alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 162.32 Duties of card issuers regarding changes of address. ( a ) *Scope.* This section applies to a person described in § 162.30(a) that issues a debit or credit card (card issuer).
( b ) *Definition of cardholder.* For purposes of this section, a cardholder means a consumer who has been issued a credit or debit card.
( c ) *Address validation requirements.* A card issuer must establish and implement reasonable policies and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address if it receives notification of a change of address for a consumer's debit or credit card account and, within a short period of time afterwards (during at least the first 30 days after it receives such notification), the card issuer receives a request for an additional or replacement card for the same account. Under these circumstances, the card issuer may not issue an additional or replacement card, until, in accordance with its reasonable policies and procedures and for the purpose of assessing the validity of the change of address, the card issuer: ( 1 ) ( i ) Notifies the cardholder of the request: ( A ) At the cardholder's former address; or
( B ) By any other means of communication that the card issuer and the cardholder have previously agreed to use; and
( ii ) Provides to the cardholder a reasonable means of promptly reporting incorrect address changes; or
( 2 ) Otherwise assesses the validity of the change of address in accordance with the policies and procedures the card issuer has established pursuant to § 162.30.
( d ) *Alternative timing of address validation.* A card issuer may satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section if it validates an address pursuant to the methods in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section when it receives an address change notification, before it receives a request for an additional or replacement card.
( e ) *Form of notice.* Any written or electronic notice that the card issuer provides under this paragraph must be clear and conspicuous and provided separately from its regular correspondence with the cardholder.
# Designation and Authorization to Perform Functions Under Section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service Act 

# Memorandum for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby direct you to perform the functions vested in the President under section 319F-2(c)(6) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b(c)(6). 

Any reference in this memorandum to the provision of any Act shall be deemed to include references to any hereafter-enacted provision of law that is the same or substantially the same as such provision. 

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

[FR Doc. 04-26787

Billing code 3195-01-P
CLD

- 031 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 5

- 2174

___________ JOAQUIN IRWIN FOY,

Appellant

v. THE SUPER

- RICH MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI, (Bilderberg Group);

B.R. JETT, Hon. Warden, et al.; POPE; OBAMA; BIDEN

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ( D

. N.J. 1

- 1 5

- c v - 0 1869 ) District Court Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________ S ubmitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 29, 2015 Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 16, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *

________ _ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

J oaquin Foy, a federal inmate at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, filed a petition for a writ of habea s corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court summarily
dismissed his petition. Although Foy did not identify the conviction or commitment he was attempting to challenge , t he D istrict Court found that Foy suffered convictions in the
United States District Court s for the Eastern District of Pennsylvan ia and the Western
District of Missouri , but that he had not been convicted or sentenced in the District of New Jersey. The District Court evidently treated Foy’s petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion and dismissed it b ecause Foy did not seek to challenge a judgment from a United States District Court in the District of New Jersey

. Foy appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal
order. See United States v. Friedland , 83 F.3d 1531 , 1542 (3d Cir. 1996 ). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial questions. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. The District Court correctly dismissed Foy’s petition. The proper venue for a § 2241 petition lies in the prisoner’s di strict of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). For Foy, that district is the District of Minnesota . Because Foy filed his § 2241 petition in the District of New Jersey, the District Court lacked jurisdiction. See
id.
We note tha t the District Court did not expressly address the possibility of transferring Foy’s habeas petiti on to the District of Minnesota or construing it as a § 22553

motion and transferring it to one of the courts that had convicted him. Such a transfer
would be appropriate if it were “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. A review
of the record

— including Foy’s instant habeas petition, his pro se brief, and the other habeas petitions he filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

— reveals that the int erests of justice would not be served by transferring Foy’s § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court

.
Subpart 546.3 - Contract Clauses 	  **Parent topic:** Part 546 - Quality Assurance546.302 Fixed-price supply contracts. 	  546.302-70 Source inspection by Quality Approved Manufacturer for fixed-price supply contracts. 		    (a)Insert the clause at 552.246-70, Source Inspection by Quality Approved Manufacturer: 					           						             							              (1)In FAS solicitations and contracts that— 							               								                 									                  (i)Will exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; 								                 								                 									                  (ii)Include the FAR clause at 52.246-2; and 								                 								                 									                  (iii)Provide for source inspection for the Stock and Special Order Programs. 								                 							               						             						             							              (2)In solicitations and contracts that— 							               								                 									                  (i)Are below the simplified acquisition threshold; 								                 								                 									                  (ii) Include the FAR clause at 52.246-2; and 								                 								                 									                  (iii) Support the Wildfire program; or 								                 								                 									                  (iv) When a pattern of acquisitions demonstrates an ongoing relationship with the contractor. 								                 							               						             					           				         				         					          (b) The contracting officer may authorize inspection and testing at manufacturing plants or other facilities located outside the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands according to paragraph (a)(1) of the clause at 552.246-70 when any of the following conditions apply and after coordinating the authorization with QVOC and documenting the authorization in the file: 					           						             							              (1) Inspection services are available from another Federal agency with primary inspection responsibility in the geographic area. 						             						             							              (2) An inspection interchange agreement exists with another agency for inspection at a contractor's plant. 						             						             							              (3) Other considerations will ensure more economical and effective inspection consistent with the Government's interest.546.302-71 Source inspection. 		    Insert the clause at 552.246-71, Source Inspection by Government, in FAS solicitations and contracts where Government personnel at the source will perform inspection.546.302-72 Destination Inspection. 		    Insert the clause at 552.246-78, Inspection at Destination, in solicitations and contracts for supplies that require inspection at destination.546.312 Construction contracts. 		    Insert the clause at 552.246-72, Final Inspection and Tests, in solicitations and contracts for construction that include the FAR clause at 52.246-12.
EXHIBIT 32
----------




          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
          --------------------------------------------------


     The following statement is provided by the undersigned with respect to
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of KAANAPALI LAND, LLC.




    By: /s/  Gary Nickele               By: /s/  Gailen J. Hull
        ---------------------------         ---------------------------
        Gary Nickele                        Gailen J. Hull
        Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer and
                                            Chief Accounting Officer
§ 309.10 Alternative vehicle fuel rating. ( a ) If you are an importer, producer, or refiner of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), you must determine the fuel rating of all non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) before you transfer it. You can do that yourself or through a testing lab. To determine fuel ratings, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the minimum percentage of the principal component of the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) that you must disclose, and for the minimum percentages of other components that you choose to disclose. For the purposes of this section, fuel ratings for the minimum percentage of the principal component of compressed natural gas are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) D 1945-91, “Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography.” For the purposes of this section, fuel ratings for the minimum percentage of the principal component of hydrogen gas are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in ASTM D 1946-90, “Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography.” This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of D 1945-91 and D 1946-90 may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) If you are a manufacturer of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, you must determine the fuel rating of the electric charge delivered by the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system before you transfer such systems. To determine the fuel rating of the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the following output information you must disclose: kilowatt (“kW”) capacity, voltage, whether the voltage is alternating current (“ac”) or direct current (“dc”), amperage, and whether the system is conductive or inductive.
[60 FR 26955, May 19, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsScaling and modeling of three-dimensional, end-wall, turbulent boundary layersThe method of matched asymptotic expansion was employed to identify the various subregions in three dimensional, turbomachinery end wall turbulent boundary layers, and to determine the proper scaling of these regions. The two parts of the b.l. investigated are the 3D pressure driven part over the endwall, and the 3D part located at the blade/end wall juncture. Models are proposed for the 3d law of the wall and law of the wake. These models and the data of van den Berg and Elsenaar and of Mueller are compared and show good agreement between models and experiments.Document ID19840017873Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeThesis/DissertationAuthorsGoldberg, U. C.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Reshotko, E.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1984Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-3792NAS 1.26:3792E-2024Accession Number84N25941Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-270PROJECT: RTOP 505-31-0ADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840017873.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Ning Wong

1534 Orchard Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660

949

- 439

- 9709 ning@ningwong.com

February 23, 2016

Petition for Section 333 Exemption

I hereby formally request FAA authorization for NING WONG STUDIOS (hereafter “PETITIONER”) to operate a UAS for civil (non

- governmental) purposes other than for hobby or recreation.

PETITIONER requests exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91 .151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow PETITIONER to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging.

PETITIONER requests this permi ssion to pursue its use of UAS models including DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire , 3D Robotics IRIS+, 3D Robotics Solo, 3D Robotics X8+, and 3D Robotics X8

- M, Yuneec Typhoon H, or other similar professionally

- manufactured and widel y

- available UAS
models.

PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS both within and without the United States. PETITIONER frequently travels abroad for photographic endeavors and seeks to use UAS in accordance with all laws of foreign and domes tic governmental authorities.

PETITIONER’s use of the UAS will be done in a manner which will minimize the risk to the NAS, other persons and spectators, and property. The following procedures will assist in minimizing impact: (1) UAS will be given a pr e

- flight inspection before each flight to examine air

- worthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially altered from commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and other minor alterations, (3) UAS will not be flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flo wn within line of sight to operator(s) pursuant to Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will never exceed speeds of 50 miles per hour, (7) operator will perform a visual inspection of the NAS to locate nearby hazards before taking flight, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote control, and proper performance at a very low altitude before reaching the NAS, and (9) spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away
fr om the flight path of the UAS and its landing location. PETITIONER has had previous drone flying experience since 2014, and understands and complies with safety regulations and rules at all times.

This petition will benefit the public interest. PETITION ER wants to educate and share drone safety and handling in this quickly emerging market on PETITIONER’s online blog. Safety is paramount and incredibly important, and by sharing and educating as many new drone owners, PETITIONERwill be able to help teach how to properly go through the rules and regulations in order for others

to legally and safely fly a UAS. PETITIONER req uests to conduct aerial photography and

cine matography for real estate, corporate, wedding, and commercial use. PETITIONER requests to
use UAS to benefit first responders who might require assistance.

Please grant the requested exemption.

Ning Wong Ning Wong Studios
11/09/2010 11:56 2022675075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 16 

r^EPARTMENT OF 

•RANSPORTATION 

j^t^^^jT'T... 16616 Santa Ynaz St. • . ' ':K£T OPERATIONS 

Fountain Valley, CA 927086254 

ocot.ra7,2o,o, mm- ^ P 1Mb 

Admrnistrator J. Randolph Babbitt 

Room 1010 

Re: Support these changes to the FAA's Flight Time/Duty Time NPHM 

Dear Administrator BabDitt: 

As a US commercial pilot reviewing the FAA Notice of Propoaed Rulemaking (NPftM) on Fll^m creiy member Duty and Rest 

Requlrarrents I am pleased that the mt^rlty of the NPRM represents an improvement lo current regulations and cowers all 

commerdal operations in the spirit of "One Level of Safety," However, there are 90TTM specific Items that need lo be chansed in 

order to mitigate fatigue for the professional pilot. 

1) The flight time limit should not be increased 25% from B hours to 10 hours. 

2} The augmented (3 parson) flight time limit should not be inereaeed 25% from 12 to 15 hours, 

3) Reel requirements should be 10 hours domestic and 14 hours intemaitonal. 9 hours, reducible to S hours is not enough time 

to achieve restoratlx/e sleep, eat, and attend to personal hygiene betvveen duty periods. 

4) Domestic augmentation should not be allowed. 

As a professional commercial aviator working at high speed in congested airspaoe, and tnrougih arduous weather conditions. I 

can tell you that fatigue mitigation is paramount to Improving the safety of the travelling public. The NTSB has held fatigue on its 

"Most Wanted Ust* tor thirty years because it is a problem ttiat flight crevys deal witti an a daily basis, This FAA NPRM will go a 

long way to reducing fatigue and Increasing safety If these Items are addressed. 

Sincerely, 

Scott Biedermann
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1317

ISSAC OLUFEMI FAWEHINMI,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A71-793-111)

Submitted: July 30, 1999 Decided: September 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Diane McHugh-Martinez, LAW OFFICE OF MCHUGH-MARTINEZ, Washington,

D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney

General, David M. McConnell, Assistant Director, H. Bradford

Glassman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Isaac Olufemi Fawehinmi, a native and citizen of Nigeria,

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ opinion and order

dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. An

immigration judge ordered Fawehinmi deported in absentia after

Fawehinmi failed to appear for his deportation hearing. Fawehinmi

alleges that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing and

that the immigration judge abused his discretion by denying his

motion to reopen. Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based on substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. See In re Fawehinmi, No. A71-793-111 (B.I.A.

Feb. 12, 1999). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
No: 16-051 August 26, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Final Environmental Review for

LaSalle Nuclear Plant License Renewal in Illinois

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published its final review detailing the environmental 

impacts of renewing the operating licenses of the LaSalle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The 

supplemental environmental impact statement contains the NRC staff’s conclusion that the impacts 

would not preclude renewing the plant’s licenses for an additional 20 years.

LaSalle County Station, located 11 miles southeast of Ottawa, has two boiling-water reactors. 

The operator, Exelon Generation Co. Inc., submitted the renewal application on Dec. 9, 2014. 

The NRC’s review of the application consists of a technical safety review and the 

environmental review. The final supplemental impact statement is supplement 57 to NUREG-1437, 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. It is available on the 

NRC’s website. The NRC published a draft version of the report in February for public comment. The 

final report includes the staff’s responses to the comments.

The LaSalle license renewal application and general information about reactor license renewal

are available on the NRC website.