alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 506.5 Review and evaluation.

The part-time career employment program will be reviewed through semiannual reports submitted by the Director, Office of Personnel to the Associate Director for Management. Regular employment reports will be used to determine levels of part-time employment.

[44 FR 63098, Nov. 2, 1979, as amended at 51 FR 11016, Apr. 1, 1986]
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-50847; File No. SR-PCX-2002-57] 

                    On August 9, 2002, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),[1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          to adopt new rules relating to the creation of an order audit trail system called Electronic Order Capture System (“EOC”). On July 28, 2003, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On July 30, 2003, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. On August 7, 2003, the proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the                     **Federal Register**                     to solicit comment for interest persons.[3]                                          No comments were received. Subsequently, on October 9, 2003 and October 14, 2003, the Exchange submitted Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 to the proposed rule change.                

On December 14, 2004, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change and all amendments thereto.

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.[4] 

J. Lynn Taylor,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48264 (July 31, 2003), 68 FR 47124.                    
        Back to Citation      

4.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 04-27936  Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,C.W. MacLeod, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:     November 10,  2008 |            /s/  C.W. MacLeod                                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                  C.W.  MacLeod                   |
|                                                        |                  Acting  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Honora ble John Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 1 District o f Arkansas, to whom the parties consented to submit the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2139

_____________ Juanita Stocker, on behalf of Brian * Stocker, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED] Social Security Administration, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: December 9, 1997 Filed: December 19, 1997

_____________ Before BOWMAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals the judgment of the District Court aff irming the decision of the 1 Commissioner denying appellant's claim on behalf of her son ( now nearly 21 but a minor when the claim was filed) for Supplemental Se curity Income disability benefits. Having considered appellant's arguments for reversal, we conclude that the-2-

Administrative Law Judge made no error of law and that the administrative decision-3-

denying the claim for disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence in th e record as whole. Because the case raises no novel issues and an opinion by this Court thus would lack precedential value, we forego further discussion. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 the Treasury

###### United States Mint

# ACTION:

Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee 2005 Public Meetings.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 108-15, Sec. 103, the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) meetings for the calendar year 2005. These meetings are open to the public. The purpose of these meetings is to advise the Secretary of the Treasury on designs pertaining to the coinage of the United States and for other purposes.

January 25, 2005—Washington, DC

March 15, 2005—Washington, DC

May 24, 2005—Washington, DC

July 28, 2005—San Jose, CA

September 27, 2005—Washington, DC

November 15, 2005—Washington, DC

                        The meeting times and locations will be announced at least 2 weeks prior to each meeting.                         *Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for the latest update on meeting time and location.*

Public Law 108-15 established the CCAC to:
      - Advise the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, congressional gold medals, and national and other medals.
      - Advise the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
      - Make recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madelyn Simmons Marchessault; United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220, or call 202-354-6669.

Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6830.

Authority:Public Law 108-15 (April 23, 2003)

Dated: December 20, 2004.

Henrietta Holsman Fore,

Director, United States Mint.

[FR Doc. 04-28140 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
#### Northern Blvd. & 80th Street Corp. et al. v. Sydney M. Siegel.

Motion for a stay granted on the terms and conditions contained in the order to show cause, dated May 29, 1962. Concur—-Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76687-76688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27925]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Public Meeting of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board 
Date Charge

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting date change.

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

SUMMARY: The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) has 
changed its January meeting date to Monday, January 10, 2005 to ensure 
a quorum is present. The agenda includes member consideration of the 
Black Hills National Forest 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan 
(LRMP) Phase II Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement so as to 
make recommendations to the forest supervisor. The meeting is open, and 
the public may attend any part of the meeting.

ADDRESSES: SDSU West River Ag Center, 1905 Plaza Boulevard, Rapid City, 
SD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Carroll, Black Hills National 
Forest, 25041 North Highway 16, Custer, SD 57730, (605) 673-9200.


[[Page 76688]]


    Dated: December 13, 2004.
Brad Exton,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-27925 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### § 211.13 Participation by religious organizations.

The funds provided under this part shall be administered in compliance with the standards set forth in part 205, Participation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programs, of this chapter.

[69 FR 61724, Oct. 20, 2004]
#### § 905.3 Separation for cause.

In separation for cause cases, the agency has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed separation is for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.

[50 FR 31356, Aug. 2, 1985]
#### ASCHENBACH v. KEENE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

L Negligence—Overflow op Water—Prima Facie Case—Evidence.

■ Defendants sublet a portion of a loft from B., who remained in possession of the remainder; and a faucet in the loft, while physically within the boundaries of the portion occupied by defendants, was used both by defendants’ employés and those of B., who had access thereto. *Held,*that the mere happening of an overflow from such faucet under such circumstances was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence against defendants.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Landlord and Tenant, § 665.]

2. Same—Evidence—Opinion.

In an action for damages caused by the overflow of a faucet, a remark made by defendants’ manager, that one of the girls must have left the faucet open, was a mere expression of opinion, resting on no actual knowledge of any fact to sustain it, and was therefore not admissible as an admission.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District.

Action by Henry Aschenbach against Alfred A. Keene and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

David C. Myers, for appellants.

Arthur L. Fullman, for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

If the evidence had shown that the defendants had sole access to the water faucet, the mere happening of the overflow would have been sufficient to establish their responsibility prima facie. The uncontradicted evidence, however, was to the effect that defendants sublet a portion of the loft from a man named Buckley, who remained in possession of the remainder of the same loft, and that, while the faucet was physically within the boundaries of that portion of the loft occupied by defendants, yet that both defendants’ employés and those of Buckley had access to the closet in which the faucet was, and that, in point of fact, both sets of employés used the closet and faucet. Under these circumstances, there was no presumption that the loss was occasioned by the negligence of defendants’ servants, for it might equally have been occasioned by the negligence of one of Buckley’s servants. The case, on the facts, is not to be distinguished from Moore v. Goedel, 34 N. Y. 527, which has frequently *765been followed in similar cases. Harris v. Perry, 89 N. Y. 308; Wiley v. Bondy, 23 Misc. Rep. 658, 52 N. Y. Supp. *68;*Spencer v. McManus, 82 Hun, 318, 31 N. Y. Supp. 185.

The remark of defendants’ manager (if she ever made it) that one of the girls must have left the faucet open, cannot be treated as an admission of a fact, for it clearly appears to have been merely the expression of an opinion, resting upon no actual knowledge of any fact to sustain it. The plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof, and the complaint should have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed and new trial .ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.
Seminoe
Reservoir

Medicine Bow

a

CARBON

SWEETWATER

©
&
C
ES

ME West Ferris Mountains 0 10 20 40 60 80 100
Adobe Town Fringe Kilometers
=e 0 5 10 20 30 40 50
SS Wilderness Study Areas
Miles

Map 2-45

Areas with
Wilderness Characteristics

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
#### Joe Kenler et al., Respondents, v Murray S. Weissbach, Defendant, and Booth Memorial Hospital, Appellant.

In a medical malpractice action, the defendant hospital appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 28, 1977, as (1) granted, to a stated extent, plaintiffs’ motion to vacate appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars and (2) denied appellant’s cross motion for a protective order with respect to plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars relating to affirmative defenses pleaded in its answer. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision that appellant’s motion for a protective order is denied in its entirety and by substituting therefor provisions that the cross motion is granted to the extent of striking paragraph "second” of plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars and that the cross motion is otherwise denied. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without *977costs or disbursements. The respective demands for bills of particulars in this case sought irrelevant matter and directed the production of evidentiary materials, as opposed to a "General statement of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed” (see CPLR 3043, subd [a], par [3]). A bill of particulars is not intended to be of aid to a party in obtaining evidentiary material. Its purpose is to amplify the pleadings, limit proof and prevent surprise at trial *(Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp.,*45 AD2d 856; cf. *Nelson v New York Univ. Med. Center,*51 AD2d 352). We note that plaintiffs have not cross-appealed. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.
#### § 1.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part 1 is to effectuate the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter referred to as the *Act*) to the end that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
### §5165a. Minimum standards for public and private structures

#### (a) In general

As a condition of receipt of a disaster loan or grant under this chapter—

(1) the recipient shall carry out any repair or construction to be financed with the loan or grant in accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes, specifications, and standards; and

(2) the President may require safe land use and construction practices, after adequate consultation with appropriate State and local government officials.

#### (b) Evidence of compliance

A recipient of a disaster loan or grant under this chapter shall provide such evidence of compliance with this section as the President may require by regulation.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title III, §323, as added Pub. L. 106–390, title I, §104(a), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1559.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.
Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF POLICY

M EMORANDUM SUBJECT: Transmittal to Docket: Summary o f t he March 1 7 , 2011, Public Meeting via

Webinar in Seattle, Washington, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s Implementation of Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review FROM: Stuart C. Miles - McLean

Office of Regulatory Policy and Management TO: Public Docket #EPA - HQ - OA - 2011 - 0156: Im p roving Regulations: General As called for b y President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering "how best to promote retrospective analy sis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify , streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned." As part of its retrospective re view of regulatio ns, EPA convened public meetings around the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodicall y review our regulations. T his Memo transmits to the docket a summary of the public meeting held via webinar on March 1 7 , 2011, in Seattle, Washington
.
AO 245B (Rev. 6/05 - Judgment in a Criminal Case

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ZACHARY MORENO

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

USDC Case Number: CR-09-01034-001 SI

BOP Case Number: DCAN309CR001034-001 

USM Number: 

Defendant’s Attorney : 

THE DEFENDANT:

[x] pleaded guilty to count(s): Two of the Information .

[ ] pleaded nolo contendere to count(s) which was accepted by the court.

[ ] was found guilty on count(s) after a plea of not guilty.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these offense(s):

Title & Section Nature of Offense

Offense

Ended Count

36 CFR:2.32(a)(1) Interfering with Agency Functions 9/09 2

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

[ ] The defendant has been found not guilty on count(s) .

[X ] Count 1 is dismissed on the motion of the United States.

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name,

residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. If ordered

to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of any material changes in economic circumstances.

March 5, 2010

Date of Imposition of Judgment

Signature of Judicial Officer

Honorable Susan Illston, U. S. District Judge

Name & Title of Judicial Officer

3/10/10

Date

Case 3:09-cr-01034-SI Document 32 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 2
AO 245B (Rev. 12/03) (CAND Rev. 3/07) Judgment in a Criminal Case Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

DEFENDANT: ZACHARY MORENO Judgment - Page 2 of 2 

CASE NUMBER: CR-09-01034-001 SI

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be

imprisoned for a total term of TIME SERVED .

NO TERM OF SUPERVISION TO FOLLOW.

[ ] The Court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

[ ] The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal. The appearance bond is hereby

exonerated.

[ ] The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district.

[ ] at [] am [] pm on .

[ ] as notified by the United States Marshal.

The appearance bond shall be deemed exonerated upon the surrender of the defendant.

[ ] The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of

Prisons:

[ ] before 2:00 pm on .

[ ] as notified by the United States Marshal.

[ ] as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

The appearance bond shall be deemed exonerated upon the surrender of the defendant.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on to 

at , with a certified copy of this judgment.

 

UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By 

Deputy United States Marshal 

Case 3:09-cr-01034-SI Document 32 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2
· -~~Us_E!-N_cLa-/1JA~:U~------------.:__ 

~. I~'S'AI 7 '1/'· . L/Lr1_, __ L23_L 1~-.,--__:__---,-_,____--:---------,-----~--"--

. . _2C~)Sfk'J-. {)~~: ziv!-L---~--------_.,­ . · _/LtJo · Ph1 ~56. - · · _ .. 

~asi~a~2~~22~~~.-~-------~-~ 

·_ ~c~~~;-.-·--------~--~~--~--~~--~~ 

. ~~c,e~~~ . .4#aA:_I- G!.l&i:_ ____________ _ 

JP_ 6 . /!; o '/ /;;._3 o g - , . {R·· _ , 

~k.L;"'./-t;/ SIR/o:V .. · · · ~Cf~~~ 

.• Jvsf.;; ~;~:r 7871/. · AUG 20 2015 

. . - . . ~ltD®~~p~fik·