alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

209) ll-E-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:16 PM Sheet 209 of 250 
P.2 

R-90-37 

H- E-5 

OMB BRIEFING 

NEW SOURCE REVIEW PART C/D PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

September 28, 1994 

I. PROPOSED RULE CHANGES 

• Direct Reponse to 1990 Amendments to Clean Air Act 

• Part D Nonattainment Rules 

40 CFR 51.165 for State Plans 

New 40 CFR 52.10 for Federal Program Replacing 

Part 51, Appendix S 

Revise 40 CFR 52.24 Provisions for Construction 

Bans 

• Part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Rules 

40 CFR 51.166 for State Plans 

40 CFR 52.21 for Federal Program 

t

 xS0*%i 

II. PART D NONATTAINMENT REGULATIONS \.f\jS-^0

0-^ U\}\\ 

Basic Requirements \m-- • ._^« ., 

Reasonable Further Progress \ . ^P^J-*^" 

Emissions Offsets 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

Analysis of Alternatives/Environmental Justice 

Concerns 

Statewide Source Compliance 

Assurance of Adequate Plan Implementation 
P.3 

Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

Area Classifications 

Major Stationary Source 

Emissions Offset Ratios 

Major Modifications 

N 0X Provisions 

Use of Shutdown Credits 

Provisions for Ozone Transport Regions 

Portions of OTR Designated Attainment 

Portions of OTR Classified as Marginal, Moderate, 

and Nonclassifiable 

Provisions for CO Nonattainment Areas 

Moderate Areas 

Serious Areas 

Provisions for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas 

Moderate Areas 

Serious Areas 

PM-10 Precursors 

Provisions for S02, N0X, and Lead Nonattainment Areas 
P.4 

V 

Additional General Requirements For Nonattainment Areas 

Outer Continental Shelf Sources 

Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 

Marine Vessels 

Fugitive Emissions Exclusion 

Transition Issues and Nonattainment NSR FIP 

NSR SIP Revisions Due 

Areas Redesignated to Nonattainment 

Additional Transition Guidance 

Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling 

Statutory Restrictions For New Sources 

NSR Tribal Implementation Plans 
P.5 

> . 

III. PART C PSD REGULATIONS 

Continuing PSD Requirements 

• Regulation of Statospheric Ozone-Depleting Substances 

Under PSD 

• Class I Area Boundary Changes 

• Exemption for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

• General NSR Provisions 

N 0X Impacts on Ozone Nonattainment 

Outer Continental Shelf Sources 

Enhanced Monitoring 

Control Technology Information 

Operating Permits 

Fugitive Emissions Exclusion 

• Changes to Definitions 

Stationary Source 

Municipal Incinerators 

Best Available Control Technology 

• Analysis of Alternatives/Environmental Justice Concerns 

• NSR Tribal Implementation Plans
BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL. @ METERS
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 1 METER CONTOURS
DATUM IS MEAN LOWER LOW WATER

Miro sy

COPY
SUBJECT 72 REVIEW /REVISION

CAPE ARAGO, OREG.

uo telwuy ade |
VaALd

200 /he:)
### §741. Disposition of documents stored at Capitol

The Secretary and Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and the Clerk and Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives, at the convening in regular session of each successive Congress shall cause an invoice to be made of public documents stored in and about the Capitol, other than those belonging to the quota of Members of Congress, to the Library of Congress and the Senate and House libraries and document rooms. The superintendents of the Senate Service Department and House of Representatives Publications Distribution Service shall put the documents to the credit of Senators and Representatives in quantities equal in the number of volumes and as nearly as possible in value, to each Member of Congress, and the documents shall be distributed upon the orders of Senators and Representatives, each of whom shall be supplied by the superintendents of the Senate Service Department and House of Representatives Publications Distribution Service with a list of the number and character of the publications thus put to his credit, but before apportionment is made copies of any of these documents desired for the use of a committee of either House shall be delivered to the chairman of the committee.

Four copies of leather-bound documents shall be reserved and carefully stored, to be used in supplying deficiencies in the Senate and House libraries caused by wear or loss.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1255.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §167 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §63, 28 Stat. 611; July 2, 1954, ch. 455, title I, §101, 68 Stat. 397).

"Senate Service Department and House Folding Room" was substituted for "Senate and House folding rooms," and "superintendents of the Senate Service Department and House Folding Room" was substituted for "superintendents of the folding rooms" in view of act July 2, 1954, which redesignated the Senate Folding Room as the Senate Service Department.

Act July 2, 1954, provided in part that "hereafter" the Senate Folding Room should be known as the Senate Service Department.

"House of Representatives Publications Distribution Service" is substituted for "House Folding Room" because of the change of name under authority of Public Law 88–652.

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

#### Abolition of Office of Doorkeeper

Office of Doorkeeper of House of Representatives abolished and functions transferred generally to Sergeant-at-Arms of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Jan. 4, 1995.
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (This meeting will be a virtual meeting).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Vicktoria J. Allen,

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2020-26768 Filed 12-1-20; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### § 81.66 Submission of reports.

Each GSE shall submit all hard copy reports or other written information required under this subpart to the Secretary and the Director, Office of Government-Sponsored Enterprises. Each GSE shall submit computerized data required under this subpart to the Director, Financial Institutions Regulations, Office of Policy Development and Research. The address for both of these offices is Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW. Washington, DC 20410.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc., (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard V. Secord, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date:  February 13, 2006


/s/ Richard V. Secord
---------------------------
Richard V. Secord
Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### § 206.33 Age of borrower.

The youngest borrower shall be 62 years of age or older at the time of loan closing.
CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Inconnection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for theperiod ended December  31,  2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’) byMDwerks Inc. (the ‘‘Registrant’’), I, HowardKatz, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifythat:

|          |                                                                                                                                 |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.  | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |

|          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.  | The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions andresults of operations of Registrant. |

|                 |  |                         |  |  |  |  |
|-----------------|--|-------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| /s/ Howard Katz |
| Name:           |  | Howard Katz             |
| Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |

Dated: March22, 2006

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Uran Mining Corporation et al., Appellants.

Order for substitution of attorney entered. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with leave to renew upon proper papers explaining in full the grounds upon which the motion is made. We are unable to understand the stated ground for dismissal that the order appealed from “is clear in its wording and application ”. If the motion is renewed, a copy of the notice of appeal and a legible copy of the order appealed from should be made a part of the moving papers.
§ 903.4 What are the public housing agency plans? ( a ) *Types of plans.* There are two public housing agency plans. They are: ( 1 ) The 5-Year Plan (the 5-Year Plan) that a public housing agency (PHA) must submit to HUD once every five PHA fiscal years. The 5-Year Plan covers the five PHA fiscal years immediately following the date on which the 5-Year Plan is due to HUD; and
( 2 ) The Annual Plan (Annual Plan) that the PHA must submit to HUD for each fiscal year immediately following the date on which the Annual Plan is due to HUD and for which the PHA receives: ( i ) Section 8 assistance (tenant-based assistance (24 CFR part 982) and project-based assistance (24 CFR part 983) under Section 8(o) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)); or
( ii ) Amounts from the public housing operating fund or capital fund (under section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) (public housing)).
( b ) *Format.* HUD may prescribe the format of submission (including electronic format submission) of the plans. HUD also may prescribe the format of attachments to the plans and documents related to the plan that the PHA does not submit but may be required to make available locally. PHAs will receive appropriate notice of any prescribed format.
( c ) *Applicability.* The requirements of this subpart only apply to a PHA that receives the type of assistance described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) *Authority for waivers.* In addition to the waiver authority provided in § 5.110 of this title, the Secretary may, subject to statutory limitations, waive any provision of this title on a program-wide basis, and delegate this authority in accordance with section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)) where the Secretary determines that such waiver is necessary for the effective implementation of this part.
[65 FR 81222, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended 89 FR 38292, May 7, 2024]
### §53410. Regulations

The Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense may each prescribe rules as necessary to carry out their respective responsibilities under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. C, title XXXV, §3511(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4418.)
Exhibit 32.2




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 the Annual Report of The Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Frenkiel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/S/    Paul FrenkielDated:  February 23, 2011



Executive Vice President of Strategy,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### Karoline Eide, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ketil Eide, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 24, Brookhaven, et al., Defendants. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 24, Brookhaven, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederic P. Wiedersum, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, arising out of the alleged negligence of defendants, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, the Board of Education, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered September 14, 1959, granting, with leave to plead over, the third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the allegations of the main complaint are sufficiently inclusive to permit a recovery by plaintiff against the said defendant and third-party plaintiff based upon its passive negligence and upon the primary active negligence of the third-party defendant, both of which are sufficiently pleaded, at least in the second cause of action contained in the third-party complaint. Under such circumstances, the third-party complaint should not have been dismissed *(Weisman*v. *Hymns,*5 A D 2d 1000). Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Frederick A. O’Hara, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondent, v Alfred B. Del Bello, as County Executive of the County of Westchester, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 by a court reporter, on behalf of himself and others, *inter alia,*to direct the payment of certain travel vouchers, the appeals are (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 18, 1977, which denied appellants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 and granted judgment in favor of the petitioner directing appellants to pay all properly submitted travel vouchers which had been certified by the Presiding Justice and already filed, as well as all such claims for the ensuing period through March 31, 1977 and (2) as limited by appellants’ brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, entered August 26, 1977, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the judgment dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. The judgment was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Without giving notice to the parties of its intention to do so, Special Term in effect treated appellants’ motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and granted judgment in favor of the petitioner. This was error (see CPLR 3211, subd [c]). However, appellants moved for reargument, at which time they had a full and fair opportunity to argue the merits of the controlling question of law. Upon granting reargument, Special Term adhered to its original determination in favor of petitioners. Under these circumstances the error was cured and a reversal on procedural grounds is not required. Appellants, having moved for relief pursuant to CPLR 3211, charted their own course and cannot now be heard to complain that they were not afforded the right to serve an answer as though their motion had been made pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) (cf. *Cullen v Naples,*31 NY2d 818). We have examined the merits of the case and agree with Special Term that petitioner is entitled at this time to the payment of vouchers from the county pursuant to section 313 of the Judiciary Law. In support of its motion to dismiss the petition, the county submitted affidavits from the Director of the Administration of the Courts and the Departmental Budget Officer for the Second Judicial Department of the State of New York alleging that payment of petitioner’s vouchers was a State expense and that if submitted to the State, the latter would pay them. In view of the fact that the State of New York is not a party to this proceeding, no adjudication can be made with respect to its duty, if any, to pay these vouchers. Accordingly, the determination herein is without prejudice to the county’s right to bring an action against the State, if it be so advised, for reimbursement for any payments that it makes to petitioner. We have examined appellants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Charles Esterdahl, appellant, v. Edward Haugens, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,204.

Suit for amount due on purchase price of oats. Verdict for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall county; the Hon. John M. Niehaus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed August 13, 1923.

Rehearing denied October 2, 1923.

Henry E. Jacobs, Clarence W. Heyl and Harry C. Heyl, for appellant. Barnes, Magoon & Black, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Partlow

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Katie Pierri et al. v. Samuel J. Pierri et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before August. 14, 1962, with notice of argument for September 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. The appellant is also required to furnish the necessary and proper undertakings and security for costs if it has not been furnished heretofore. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
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

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

REMINDER TO DEFENDANTS

TO FILE REPLY RE

SECTION 301 RELIEF

On April 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed a summary of the relief that they seek as to the Section

301 injunctive relief claim. Defendants’ reply of no more than three pages was due by noon on

April 29, 2010. See Dkt. No. 637. However, no reply has yet been received. Defendants shall

file their reply no later than 5:00 P.M. TODAY.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 645 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 1
## ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of-- Lattice Government Services, Inc., fka

Ricciardi Technologies, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) Under Contract Nos. W911SR-04-D-0012 ) N66001-07-D-0084 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60759

Douglas L. Patin, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Gregory T. Allen, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract ManagementAgency Chantilly, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL On 20 September 2017, the parties submitted ajoint motion to dismiss this appeal because the dispute has been settled. The partiesjointly requested the appeal be dismissed with prejudice. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 26 September 2017

Administra ve Judge Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60759, Appeal ofLattice Government Services, Inc., fka Ricciardi Technologies, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JORGE ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-0621 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CORRECT SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO RULE 35(a)

Defendant Jorge Armando Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. 

He now moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) to correct an alleged error

in his sentence.

Rule 35(a) provides that within 14 days after sentencing, the Court may correct a

sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. Defendant Rodriguez

was sentenced on November 17, 2009. His Rule 35(a) motion is therefore untimely.

Moreover, he fails to identify any error in the calculation of his sentence. In his motion,

he asserts that the calculation of credited jail time contained an error based on his incorrect

assertion that he was released from state custody into federal custody on May 22, 2009. In fact,

he committed his offense on May 22 but was not turned over to federal custody until June 5, 

Case 3:09-cr-00621-WHA Document 24 Filed 04/19/10 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

2

2009 (Rodriguez Decl. Exh B).

For these reasons, his motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00621-WHA Document 24 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 905.700 Other security interests. ( a ) The PHA may not pledge, mortgage, enter into a transaction that provides recourse to public housing assets, or otherwise grant a security interest in any public housing project, portion thereof, or other property of the PHA without the written approval of HUD.
( b ) The PHA shall submit the request in the form and manner prescribed by HUD.
( c ) HUD shall consider: ( 1 ) The ability of the PHA to complete the financing, the improvements, and repay the financing;
( 2 ) The reasonableness of the provisions in the proposal; or
( 3 ) Any other factors HUD deems appropriate.