1992, to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title VI, §616, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2903.)
#### § 1102.14 Recall notices.

All information presented in a voluntary or mandatory recall notice that has been made available to the public shall be accessible and searchable in the Database.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ARC Corporate Realty Trust, Inc. (ACRT) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce Nelson, Chief Financial Officer of ACRT, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of ACRT.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Bruce Nelson       
|Bruce Nelson           
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 14, 2007
### SUBCHAPTER I—GRID INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESILIENCY
Schedule of Agreements



 Exhibit 4.2 
 SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENTS 
 SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS 
 TO THE AGREEMENT FILED AS EXHIBIT 4.1 PURSUANT TO 
 INSTRUCTION 2 TO ITEM 601 OF REGULATION S-K 
 Pursuant to the terms of the Indentures listed in
the table below among Ventas Realty, Limited Partnership and Ventas Capital Corporation (collectively, the “Issuers”), the Guarantors named therein and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), the Issuers have
executed and delivered Supplemental Indentures adding each of the Guaranteeing Subsidiaries as Guarantors of the applicable series of senior notes, which Supplemental Indentures are substantially identical in all material respects to the agreement
filed as Exhibit 4.1 to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. 
  

			
	 Indenture
	  	 Senior Notes

		
	 Indenture dated as of April 17, 2002, as supplemented
	  	    9% Senior Notes due 2012
		
	 Indenture dated as of October 15, 2004, as supplemented
	  	6 5/8% Senior Notes due
2014
		
	 Indenture dated as of June 7, 2005, as supplemented
	  	6 3/4% Senior Notes due
2010
		
	 Indenture dated as of June 7, 2005, as supplemented
	  	7 1/8% Senior Notes due
2015
		
	 Indenture dated as of December 9, 2005, as supplemented
	  	6 1/2% Senior Notes due
2016
		
	 Indenture dated as of September 19, 2006, as supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture of even date therewith and as further
supplemented
	  	6 3/4% Senior Notes due
2017
§ 437.8 Franchise exemption. The provisions of this Rule shall not apply to any business opportunity that constitutes a “franchise,” as defined in the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR part 436; *provided, however,* that the provisions of this Rule shall apply to any such franchise if it is exempted from the provisions of part 436 because, either: ( a ) Under § 436.8(a)(1), the total of the required payments or commitments to make a required payment, to the franchisor or an affiliate that are made any time from before to within six months after commencing operation of the franchisee's business is less than $500, or
( b ) Under § 436.8(a)(7), there is no written document describing any material term or aspect of the relationship or arrangement.