alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ,£8132013 

# Aw\Mo C(: 

## RA**j(}JfA-I~A**
Dave Heineman Governor

Mr. Karl Brooks Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region VII 

### 11201 Renner Blvd. Lenexa, KS 

### 66219
Dear Mr. Brooks: February 5, 

### 2013 

### STATE OF NEBRASKA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Michael J. Linder Director Suite 400, The Atrium 1200 'N' Street P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922 Phone(402)471-2186

FAX (402) 471-2909 website: www.deq.state

.ne.us

On Aprill, 

### 2012, the enclosed chapters were amended in Title 

### 129 ofthe Nebraska Administrative Code. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) is submitting these revised chapters to update Nebraska's regulatory State Implementation Plan (SIP). Statutory authorityforthe Nebraska Environmental Quality Council and the Governor of Nebraska to adoptthese rules is contained in the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, sections 

### 81-1501 to 

### 81-1532 ofthe Revised Statutes of Nebraska. The NDEQ is requesting review and approval byforthe following amended chapters ofTitle 

### 129: Chapter 1: Definitions Chapter 17: Construction Permits- When Required Chapter 

### 19: Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration ofAir Quality Chapter 27: Hazardous Air Pollutants; Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) The NDEQ requests thatthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amend Nebraska's SIP to replace current rules in the SIP with the amended rules as submitted, tothe extentthatthey are deemed approvable. NDEQ additionally requests thatthe EPA amend the Nebraska Title V Plan to includethese changes, as applicable. Enclosed are paper copies ofall documents required for determination ofplan completeness per40 CFR Part 

### 51, Appendix V. Also enclosed is a CD containing electronic files which are exact duplicates ofthe paper documents being submitted.

An Equal OpportunitJIAfjirmatiue Action Employer ". Printed with soy ink on recycled paper**~**
§ 92.75 Services in connection with income tax returns. ( a ) *Responsibility.* Officers of the Foreign Service are authorized to perform any and all notarial services which may be required in connection with the execution of Federal, state, territorial, municipal, or insular income tax returns. Officers should not give advice on the preparation of tax returns.
( b ) *Fees.* No charge under the caption “Notarial Services and Authentications” should be made for services performed in connection with the execution of tax returns for filing with the Federal or State Governments or political subdivisions thereof. When requested, see item 58(d) of the Tariff of Fees, Foreign Service of the United States of America (§ 22.1 of this chapter).
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.605 Authority.

The regulations in this subpart are issued pursuant to the authority to issue regulations granted to the Secretary by section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), and implement the functions, powers, and duties imposed on the Secretary by Executive Order 11063, 27 FR 11527, and title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3608.

[40 FR 20080, May 8, 1975]
#### § 1000.102 What are eligible affordable housing activities?

Eligible affordable housing activities are those described in section 202 of NAHASDA.
#### Ingvar Roberg et al., Partners Doing Business as R & N Construction Co., Appellants, v. Evyan, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ. [7 Misc 2d 851.]
#### § 203.332 [Reserved]
### §7235. Armed services personnel

(a) The Secretary is authorized to provide for participation of Armed Forces personnel in carrying out functions authorized to be performed, on August 4, 1977, in the Energy Research and Development Administration and under chapter 869 of title 10. Members of the Armed Forces may be detailed for service in the Department by the Secretary concerned (as such term is defined in section 101 of such title) pursuant to cooperative agreements with the Secretary.

(b) The detail of any personnel to the Department under this section shall in no way affect status, office, rank, or grade which officers or enlisted men may occupy or hold or any emolument, perquisite, right, privilege, or benefit incident to, or arising out of, such status, office, rank, or grade. A member so detailed shall not be subject to direction or control by his armed force, or any officer thereof, directly or indirectly, with respect to the responsibilities exercised in the position to which detailed.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §625, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 598; Pub. L. 95–509, title II, §210, Oct. 24, 1978, 92 Stat. 1779; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §809(n)(3)(B), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1844.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–232 substituted "chapter 869 of title 10" for "chapter 641 of title 10".

1978—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–509 struck out requirement that a detailed member be charged to the limitations applicable to the Department and prohibition of such member from being charged to any statutory or other limitation or strengths applicable to the Armed Forces.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
#### In re SAYLES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 13, 1903.)

In the matter of Whipple A. Sayles.

No opinion. Motion dismissed, with $10' costs.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN ADAMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00783-MMC

 01-cr-00251-MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

JOHNSON CLAIM RAISED IN 

SECTION 2255 MOTION

Before the court is defendant Steven Adams’s motion, filed May 20, 2016, for an 

order under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence on the ground 

that his sentence has been rendered invalid by the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson 

v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The claim appears colorable under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 and merits an answer from the government.

Unless the parties submit a stipulation and order for a shorter briefing schedule, 

the following deadlines will apply: (1) within 75 days after the motion was filed, the 

government shall file an opposition conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, showing cause why the court should not vacate, 

set aside or correct the sentence being served; (2) within 45 days after the opposition is 

filed, defendant shall file any reply. Thereafter, the matter will be deemed submitted on 

the papers, unless the court orders otherwise.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2016

__________________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00783-MMC Document 64 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 1
#### § 92.29 Oath or affirmation to affidavit.

Affidavits made before notarizing officers must be sworn to or affirmed (see § 92.23(d)).

[22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREA GORDON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DISTRICT,

Defendants.

)))))))))))

No. C08-3630 BZ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff’s counsel have failed to submit chamber’s

copies of most of their filings as required by General Order

45 and this Court’s Scheduling Order.  Plaintiff’s counsel are

ORDERED to show cause at the Pretrial hearing scheduled for

April 22, 2010 why they should not be sanctioned for their

failure.  The Court is becoming concerned about a pattern by

plaintiff’s counsel of making it more onerous for the Court to

review their papers than should be necessary.

Dated:  April 7, 2010

  Bernard Zimmerman 

  United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\GORDON\SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ   Document 107   Filed 04/07/10   Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register: October 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 206)]
[Notices]               
[Page 65702-65703]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26oc10-144]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 
Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending October 8, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart 
B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations. (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0246.
    Date Filed: October 5, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: October 26, 2010.
    Description: Application of Kuwait Airways Corporation requesting a 
foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to provide foreign 
air transportation of persons, property and mail between Kuwait and the 
United States to the full extent allowed by the Air Transport Agreement 
between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the State of Kuwait.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0254.
    Date Filed: October 8, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: October 29, 2010.
    Description: Application of Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. 
(``Swiss'') requesting issuance of an amended foreign air carrier 
permit to the full extent authorized by the Air Transport Agreement 
between the United States of America and The Swiss Confederation to 
conduct: (i) Scheduled and charter foreign air transportation of 
persons, property and mail from any point or points behind Switzerland 
via Switzerland and intermediate points to any point or points in the 
United States and beyond; (ii) all-cargo service between the United 
States and any point or points; and (iii) other foreign air 
transportation of persons, property and

[[Page 65703]]

mail pursuant to the prior approval requirements under 14 CFR part 212. 
Swiss further requests a corresponding exemption to enable it to 
provide the service described above pending issuance of the amended 
foreign air carrier permit and such additional or other relief as the 
Department may deem necessary or appropriate.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-27034 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
### §3796ll–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ll–1 was editorially reclassified as section 10532 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 1000.124 What maximum and minimum rent or homebuyer payment can a recipient charge a low-income rental tenant or homebuyer residing in housing units assisted with NAHASDA grant amounts?

A recipient can charge a low-income rental tenant or homebuyer rent or homebuyer payments not to exceed 30 percent of the adjusted income of the family. The recipient may also decide to compute its rental and homebuyer payments on any lesser percentage of adjusted income of the family. This requirement applies only to units assisted with NAHASDA grant amounts. NAHASDA does not set minimum rents or homebuyer payments; however, a recipient may do so.
### §7613. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–549, title VIII, §803, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2689

Section, act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title III, §313, formerly §306, as added Nov. 21, 1967, Pub. L. 90–148, §2, 81 Stat. 506; renumbered §313 and amended Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–604, §§12(a), 15(c)(2), 84 Stat. 1705, 1713; Aug. 7, 1977, Pub. L. 95–95, title III, §302(b), 91 Stat. 771, required annual report to Congress on progress of programs under this chapter.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30774

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AARON ALEXANDER BOUTTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:97-CR-20034-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Aaron Alexander Boutte, federal prisoner # 09562-035, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce the 324-month

sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to

distribute and distribution of crack cocaine. Boutte contends that the district

court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was error. Although he concedes that,

because he was held accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine,

his guidelines range was unaffected by the retroactive crack cocaine

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 8, 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: 09-30774 Document: 00511287336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2010
No. 09-30774

amendments, he nevertheless urges that Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), and Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), should apply in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, allowing

district courts to impose sentences lower than the two-level adjustment

contemplated by the crack cocaine amendments based on the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Boe, 117 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 1997). As Boutte concedes, because his

offense involved more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, the retroactive crack

amendment does not lower his guidelines range, and the district court did not

abuse its discretion in refusing to reduce his sentence. See § 3582(c)(2);

U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10, comment. (n.1A) and 2D1.1. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s

decision in Booker does not apply to sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2)

because such proceedings are not full resentencings. United States v. Doublin,

572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009); see also Dillon

v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-93 (2010). Boutte’s argument based on

Booker and its progeny is therefore unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-30774 Document: 00511287336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2010
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-21202 Summary Calendar

DEXTER ARTHUR JACKSON Plaintiff - Appellant

v. JOE FERNAULD, WYNNE UNIT MEDICAL STAFF, PAUL M MOORE, DOUG DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, GARY MOHR, STEPHEN MARTIN, LLOYD ASCHBERGER, JENNY ABRAHAM, WALTER ZALENSKI, III, JOANNA ALFORD, JOHN DOE, JAMES WESTMORELAND, JOHN SEALY HOSPITAL Defendants - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CV-609

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dexter Arthur Jackson, former Texas prisoner number 565215, filed the instant § 1983 suit to seek redress for, inter alia , the defendants’ alleged indifference to his serious medical needs while he was incarcerated. Jackson argues that district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because they failed to treat his broken thumb properly andNo. 03-21202 -2- promptly. Jackson’s allegations amount to no more than assertions of negligence, malpractice, and failure to provide additional treatment. These allegations are insufficient to show deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t. of Criminal Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 755 (5th Cir. 2001); Stewart v. Murphy , 174 F. 3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999); Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Jackson’s argument that the district court should not have granted summary judgment in the absence of affidavits is unavailing. Jackson has not shown that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his suit. Jackson also has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in relation to discovery. See Karaha Bodas Co., LLC. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara , 364 F.3d 274, 304-05 ( 5th Cir. 2004); King v. Dogan , 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). Jackson has not shown that he made any discovery requests that were denied, nor has he identified any particular documents that he wished to obtain through discovery. The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED.
PRIVATE LAW 106–7—OCT. 13, 2000

Private Law 106–7

106th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Kerantha Poole-Christian.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION AS A CHILD UNDER THE IMMIGRATION

AND NATIONALITY ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the administration of the Immigration

and Nationality Act, Kerantha Poole-Christian shall be classified

as a child within the meaning of section 101(b)(1)(E) of such Act,

upon approval of a petition filed on her behalf by Clifton or Linette

Christian, citizens of the United States, pursuant to section 204

of such Act.

(b) LIMITATION.—No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any,

of Kerantha Poole-Christian shall, by virtue of such relationship,

be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

Clifton Christian.

Linette

Christian.

Oct. 13, 2000

[S. 302]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 289

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Staff 

Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Ms. WATERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, 

California, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT FIRST CLASS JOHN MAR4 SHALL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in 

7 Los Angeles, California, shall be known and designated 
2

•HR 289 IH 

1 as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post 

2 Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Staff Sergeant First 

7 Class John Marshall Post Office Building.

Æ
### §300j–26. Certification of testing laboratories

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall assure that programs for the certification of testing laboratories which test drinking water supplies for lead contamination certify only those laboratories which provide reliable accurate testing. The Administrator (or the State in the case of a State to which certification authority is delegated under this subsection) shall publish and make available to the public upon request the list of laboratories certified under this subsection.1

(Pub. L. 100–572, §4, Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2889.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section."
Exhibit 35.9

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

For the period of July 11, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (“Reporting Period”)

 

Barclays Commercial Mortgage Securities LLC

MFTII 2019-B3B4 Mortgage Trust,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2019-B3B4 (the “Trust”)

 

Situs Holdings, LLC, as Special Servicer, (a “Certifying Servicer”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2019 for the Reporting Period with the applicable servicing criteria specified in Paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (the “Relevant Servicing Criteria”).

The Special Servicer has assessed its compliance with the Relevant Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Special Servicer has complied, in all material respects, with the Relevant Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole. 

As Executive Managing Director of Situs Holdings, LLC, I certify that:

A.A review of the Special Servicer’s activities during the preceding calendar year and of Special Servicer’s performance under the Trust and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and 

B.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during the Reporting Period.  

 

Date:  February 20, 2020

 

SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, 

as Special Servicer

 

By:  /s/ George Wisniewski

Name:George Wisniewski

Title:Executive Managing Director