alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 225.112 Review by Institution

Research covered by this policy that has been approved by an IRB may be subject to further appropriate review and approval or disapproval by officials of the institution. However, those officials may not approve the research if it has not been approved by an IRB.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Information Technology Industry Council, 
Inc./The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Information Technology 
Industry Council, Inc./The InterNational Committee for Information 
Technology Standards (``ITI/INCITS'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: The 
Information Technology Industry Council, Inc./The InterNational 
Committee for Information Technology Standards, Washington, DC. The 
nature and scope of ITI/INCITS' standards development activities are: 
development of standards in the field of Information and Communications 
Technologies (ICT), encompassing storage, processing, transfer, 
display, management, organization, and retrieval of information.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27545 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Searched for **https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MAVIS McBRIDE, MAVIS McBRIDE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MAVIS

McBRIDE REAL PROPERTY REVOCABLE TRUST and CHRISTOPHER

WENTWORTH VIRTUE a/k/a CHRISTOPHER VIRTUE
, Appellant s ,

v.

DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC f/k/a GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3118

[September 20, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2015

- CA

- 020812 (11)

.

Bruce K. Herman of The Herman Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Kimberly Hopkins of Shapiro, Fishman & Gach é , LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS
, C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED (Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

JackB. Buchold certifies as follows:

3.               I am the Chief Financial Officer of The BankHoldings.

4.               The Form 10-Q of The Bank Holdings for theQuarter Ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained inthe report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of The Bank Holdings.
| Date:  | August 14, 2007 |                    |   | /s/ Jack B. Buchold |   |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   |            | THE BANK HOLDINGS       |
|   |            | Jack B. Buchold         |
|   |            | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John B. Hittell, appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 27,655.

Mandamus directing the civil service commission of the city of *608Chicago and the board of local improvements to restore petitioner to the position of chief street engineer for the board. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the 'Hon. Philip L. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1922. *Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 8, 1922.

Rehearing denied November 21, 1922.

Samuel A. Ettelson, for appellants; Hervey C. Foster, of counsel. Morris Prisch, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Morrill

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Rainbow Hill Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent, v Gigante, Inc., Appellant. (Matter No. 1.) In the Matter of Rainbow Hill Homeowners Association, Inc., Respondent, v Gigante, Inc., Appellant. (Matter No. 2.)

[819 NYS2d 841]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the expiration date of the parties’ lease, and in a related summary holdover proceeding, inter alia, to evict the defendant from the subject premises, which was transferred to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, from the Civil Court, Richmond County, Gigante, Inc., appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Straniere, J.), dated June 28, 2005, which, sua sponte, inter alia, disqualified its attorney in both the action and the summary holdover proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances at bar, we conclude that the court properly, inter alia, disqualified the appellant’s attorney *(see Cardinale v Golinello,*43 NY2d 288 [1977]; *Kheel v Continental*
      *533
      *Baking Co.,*219 AD2d 846 [1995]; *Matter of Walden Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Village of Walden,*212 AD2d 718 [1995]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### § 229.120 Transfers of property.

If a recipient sells or otherwise transfers property financed in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance to a transferee that operates any education program or activity, and the Federal share of the fair market value of the property is not upon such sale or transfer properly accounted for to the Federal Government, both the transferor and the transferee shall be deemed to be recipients, subject to the provisions of §§ 229.205 through 229.235(a).
#### Ibrahim JUNDI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60430

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 27, 2007.

Pablo Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship *&*Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ibrahim Jundi, a native of Sierra Leone and a citizen of Lebanon, challenges the denial of his petition for waiver of the requirements for removal of his conditional residency status and the denial of his request for cancellation of removal.

Following his marriage to a U.S. citizen, Jundi was granted permanent resident status on a conditional basis; after his divorce, Jundi sought a waiver of the requirements for removal of his conditional status. Relief under the waiver provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) is discretionary. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of discretionary decisions of the Attorney General. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); *see also Assaad v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir.2004).

Jundi also argues that he was denied due process because the immigration judge announced his conclusion on the waiver issue before Jundi’s counsel was allowed to conduct a direct examination of Jundi. This court does have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims. § 1252(a)(2)(D). However, as the waiver Jundi sought was purely discretionary, he was not deprived of any liberty interest and thus no due process right attached. *See Assaad,*378 *313F.3d at 475; *Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan,*461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir.2006).

Jundi also challenges the denial of his request for cancellation of removal. The finding that Jundi had not established that his U.S. citizen children would face hardship if he were removed involved the exercise of discretion; therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the determination. *Rueda v. Ashcroft,*380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.2004); *see also*§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 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.
### §3058ee. Audits

#### (a) Access

The Assistant Secretary, the Comptroller General of the United States, and any duly authorized representative of the Assistant Secretary or the Comptroller shall have access, for the purpose of conducting an audit or examination, to any books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to financial assistance received under this subchapter.

#### (b) Limitation

State agencies and area agencies on aging shall not request information or data from providers that is not pertinent to services furnished under this subchapter or to a payment made for the services.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VII, §764, as added Pub. L. 102–375, title VII, §707, Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1291; amended Pub. L. 103–171, §3(a)(13), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1990; Pub. L. 106–501, title VIII, §801(e)(6), Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2293.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–501 substituted "and area agencies on aging" for ", area agencies on aging, and entities described in section 3058aa(c) of this title".

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–171 substituted "Assistant Secretary" for "Commissioner" in two places.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section inapplicable with respect to fiscal year 1993, see section 4(b) of Pub. L. 103–171, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.

Section inapplicable with respect to fiscal year 1992, see section 905(b)(6) of Pub. L. 102–375, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.
From: Dennis Murr [mailto:DMurr@barr.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:51 PM

To: Wickman, Trent R -FS

Subject: Pelletizing Furnaces - General (1)

Trent,

I will be sending this in a series of emails just in case the documents get to big for transfer.

The pelletizing furnaces have involved into basic two kinds (the Grate/Kiln and the Straight Grate). The

facilities that have these are for Minnesota and Michigan are:

1. Northshore Mining

– Silver Bay, MN

– Straight Grate (old design

– no hearth layer)

2. Minorca

– Virginia, MN

– Straight Grate (with combustion chambers)

3. United Taconite

– Eveleth, MN

– Grate/Kiln

4. Minntac

– Mt. Iron, MN

– Grate/Kiln

5. Hibbing Tac

– Hibbing, MN

– Straight Grate (with combustion chambers)

6. KeeTac

– Keewatin, MN

– Grate/Kiln

7. In Construction

‐ Essar Steel Minnesota

– Nashwauk, MN

– Straight Grate (with multiple

burners)

8. Tilden

– Michigan

– Grate/Kiln

9. Empire

– Michigan

– Grate/Kiln

Attached is a independent white paper we did for Essar Steel Minnesota for deciding on what kind of

pelletizing furnace they should pick for their facility in Nashwauk. This white paper was done in 2007 and

it favors a Straight Grate design)

Attached is a paper done by the DNR on NOx emission you may find interesting. Check out the

references at the end of the paper for more information if you want to search for.

Dennis Murr

BS Metallurgical Engineering

Hibbing office: 218.262.8627

cell: 763.213.9698

dmurr @ barr

. com

www

. barr

. com

Comparison of Pelletizing Machines.pd f Comparison Pelletizing Machines.pd NOX Emissions

- Pelletizing.pd f Emissions Pelletizing.pd
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER SETTING HEARING

RE DEFENDANT’S

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

A further meet-and-confer is SET for THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2010, FROM

8:00–10:00 A.M., in connection with defendant’s discovery dispute outlined in counsel’s

letter of January 4. This will take place in the Court’s jury room on the 19th floor. At 10:00 a.m.,

the Court will hold a hearing in Courtroom 9. Plaintiff’s response is due by noon on January 6. 

Counsel are reminded that only those who participate in the further meet-and-confer may

argue at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02878-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Esthela AGUILAR-LARA, also known as Esthela Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40840

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Esthela Aguilar-Lara has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Aguilar-Lara has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCOVERY ORDER—No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 7/21/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MANDANA D. FARHANG and M.A.

MOBILE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

KHARAGPUR; TECHNOLOGY

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TRAINING

SOCIETY; PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI;

PALLAB DASGUPTA; GURASHISH S.

BRAR; RAKESH GUPTA; PRAVANJAN

CHOUDHURY; SUBRAT PANDA;

ANIMESH NASKAR,

Defendants.

No. C-08-02658 RMW

DISCOVERY ORDER

[Re Docket No. 168]

Plaintiffs request an order scheduling a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference and

allowing discovery to proceed. The court finds that the issues regarding the protective order and the

trade secret disclosure list should be addressed prior to commencing further discovery. Plaintiffs are

to either obtain a stipulation for a finalized protective order or file a motion with the magistrate

judge to finalize a protective order. If defendant Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur ("IIT")

feels that the trade secret disclosure list is not sufficiently specific, it must file a motion to compel a

more specific trade secret disclosure list with the magistrate judge. The court expects that these

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 177 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCOVERY ORDER—No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 2

matters will be resolved forthwith. Within ten days after these matters have been resolved, the

parties are to meet and confer regarding discovery and to submit either a joint discovery plan or, if

the parties are unable to reach agreement, each party's proposed discovery plan. 

The motion for an order scheduling a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference and

allowing discovery to proceed is otherwise denied without prejudice.

DATED: 7/21/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 177 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 2
### §300ee–33. Provision of information to underserved populations

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may make grants to public entities, to migrant health centers (as defined in section 254b(a) 1 of this title), to community health centers (as defined in section 254c(a) 1 of this title), and to nonprofit private entities concerned with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, for the purpose of assisting grantees in providing services to populations of individuals that are underserved with respect to programs providing information on the prevention of exposure to, and the transmission of, the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

#### (b) Preferences in making grants

In making grants under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to any applicant for such a grant that has the ability to disseminate rapidly the information described in subsection (a) (including any national organization with such ability).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXV, formerly title XV, §2523, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §221, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3103; renumbered title XXV, Pub. L. 101–93, §5(e)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 612.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 254b and 254c of this title, referred to in subsec. (a), were in the original references to sections 329 and 330, meaning sections 329 and 330 of act July 1, 1944, which were omitted in the general amendment of subpart I (§254b et seq.) of part D of subchapter II of this chapter by Pub. L. 104–299, §2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3626. Sections 2 and 3(a) of Pub. L. 104–299 enacted new sections 330 and 330A of act July 1, 1944, which are classified, respectively, to sections 254b and 254c of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Reference to Community, Migrant, Public Housing, or Homeless Health Center Considered Reference to Health Center

Reference to community health center, migrant health center, public housing health center, or homeless health center considered reference to health center, see section 4(c) of Pub. L. 104–299, set out as a note under section 254b of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 4899] 

The Shipping Coordinating Committee will conduct an open meeting between 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 in Room 6319, at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 49th Session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Subcommittee on Fire Protection to be held at the IMO Headquarters in London, England from January 24-28, 2005. 

The primary matters to be considered include:

—Large passenger ship safety. 

—Performance testing and approval standards for fire safety systems. 

—Review of the 2000 HSC Code and amendments to the DSC Code and the 1994 HSC Code. 

—Amendments to Res.A.653 (16) relating to the preparation of specimens of sealants and mastics. 

—Amendments to resolution A.754 (18) relating to performance criteria for fire doors. 

—Review of the fire protection provisions of the LHNS guidelines. 

—Performance standards for evacuation guidance systems. 

—Recommendations on evacuation analysis for new and existing passenger ships. 

—Analysis of fire records. 

—Development of provisions for gas fuelled ships. 

—Consideration of IACS unified interpretations. 

                    Members of the public may attend these meetings up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Chief, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Commandant (G-MSE-4), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, by calling: Mr. R. Eberly at (202) 267-1861, or by visiting the following World Wide Web site:                     *http://www.uscg.mil/​hq/​g-m/​mse4/​stdimofp.htm*.                 

      ( print page 76028)    
Dated: December 14, 2004. 

Clayton L. Diamond, 

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee. 

[FR Doc. 04-27807 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
#### In re BAILEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of Elizabeth R. Bailey for a refund of taxes. No opinion. Order of the County Court of Suffolk county modified, by reducing the costs to the sum of $10, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
#### § 1203.735-101 Purpose.

The maintenance of the highest standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality, and conduct by Government employees and special Government employees is essential to assure the proper performance of the Government business and the maintenance of confidence by citizens in their Government. The avoidance of misconduct and conflicts of interest on the part of Government employees and special Government employees through informed judgment is indispensable to the maintenance of these standards. To accord with these concepts the regulations in this part prescribe standards of conduct and responsibilities for employees and special Government employees and require statements reporting employment and financial interests.

Note:

These regulations are codified in State 3 FAM 620, AID Handbook 24, and ICA MOA V-A 550.