alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1701.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1614 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Director for Administration, United States Institute of Peace, shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to Director of Administration at the following address: 1550 M Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC 20005.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate Government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 1701.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[58 FR 57697, 57699, Oct. 26, 1993, as amended at 58 FR 57697, Oct. 26, 1993]
#### § 134.25 Settlement.

The applicant and the Department of State may agree on a proposed settlement of the award before final action on the application, either in connection with a settlement of the underlying proceeding, or after the underlying proceeding has been concluded. If a prevailing party and Department of State counsel agree on a proposed settlement of an award before an application has been filed, the application shall be filed with the proposed settlement.
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

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 theQuarterly Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ted S. Smith, ChiefAccounting Officer, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 22, 2004 | By:    | /s/ TED S. SMITH          |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                          |   | Ted S. Smith              |
|                          |   | Chief Accounting  Officer |

 

----
§ 1508.905 Affiliate. Persons are *affiliates* of each other if, directly or indirectly, either one controls or has the power to control the other or a third person controls or has the power to control both. The ways we use to determine control include, but are not limited to— ( a ) Interlocking management or ownership;
( b ) Identity of interests among family members;
( c ) Shared facilities and equipment;
( d ) Common use of employees; or
( e ) A business entity which has been organized following the exclusion of a person which has the same or similar management, ownership, or principal employees as the excluded person.
#### In the Matter of Bernard Adelstein as Secretary-Treasurer of Private Sanitation Union Local 813 Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al., Respondent, v Thomas J. Manzo, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 9, 1977, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitrator’s award to the extent of modifying that award to provide that the weekly pay figure of $239 should be used to calculate back pay instead of the $259 figure found by the arbitrator and which denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously reversed, on the law, and vacated, without costs or disbursements, and the petition to confirm dismissed, the cross motion to vacate granted and the matter remanded to the arbitrator to make a final award of back pay. After determining the issues submitted, the arbitrator retained jurisdiction solely to fix the amount of back pay due the employee, after giving credit to the employer for earnings from other employment and unemployment insurance payments, in the event the parties could not agree. Though there may well be no real issue on this subject, it is manifest that the parties are not in agreement and the matter therefore must go back to the arbitrator to determine the amount of back pay due. Consequently, and by its own terms, whereby the arbitrator retained jurisdiction to determine such dispute, the award is not a final determination, but only interlocutory. (CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cl [iii].) In the absence of a final award, there is no authority for judicial intervention and the petition for confirmation must be dismissed. (Cf. *Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil,*43 NY2d 276.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Appellee, v. Sean FABIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4438-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 19, 2007.

*740John M. Conroy, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Gregory L. Waples, on the brief), for Thomas D. Anderson, U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington VT, For Appellee.

Mark A. Kaplan, Jarvis and Kaplan, Burlington, VT, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Hon. guido CALABRESI and Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Sean Fabian appeals the district court’s judgment convicting him, pursuant to his guilty plea, of the distribution of more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). *United States v. Sean Fabian,*No. 04-CR-71-01 (D.Vt. Oct. 2, 2006). The court sentenced Fabian to a term of imprisonment of 168 months for the cocaine conviction, 120 months’ imprisonment for the firearms conviction to be served concurrently, and eight years’ supervised release. *Id.*We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Fabian contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court should have imposed a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment given “the unjustifiable disparity created by the longer sentences [] that are recommended for sentences involving crack cocaine, compared to those recommended for offenses involving powder cocaine,” and based upon consideration of his individualized offender characteristics. We review a district *741court’s sentencing decisions for reasonableness *de novo, see United States v. Fernandez,*443 F.3d 19, 26-27 (2d Cir.2006), evaluating whether the court “(1) treat[ed] the Guidelines as advisory, (2) ealculate[d] the Guidelines range based on its factual findings, and (3) considered] the section 3553(a) factors,” *United States v. Trupin,*475 F.3d 71, 74 (2d Cir.2007).

We affirm the thoughtful judgment of the district court. The court properly considered Fabian’s argument concerning the disparity in sentences recommended for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, in light of our holding in *United States v. Castillo,*460 F.3d 337, 354 (2d Cir.2006). After reducing Fabian’s criminal history category and thereby lowering the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range from 235-293 months’ imprisonment to 168-210 months’ imprisonment, the court carefully evaluated the entire record of Fabian’s individual offender characteristics and the totality of the circumstances to set his sentence at the floor of the Guidelines range. The court reasonably concluded that Fabian’s sentence “strikes the correct balance in this situation,” and we agree.

We have reviewed all of Fabian’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50504

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MEDEROS-UGARTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 1:10-CR-34-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Jose Mederos-Ugarte, an illegal alien, appeals the sentence imposed on his

conviction of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission following removal. He argues that his twenty-four-month term

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 29, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50504 Document: 00511334770 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2010
No. 10-50504

of imprisonment, which exceeds his advisory sentencing range, is substantively

unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that the court failed adequately to take into account his family circumstances and the benign nature of his offense.

The district court imposed the above-guideline sentence pursuant to

§ 3553(a). This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, including those based on variances, “under an abuse-of-discretion standard . . .

tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th

Cir. 2008).

The district court noted that Mederos-Ugarte had twenty-one criminal history points, three convictions that did not count against him, a continuous criminal record, at least ten aliases, at least four birth dates, and four warrants

against him. It found that he was a danger to the public. Although MederosUgarte presented mitigating arguments, the court concluded that they did not

outweigh the fact that the guideline range did not adequately account for his

criminal history or the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, to afford deterrence, and to protect the public.

The sentence does not unreasonably fail to reflect the § 3553(a) factors.

See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Mederos-Ugarte

seeks to have us reweigh those factors, which we will not do. See Gall, 552 U.S.

at 51. The sentence does not exceed the statutory-maximum sentence that could

have been imposed for a § 1326 offense, and the extent of the variance is not unreasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir.

2008). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S.

at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50504 Document: 00511334770 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2010
Case 3:08-cv-00200-CRB Document 22 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-00200-CRB Document 22 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALBERT RAMIREZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 1

- 00 2 98

- C R

Appeal from the

171 st District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20090D03210 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until May 11 , 2014

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Gandara , the Appellant ’ s attorney, prepare

the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 11

, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 6 th day of April , 20 1 4

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez , JJ.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 5, 2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00636

- CV

ALANDUS WEAVER AND J OYCE WEAVER , Appellant s

V.

SIGNAD OUTDOOR AND S IGNAD LTD. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 07334

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 10 , 201 2 . The clerk’s record

was filed August 27, 2012. No reporter’s record was filed

. No brief was filed.

On January 8 , 201 3

, this court issued an order stating that unless appellant s

submitted a brief, together with a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was

late, on or before February 7, 2013 , the court would dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).2

Appellant s filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown

, and Busby

.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIn-Space Robotic Assembly Joint Characterization ApproachThis paper describes the test systems and approaches developed to characterize the performance of a structural joint that is intended for robotic in-space assembly (ISA). The design of the joint is based on a heritage concept from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) originally intended for structural assembly by astronauts during extravehicular activity (EVA). Its design was modified under a public-private partnership and is intended to accelerate the availability of, and reduce costs for the infusion of NASA developed technologies into commercial ISA systems. Test systems were developed to measure the axial, bending, and torsional stiffness of the joint at a wide range of temperatures. A test system was also developed to measure the reliability of the joint in terms of translation and rotation when disassembled and re-assembled in space. These test systems were used to characterize the joint behavior and provide performance data for the iterative joint design process. The paper also lists the lessons learned to aid testing of next generation robotic in-space assembly joints.Document ID20190026498Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsAbraham, Nijo A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Bird, Richard K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Doggett, William R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Roach, Timothy S.*(Sciences and Technology Corp. Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 19, 2019Publication DateMay 1, 2019Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringCybernetics, Artificial Intelligence And RoboticsReport/Patent NumberL-21024NASA/TM–2019–220281NF1676L-33123Funding Number(s)WBS: 216894.04.01.07.06Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20190026498.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
----

----

| INDIANA                                                           |   | 1-7160                                                    |   | 35-1101097               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| (State or other      jurisdiction                                 |   | (Commission File      Number)                             |   | (I.R.S.      Employer    |
| of incorporation or      organization)                            |   |                                                      |   | Identification      No.) |
|                                                              |   |                                                      |   |                     |
| 423 North Main      Street, Middlebury, Indiana                   |   |                                                      |   | 46540                    |
| (Address of      Prinicpal Executive Offices)                     |   |                                                      |   | (Zip  Code)              |
|                                                              |   |                                                      |   |                     |
|                                                              |   | (574)    825-5821                                         |   |                     |
|                                                              |   | (Registrant's      telephone number, including area code) |   |                     |
|                                                              |   |                                                      |   |                     |
|                                                              |   | N/A                                                       |   |                     |
| (Former Name or      Former Address, if Changed Since LastReport) |

| □ | Written      communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR      230.425)                  |
|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| □ | Soliciting      material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR      240.14a-12)                 |
| □ | Pre-commencement      communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR      240.14d-2(b)) |
| □ | Pre-commencement      communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR      240.13e-4(c)) |

----

----

| Date: July 23,      2008  |   | By:  |  /s/ Thomas P.      Gehl        |
|--------------------------------|--------|-----------|--------------------------------------|
|                           |   |      | Thomas P. Gehl,      Secretary  |
|                           |   |      | Printed Name and      Title          |

----

----
#### § 11.30 Mid-level Foreign Service Officer career candidate appointments. [Reserved]
### §290cc–31. Failure to comply with agreements

#### (a) Repayment of payments

(1) The Secretary may, subject to subsection (c), require a State to repay any payments received by the State under section 290cc–21 of this title that the Secretary determines were not expended by the State in accordance with the agreements required to be contained in the application submitted by the State pursuant to section 290cc–29 of this title.

(2) If a State fails to make a repayment required in paragraph (1), the Secretary may offset the amount of the repayment against the amount of any payment due to be paid to the State under section 290cc–21 of this title.

#### (b) Withholding of payments

(1) The Secretary may, subject to subsection (c), withhold payments due under section 290cc–21 of this title if the Secretary determines that the State involved is not expending amounts received under such section in accordance with the agreements required to be contained in the application submitted by the State pursuant to section 290cc–29 of this title.

(2) The Secretary shall cease withholding payments from a State under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that there are reasonable assurances that the State will expend amounts received under section 290cc–21 of this title in accordance with the agreements referred to in such paragraph.

(3) The Secretary may not withhold funds under paragraph (1) from a State for a minor failure to comply with the agreements referred to in such paragraph.

#### (c) Opportunity for hearing

Before requiring repayment of payments under subsection (a)(1), or withholding payments under subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall provide to the State an opportunity for a hearing.

#### (d) Rule of construction

Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a State receiving payments under section 290cc–21 of this title may not, with respect to any agreements required to be contained in the application submitted under section 290cc–29 of this title, be considered to be in violation of any such agreements by reason of the fact that the State, in the regular course of providing services under section 290cc–22(b) of this title to eligible homeless individuals, incidentally provides services to homeless individuals who are not eligible homeless individuals.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §531, as added Pub. L. 100–77, title VI, §611(3), July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 521; amended Pub. L. 101–645, title V, §511, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4731.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–645 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to failure to comply with agreements for provision relating to technical assistance.
Case 3:08-cv-00854-TEH Document 139 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

08/23

Case 3:08-cv-00854-TEH Document 139 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2