alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 8.32 Accessibility standards. ( a ) Effective as of July 11, 1988, design, construction, or alteration of buildings in conformance with sections 3-8 of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of §§ 8.21, 8.22, 8.23, and 8.25 with respect to those buildings. Departures from particular technical and scoping requirements of the UFAS by the use of other methods are permitted where substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the building is provided. The alteration of housing facilities shall also be in conformance with additional scoping requirements contained in this part. Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the UFAS are directed to § 40.7 of this title.
( b ) For purposes of this section, section 4.1.6(1)(g) of UFAS shall be interpreted to exempt from the requirements of UFAS only mechanical rooms and other spaces that, because of their intended use, will not require accessibility to the public or beneficiaries or result in the employment or residence therein of individuals with physical handicaps.
( c ) This section does not require recipients to make building alterations that have little likelihood of being accomplished without removing or altering a load-bearing structural member.
( d ) For purposes of this section, section 4.1.4(11) of UFAS may not be used to waive or lower the minimum of five percent accessible units required by § 8.22(b) or to apply the minimum only to projects of 15 or more dwelling units.
( e ) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the provisions of §§ 8.21 (a) and (b), 8.22 (a) and (b), 8.23, 8.25(a) (1) and (2), and 8.29 shall apply to facilities that are designed, constructed or altered after July 11, 1988. If the design of a facility was commenced before July 11, 1988, the provisions shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the Department. For purposes of this paragraph, the date a facility is constructed or altered shall be deemed to be the date bids for the construction or alteration of the facility are solicited. For purposes of the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program, the provisions shall apply to the construction or alteration of facilities that are funded under applications submitted after July 11, 1988. If the UDAG application was submitted before July 11, 1988, the provisions shall apply, to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the Department.
[53 FR 20233, June 2, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 5203, Feb. 9, 1996]
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.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - 41 CFR 102-34
          - [Notice-MA-2020-13; Docket No. 2020-0002; Sequence No. 36]

# AGENCY:

Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).

# ACTION:

Availability of GSA Bulletin FMR B-53, Motor Vehicle Management.

# SUMMARY:

This Federal Management Regulation (FMR) bulletin recommends Federal agencies establish policies addressing Government-issued fleet charge card compliance with Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) and security risks associated with fleet charge card transactions.

# DATES:

*Applicability Date:*                         December 18, 2020.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For clarification of content, contact Mr. James Vogelsinger, Director, Vehicle Policy Division, GSA, at 202-501-1764, or email                         *vehicle.policy@gsa.gov.*                         Please cite Notice of FMR Bulletin B-53.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Background:*                     Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) prohibits contracting with entities that use certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. This bulletin makes Federal agencies aware of this prohibition and recommends that agencies establish policies that facilitate compliance when a Government-issued fleet charge card is used to acquire fuel or maintenance services for Government motor vehicles.                

This bulletin also recommends policies and practices agencies and charge card users may implement to lessen the security risks associated with fleet charge card transactions.

                    This bulletin can be viewed at                     *www.gsa.gov/​reference/​gsa-bulletins.*

Jessica Salmoiraghi,

Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.

[FR Doc. 2020-26378 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
From: Jack Kennedy 

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:37 AM

To: Richard Hardegger

Cc: Lori L. Stegink

Subject: FW: Scrubber Cost Estimate

Rich:

Per our discussion this morning; here's the info I got on 90% SO2 control scrubbers for the taconite BART 

Study.

Bottom line is that 90% is achievable in one scrubber, but it will need to be larger than standard venturi 

rod scrubber to get the contact time needed for 90% control. I'll add and adjustment to our pelletizer 

scrubber costs in the BACT report.

Jack___________________________________________ 

From: Jack Kennedy 

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:21 AM

To: Tony Shoberg; Teresa L. Kinder

Cc: Erik Boleman; Beth Havlik

Subject: Scrubber Cost Estimate

I talked to Hal Taylor, STS Consultants, and John Chitjian, Jardar Systems, regarding 90% SO2 control 

from taconite furnaces. Both worked on the scrubber replacements at Minntac and Keetac.

To achieve 90% control, assume a second scrubber is needed with an equipment cost of $3.7M per 

scrubber, including ancillary equipment. This cost is for a system rated at 500,000 acfm. It is based on 

the scrubbers (2) installed at Keetac. Use the 0.6 exponent factor to adjust for other sizes. My notes 

show Keetac at 850,000 acfm vs. scrubber design of 1,000,000 acfm. So, we should probably include 

15% extra flow capacity for the other facilities when calculating the cost. 
Additional notes:

1) Existing scrubbers do not have sufficient residence time, water flows and reagent concentrations 

needed to achieve 90% control. Hal thought 90% could be achieved with system upgrades. John was 

less optimistic about achieving 90%; so, we should add some caveats on setting permit limits as 90% 

control efficiency 

2) Per Hal at STS, it would be possible to achieve 90% control if an additional contact chamber is added. 

This could be done by enlarging the existing scrubber or adding a second scrubber. Hal suggested a 

horizontal spray scrubber with mist eliminators downstream of the existing venturi rod scrubbers. A 

liquid/gas ratio of 40/1 is needed; so larger pumps and piping would be required. In addition, the lime 

concentration in the scrubbing water needs to be increased. So, the lime slurry systems would need to 

be upgraded. Hal suggested that the scrubber cost would represent 25% of the total cost needed for the 

upgrade. The scrubber tower for a lime scrubbing system located at a green field site is 15% of total 

equipment cost. Hal estimated the equipment cost of a second scrubber to be $800K - $900K. Use of the 

0.6 exponent factor to estimate the cost of scrubbers rates at other flow rate would be an acceptable way 

to estimate costs for the other taconite furnaces.

3) A second scrubber with mist eliminators would add 5' - 6' of pressure drop; so a blower upgrade would 

be needed. The Keetac blowers were $290 each.

4) Total equipment cost based on information above is: $3.7MM = $850K/0.25 + $300K (for blower)

Jack Kennedy

Barr Engineering Co.

Phone 952-832-2913

Cell 612-310-5072

Email jkennedy@barr.com
### §7309. Able seamen—special

The required service for the endorsement of able seaman—special, qualified for special service on a vessel on any waters, is at least 12 months' 1 service on deck on board vessels operating on the oceans or the navigable waters of the United States (including the Great Lakes).

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 543.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 7309 | 46:672(b)(3) |

Section 7309 establishes the minimum service requirements for an individual to qualify as able seamen—special.

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

#### Temporary Reduction of Lengths of Certain Periods of Service

Section to be applied by substituting "6 months" for "12 months" for the 3-year period beginning on Dec. 22, 2023, see section 3534(j) of Pub. L. 118–31, set out as a note under section 7307 of this title.

#### Acceptance of Certain Services Toward Endorsement as Able Seaman

Service used to qualify for endorsement as able seaman—fishing industry to be accepted as qualifying service toward an endorsement under this section, see section 602(e)(3) of Pub. L. 101–595, set out as a note under section 7306 of this title.

1 See Temporary Reduction of Lengths of Certain Periods of Service note below.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Appellant

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2020-1587, 2020-1588, 2020-1654

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-

01152, IPR2018-01153.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT BREETZ,

DAVID B. COCHRAN, DAVID MICHAEL MAIORANA, JOSEPH M.

SAUER, Cleveland, OH; MATTHEW JOHNSON, JOSHUA R.

NIGHTINGALE, Pittsburgh, PA; JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Washington, DC. 

 JAMES MURPHY DOWD, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale 

and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for cross-appellant. 

Case: 20-1587 Document: 99 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2021
Also represented by DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, Washington, DC; KELLI POWELL, Boston, MA. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

October 13, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1587 Document: 99 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2021
----

**EXHIBIT      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

----

**Certification      pursuant to **

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as      adopted pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|   | 1. | the                report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             |                                                                 |                                              |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| Date              March 28, 2007 |                                                                      | /s/ David              G.              Baker |
|                             | David G. BakerPresident                  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                             |                                                   |                                 |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Date              March 28, 2007 |                                                        | /s/ Nandini              Mallya |
|                             | Nandini MallyaChief                  Financial Officer |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7622

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RUFUS TIMOTHY BRINN, III, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00468-GBL-1; 1:08-cv-00276-GBL)

Submitted: April 6, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus Timothy Brinn, III, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Elizabeth Zirkle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Rufus Timothy Brinn, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that, although the district court’s dispositive procedural ruling that Brinn’s § 2255 motion was untimely is debatable, see Clay v. United

States , 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003), Brinn has not made the requisite showing with respect to the merits of his constitutional claims. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

23 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3105 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3105

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain aramid chopped fiber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2005

 Mr. Beauprez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain aramid chopped fiber.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ARAMID CHOPPED FIBER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.90.30      Chopped synthetic   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         staple fibers,                                                     31/2008
                         containing 50
                         percent or more
                         by weight of
                         aramid fibers
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         5503.10.90), the
                         foregoing
                         impregnated with
                         adhesives for
                         bonding such
                         fibers to rubber.

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Harold F. Zagunis, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Sequoia
Mortgage Funding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, hereby certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of the
Notes for periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Sequoia
Mortgage Funding Corporation;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the indenture, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;

      4.    Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
with the terms of the indenture, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

      5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the indenture, that is included in these reports.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter Credit Corporation, as Servicer.

Date: March 31, 2005

/s/  Harold F. Zagunis
----------------------------------------
Signature
Name: Harold F. Zagunis
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
### §1504. "Federal Register"; printing; contents; distribution; price

Documents required or authorized to be published by section 1505 of this title shall be printed and distributed immediately by the Government Publishing Office in a serial publication designated the "Federal Register." The Director of the Government Publishing Office shall make available the facilities of the Government Publishing Office for the prompt printing and distribution of the Federal Register in the manner and at the times required by this chapter and the regulations prescribed under it. The contents of the daily issues shall be indexed and shall comprise all documents, required or authorized to be published, filed with the Office of the Federal Register up to the time of the day immediately preceding the day of distribution fixed by regulations under this chapter. There shall be printed with each document a copy of the notation, required to be made by section 1503 of this title, of the day and hour when, upon filing with the Office, the document was made available for public inspection. Distribution shall be made by delivery or by deposit at a post office at a time in the morning of the day of distribution fixed by regulations prescribed under this chapter. The prices to be charged for the Federal Register may be fixed by the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register established by section 1506 of this title without reference to the restrictions placed upon and fixed for the sale of Government publications by sections 1705 and 1708 of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1274; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(b), (c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964, ed., §303 (July 26, 1935, ch. 417, §3, 49 Stat. 500).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235, §1301(c)(1), substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".

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

#### Change of Name

"Government Publishing Office" substituted for "Government Printing Office" in text on authority of section 1301(b) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note preceding section 301 of this title.
#### Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiff, v. American Surety Company of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) American Surety Company of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

In an action (Action No. 1) by the assureds against the insurer upon a policy of liability insurance, to recover damages for fraud and breach of the fiduciary relationship, the defendant insurer appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 18, 1961 upon the verdict of a jury after trial, *978as is in favor of the plaintiffs Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc., and Thomas F. O’Dowd against the defendant. The action (No. 1) was dismissed as to the plaintiff De Maria; and on stipulation Action No. 2 was dismissed against all the defendants. There is no appeal with respect to such dismissals. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the facts; Action No. 1 severed from Action No. 2; and, in Action No. 1, new trial granted between Kelvin Engineering Co., Inc., and Thomas E. O’Dowd, plaintiffs, and the American Surety-Company of New York, defendant, with costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ and Hill, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that questions of fact were presented for determination by the jury and, on' this record, it may not be said that the verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence.