alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1428a. Submission of plan for use of funds; contents of plan; term, interest rate, and premium charge of loan

Prior to receiving any funds pursuant to this subchapter the government of Guam shall submit to the Secretary of the Interior a plan for the use of such funds which meets the requirements of this section and is approved by the Secretary. The plan shall designate an agency or agencies of such government as the agency or agencies for the administration of the plan and shall set forth the policies and procedures to be followed in furthering the economic development of Guam through a program which shall include and make provision for loans and loan guarantees to promote the development of private enterprise and private industry in Guam through a revolving fund for such purposes: Provided, That the term of any loan made pursuant to the plan shall not exceed twenty-five years; that such loans shall bear interest (exclusive of premium charges for insurance, and service charges, if any) at such rate per annum as is determined to be reasonable and as approved by the Secretary, but in no event less than a rate equal to the average yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States as of the last day of the month preceding the date of the loan, adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum, which rate shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury upon the request of the authorized agency or agencies of the government of Guam; and that premium charges for the insurance and guarantee of loans shall be commensurate, in the judgment of the agency or agencies administering the fund, with expenses and risks covered.

(Pub. L. 90–601, §3, Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1172.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Organic Act of Guam which comprises this chapter.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

        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 of LIGHTHOUSE FAST FERRY, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patricia Beene, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Patricia Beene
-----------------------
Patricia Beene
Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6944 

ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES W. BENTON, JR., Judge; JAMES W. HALEY,

JR., Judge; SAM W. COLEMAN, III, Senior Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00488-JCC)

Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 25, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Emanuel Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eric Emanuel Taylor appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Taylor v. Benton, No. 1:07-cv-00488-JCC (E.D.

Va. filed June 5, 2007; entered June 6, 2007). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-K of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David DAddario, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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.

Date:
March 31, 2010



By:

/s/    DAVID
DADDARIODavid DAddarioChairman and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 550.119 Will BOEM approve subsurface gas storage? The Regional Supervisor may authorize subsurface storage of gas on the OCS, on and off-lease, for later commercial benefit. The Regional Supervisor may authorize subsurface storage of gas on the OCS, off-lease, for later commercial benefit. To receive approval you must: ( a ) Show that the subsurface storage of gas will not result in undue interference with operations under existing leases; and
( b ) Sign a storage agreement that includes the required payment of a storage fee or rental.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSTS-74/Mir Photogrammetric Appendage Structural Dynamics Experiment Preliminary Data AnalysisThe Photogrammetric Appendage Structural Dynamics Experiment was designed, developed, and flown to demonstrate and prove measurement of the structural vibration response of a Russian Space Station Mir solar array using photogrammetric methods. The experiment flew on the STS-74 Space Shuttle mission to Mir in November 1995 and obtained video imagery of solar array structural response to various excitation events. The video imagery has been digitized and triangulated to obtain response time history data at discrete points on the solar array. This data has been further processed using the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm modal identification technique to determine the natural vibration frequencies, damping, and mode shapes of the solar array. The results demonstrate that photogrammetric measurement of articulating, non-optically targeted, flexible solar arrays and appendages is a viable, low-cost measurement option for the International Space Station.Document ID19970015406Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsGilbert, Michael G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Welch, Sharon S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Pappa, Richard S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Demeo, Martha E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1997Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-110324NAS 1.15:110324Meeting InformationMeeting: Structures, Structural Dynamics, and MaterialsLocation: Kissimmee, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: April 7, 1997End Date: April 10, 1997Sponsors:American Helicopter Society, Inc.,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,Alpha STAR Corp.,American Society of Civil EngineersAccession Number97N18302Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 237-08-02-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970015406.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 46.4 Training plan implementation. ( a ) You must ensure that each program, course of instruction, or training session is: ( 1 ) Conducted in accordance with the written training plan;
( 2 ) Presented by a competent person; and
( 3 ) Presented in language understood by the miners who are receiving the training.
( b ) You may conduct your own training programs or may arrange for training to be conducted by: state or federal agencies; associations of production-operators or independent contractors; miners' representatives; consultants; manufacturers' representatives; private associations; educational institutions; or other training providers.
( c ) You may substitute, as applicable, health and safety training required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or other federal or state agencies to meet requirements under this part. This training must be relevant to training subjects required in this part. You must document the training in accordance with § 46.9 of this part.
( d ) Training methods may consist of classroom instruction, instruction at the mine, interactive computer-based instruction or other innovative training methods, alternative training technologies, or any combination of training methods.
( e ) Employee health and safety meetings, including informal health and safety talks and instruction, may be credited under this part toward either new miner training, newly hired experienced miner training, or annual refresher training requirements, as appropriate, provided that you document each training session in accordance with § 46.9 of this part. In recording the duration of training, you must include only the portion of the session actually spent in training.
§ 36.27 Fuel-supply system. ( a ) *Fuel tank.* ( 1 ) The fuel tank shall not leak and shall be fabricated of metal at least 1 ⁄ 16 inch thick, welded at all seams, except that tanks of 5 gallons or less capacity may have thinner walls which shall be preformed or reinforced to provide good resistance to deflection. A drain plug (not a valve or petcock) shall be provided and locked in position. A vent opening shall be provided in the fuel filler cap of such design that atmospheric pressure is maintained inside the tank. The size of the vent opening shall be restricted to prevent fuel from splashing through it. The filler opening shall be so arranged that fuel can be added only through a self-closing valve at least 1 foot from the exhaust manifold of the engine, preferably below it. The self-closing valve shall constitute a fuel-tight closure when fuel is not being added. Any part of the self-closing valve that might become detached during the addition of fuel shall be secured to the tank by a chain or other fastening to prevent loss.
( 2 ) The fuel tank shall have a definite position in the equipment assembly, and no provision shall be made for attachment of separate or auxiliary fuel tanks.
( 3 ) Capacity of the fuel tank shall not exceed the amount of fuel necessary to operate the engine continuously at full load for approximately four hours.
( b ) *Fuel lines.* All fuel lines shall be installed to protect them against damage in ordinary use and they shall be designed, fabricated, and secured to resist breakage from vibration.
( c ) *Valve in fuel line.* A shutoff valve shall be provided in the fuel system, installed in a manner acceptable to MSHA.
Note:
This shutoff valve is in addition to the normal shutoff provided in the fuel-injection system and also in addition to the air-shutoff valve.
#### McCANN, Respondent, v. NUTTING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by Ellen McCann against Andrew J. Nutting. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
### **CHAPTER 131—GENERAL PROVISIONS**

Sec.
13101.
Transportation policy.
13102.
Definitions.
13103.
Remedies as cumulative.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–287, §5(26)(B), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3390, made technical amendment to heading.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THERESA CREPEAU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

District Judge. (CR-94-2)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa Crepeau, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Theresa Crepeau seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying relief on her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the

district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court's assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose

v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Crepeau has not made the

requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Crepeau's notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 689-

90 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
- 3 -

either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to

establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the

movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Crepeau's

claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

For these reasons, we deny a certificate of

appealability, decline to authorize Crepeau to file a successive

§ 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Perry T. Massie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, 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 operating results of the
      Company.

/s/ Perry T. Massie
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor
Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



                                       93
Contact Us

#   2016 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry

Oct. 20, 2016 - EPA has issued final Control Techniques Guidelines for reducing smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from existing oil and natural gas equipment and processes in certain states and areas with smog problems. CTGs are not regulations and do not impose legal requirements directly on pollution sources; rather, they provide recommendations for state and local air agencies to consider as they determine what emissions limits to apply to covered sources in their jurisdictions in order to meet RACT requirements.
                -  Notice of Availability (pdf)(194.03 KB)     
                -  Final Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry  (pdf)(1.61 MB)     
                -  Memo: Implementing Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for Sources Covered by the 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry (pdf)(4.67 MB, October 20, 2016, EPA-453/B-16-001)     
                -  Fact Sheet: Final Control Techniques Guidelines for Reducing Smog-Forming Volatile Organic Compounds from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry (pdf)(117.13 KB)     
                -  Table: Final VOC Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry: Summary of RACT Recommendations (pdf)(159.44 KB)     

          -  Oil and Natural Gas Air Standards Home 
          -  Basic Information 
          -  Actions and Notices 
          -  Implementation 

Contact Us
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MAYOLO VARGAS-VILLANUEVA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-50192 

D.C. No. 3:21-cr-01011-LAB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Mayolo Vargas-Villanueva appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-50192 

Vargas-Villanueva contends that his within-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because the district court’s application of a ten-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) resulted in a Guidelines range that, 

while correct, overemphasized his criminal history. The district court did not 

abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, particularly

Vargas-Villanueva’s immigration and criminal history, the sentence is 

substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. GutierrezSanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various 

factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Contrary to 

Vargas-Villanueva’s contention, the record reflects that the court considered the 

mitigating factors, including the age of the underlying conviction that resulted in 

the ten-level enhancement, and adequately explained its determination that a 

within-Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of Vargas-Villanueva’s multiple

attempts to reenter the United States unlawfully in a short period of time. See 

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

To the extent Vargas-Villanueva challenges the separate sentence imposed 

upon revocation of probation, we do not reach this claim because VargasVillanueva did not appeal the revocation judgment. 

AFFIRMED.
### §41723. Notice concerning aircraft assembly

The Secretary of Transportation shall require, beginning after the last day of the 18-month period following the date of enactment of this section, an air carrier using an aircraft to provide scheduled passenger air transportation to display a notice, on an information placard available to each passenger on the aircraft, that informs the passengers of the nation in which the aircraft was finally assembled.

(Added Pub. L. 108–176, title VIII, §810(a), Dec. 12, 2003, 117 Stat. 2590.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of this section, referred to in text, is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 108–176, which was approved Dec. 12, 2003.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable only to fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 2003, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–176, set out as an Effective Date of 2003 Amendment note under section 106 of this title.
(June 18, 1962)

#### Stephen L. Angell, Respondent, v. C. H. Landefeld, Jr., Individually and as Trustee, Appellant.

In an action by plaintiff to recover the sum of $576.78 awarded to him by court order in -a prior foreclosure action in the Supreme Court, such award having been made to him as the duly appointed receiver in such foreclosure action, for his disbursements and fees and for the disbursements and fees of his attorney therein, the defendant appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 26, 1961, which denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out the answer and directing the entry of judgment; and (2) from the judgment entered December 28, 1961, upon said order, in favor of the plaintiff. Order and judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
§ 56.14210 Movement of dippers, buckets, loading booms, or suspended loads. ( a ) Dippers, buckets, loading booms, or suspended loads shall not be swung over the operators' stations of self-propelled mobile equipment until the equipment operator is out of the operator's station and in a safe location.
( b ) This section does not apply when the equipment is specifically designed to protect the equipment operator from falling objects.