alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 29, 2015 

Mr. Joshua Primmer 

544 Maquan Street 

Hanson, MA 02341 

Dear Mr. Primmer.: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 28, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1263), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
### SUBCHAPTER III—ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13161

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:01-cr-00018-MTT-CHW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLEN SPEARING MATTHEWS,

a.k.a. Glen Spearing Matthews,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(May 21, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Erin Pinder, appointed counsel for Glen Matthews in this criminal appeal, 

has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a 

Case: 17-13161 Date Filed: 05/21/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
2

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent 

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of 

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Matthews’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-13161 Date Filed: 05/21/2018 Page: 2 of 2
### §40124. Interstate agreements for airport facilities

Congress consents to a State making an agreement, not in conflict with a law of the United States, with another State to develop or operate an airport facility.

(Added Pub. L. 104–287, §5(69)(A), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3395, §40121; renumbered §40124, Pub. L. 105–102, §3(d)(1)(B), Nov. 20, 1997, 111 Stat. 2215.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

This restates 49:44502(e) as 49:40121 [now 40124] to provide a more appropriate place in title 49.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1997—Pub. L. 105–102 amended Pub. L. 104–287, renumbering section 40121 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–102, §3(d), Nov. 20, 1997, 111 Stat. 2215, provided that the amendment made by section 3(d)(1)(B) is effective Oct. 11, 1996.

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–102 effective as if included in the provisions of the Act to which the amendment relates, see section 3(f) of Pub. L. 105–102, set out as a note under section 106 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3279 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3279

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the Homeless 
   Veterans Reintegration Program for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2005

    Mr. Boozman (for himself, Ms. Herseth, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of 
 Florida, Mr. Evans, Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. 
 Brown of South Carolina, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Miller of 
    Florida, Mr. Filner, Mr. Baker, and Ms. Berkley) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the Homeless 
   Veterans Reintegration Program for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeless Veterans Reintegration 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS 
              REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

    Subsection (e)(1) of section 2021 of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(F) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 
        2009.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9539 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

to reimburse public employee retirement systems for accidental disability 

retirements and accidental deaths resulting from the September 11, 2001 

attacks on the World Trade Center. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 

Mr. GARBARINO (for himself, Mr. NADLER, Mr. D’ESPOSITO, Mr. GOLDMAN

of New York, Mr. WILLIAMS of New York, Mr. RYAN, Mr. TONKO, Ms. 

VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. MENG, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. LAWLER, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BOWMAN, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Ms. CLARKE of New 

York, Mr. TORRES of New York, Mr. LALOTA, Mr. ESPAILLAT, and Mr. 

MOLINARO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency to reimburse public employee retirement systems for accidental disability retirements and 

accidental deaths resulting from the September 11, 2001 

attacks on the World Trade Center. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9539 IH

1 (1) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Administrator of 

2 the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall 

3 reimburse each eligible public employee retirement 

4 system for costs relating to accidental disability re5 tirements and accidental deaths resulting from the 

6 rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations resulting 

7 from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World 

8 Trade Center. 

9 (2) LIMITATION.—Amounts reimbursed under 

10 paragraph (1)— 

11 (A) may only be used by a public employee 

12 retirement system; and 

13 (B) may not be used by any other entity. 

14 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

15 are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of 

16 the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out 

17 this section $3,402,600,000 for fiscal year 2024. 

18 (c) ELIGIBLE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYS19 TEM DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘eligible public 

20 employee retirement system’’ means a public employee re21 tirement system that contains a member who participated 

22 in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations resulting 

23 from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade 

24 Center. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9492 

To amend Public Law 99–338 with respect to Kaweah Project permits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024 

Mr. VALADAO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 99–338 with respect to Kaweah 

Project permits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO KAWEAH PROJECT PROVI4 SION. 

5 The first section of Public Law 99–338, as amended 

6 by Public Law 108–447, is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘3 renewals’’ and inserting ‘‘7 

8 renewals’’; and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘of Southern California Edison 

10 Company’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 20, 2021

b0113

Order 

Clerk

January 20, 2021

161983

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161983

COA: 353663 

Oakland CC: 2003-189994-FC

JAMES EDWARD TERRY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 20, 2020 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals to address: (1) whether 

the Oakland Circuit Court had statutory authority under MCL 769.1k to issue the August 

28, 2018 amended order to remit prisoner funds; and (2) if so, whether setting the amount 

of attorney fees several years after sentencing violates due process. People v Jackson, 483 

Mich 271, 292 (2009).

On remand, while retaining jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals shall remand this case 

to the Oakland Circuit Court and direct that court to appoint counsel to represent the 

defendant in the Court of Appeals. We direct the Court of Appeals’ attention to the fact 

that we have also remanded People v Nye (Docket No. 161267) to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration of similar issues.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### STOUDENMIRE vs. WARE.

[ACTION ON EROMISSOBY NOTE.]

1. *Promissory note; when withovi consideration,*— A promissory note given for the debt of another, on the assurance of the payee that the agent of the debtor will pay it on request, but without the knowledge or assent of such debtor or his agent, is without consideration, notwithstanding the note is made payable some time after the transaction, and the claim against the debtor is receipted and delivered to the maker.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Perry,

Tried before Hon. M. J. Saeeold.

The suit was on a promissory note made by the appellant in favor of H. H. Ware & Co., and by them indorsed to the appellee’s intestate, who was one of the firm of Ware *&*Co.

John H. Stone was indebted to Ware *&*Co. on an open account, for merchandise sold to him. H. H. Ware induced the appellant, who was under no obligation to do so, to give the note for Stone’s indebtedness, by assuring him that Stone’s agent would pay the debt on request. This agent afterwards delivered to the appellant certain property to indemnify him against other liabilities of Stone *590for which he was surety, but not against this. None of it had been applied to the payment of any portion of this debt, and it was not sufficient therefor, after satisfying the other obligations. The agent, on the appellant’s application for payment of the debt for which he had given his note, promised to pay Ware & Co., but he had not done so. The account against Stone was receipted and given to the appellant at the time he made his note. The note was dated May 2, 1861, and was payable on the first of January afterwards. There was no evidence that Stone or his agent knew of the transaction between the appellant and Ware *&*Co. at the time. The court charged, that under the evidence the verdict must be for the plaintiff, and refused to charge that it should be for the defendant. The charge given, and the refusal to charge as requested, are now assigned as error.

John C. Reid, for appellant.

Fellows *&*Johns, *contra.*

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

Under the evidence disclosed in the bill of exceptions, the note, the foundation of the action, was without consideration.—*Williams v. Sims,*22 Ala. 512; *Beall & Co. v. Ridgway,*18 Ala. 117. The court below, therefore, erred in the charge given, and in its refusal to charge as requested.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
#### § 553.44 [Reserved]
§ 57.16014 Operator-carrying overhead cranes. Operator-carrying overhead cranes shall be provided with— ( a ) Bumpers at each end of each rail;
( b ) Automatic switches to halt uptravel of the blocks before they strike the hoist;
( c ) Effective audible warning signals within easy reach of the operator; and
( d ) A means to lock out the disconnect switch.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Guidelines for preparing and reviewingapplications for the licensing of non-power reactors.
 
Vol. 1| Vol. 2
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.N 88:10/1537/PT.1-2/REV.0
Item Number:1051-H-48 (online)
CGP System Number:001017364
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 23, 2017********
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6274

ANDREI ROYSTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. L. DOVE, Warden; J. A. SERRANO, Dr.; L.

FUERTES ROSARIO, Medical Director; YATES,

Associate Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 02-6488

ANDREI ROYSTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. L. DOVE, Warden; J. A. SERRANO, Dr., L.

FUERTES ROSARIO, Medical Director; YATES,

Associate Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-01-576-2-23)
2

Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: June 26, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrei Royster, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Andrei Royster appeals from the district court’s orders

denying relief in his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),

alleging inadequate medical care. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s

recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while

we grant Royster’s motion to file a supplemental brief, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. See Royster v. Dove, No.

CA-01-576-2-23 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 11, 2002 and entered Jan. 15,

2002; Feb. 28, 2002). Additionally, we deny Royster’s motion for

injunctive relief. 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
§ 556.511 Are there restrictions on bidding with others and do those restrictions affect my ability to bid? The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6213, prohibits joint bidding by major oil and gas producers under certain circumstances. BOEM implements 42 U.S.C. 6213 as follows: ( a ) BOEM publishes twice yearly in the Federal Register a restricted joint bidders list. A person appearing on this list is limited in its ability to submit a joint bid. The list: ( 1 ) Consists of the persons chargeable with an average worldwide daily production in excess of 1.6 million barrels of crude oil and/or its equivalent in natural gas liquids and natural gas for the prior production period; and
( 2 ) Is based upon the statement of production that filed as required by § 556.513.
( b ) If BOEM places you on the restricted joint bidders list, BOEM will send you a copy of the order placing you on the list. You may appeal this order to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 30 CFR part 590, subpart A.
( c ) If you are listed in the Federal Register in any group of restricted bidders, you may not bid: ( 1 ) Jointly with another person in any other group of restricted bidders for the applicable 6-month bidding period; or
( 2 ) Separately during the 6-month bidding period if you have an agreement with another restricted bidder that will result in joint ownership in an OCS lease.
( d ) If you are listed in the Federal Register in any group of restricted bidders, you may not make any pre-bidding agreement for the conveyance of any potential lease interest, whether by assignment, sale, transfer, or other means, to any person on the list of restricted joint bidders.
( e ) Even if you are not listed in the Federal Register in any group of restricted bidders, you are prohibited from making any pre-bidding agreement for the assignment, sale, transfer, or other conveyance of any potential lease interest to two or more persons in different groups on the list of restricted joint bidders.
( f ) As a bidder, you are prohibited from unlawful combination with, or intimidation of, bidders under 18 U.S.C. 1860.
##### 



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 of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F.
Fox Benton III, 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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: October 26, 2004
    By:
    /s/ F. Fox BentonF. Fox BentonChief Financial Officer This certification is being furnished solely for purposes of compliance with
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section. Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as
otherwise expressly stated in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Ultra Petroleum Corp. and will be retained by Ultra Petroleum
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
§ 285.703 What reports must I submit for project modifications and repairs? ( a ) You must submit a Project Modification or Repair Report to BSEE in which you certify that major repairs and major modifications of renewable energy structures and crucial components to a completed project conform to accepted engineering practices. ( 1 ) A “major repair” is a corrective action involving structural members affecting the structural integrity of all or a portion of the facility or substantial repair of a Critical Safety Systems and Equipment, including those identified in your FDR.
( 2 ) A “major modification” is an alteration involving structural members affecting the structural integrity of all or a portion of the facility or substantial alteration of Critical Safety Systems and Equipment, including those as identified in your FDR.
( b ) The report must also identify the location of all records pertaining to the major repairs or major modifications, as required in § 285.714(c).
( c ) If you are required to use a CVA, the report described in paragraph (a) of this section must include the following certification statement with accompanying justification: “The [major modification or major repair] of this [structure or Critical Safety Systems and Equipment] has been certified by a BSEE-approved CVA to be in accordance with accepted engineering practices, the FDR, and the approved SAP, GAP, or COP as applicable.”
[88 FR 6413, Jan. 31, 2023, as amended at 89 FR 42717, May 15, 2024]
§ 56.23003 Requirements for written safety program. ( a ) The operator shall develop and implement a written safety program that includes actions the operator will take to: ( 1 ) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
( 2 ) Develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
( 3 ) Identify currently available and newly emerging feasible technologies that can enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether to adopt them; and
( 4 ) Train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile equipment.
( b ) The responsible person shall evaluate and update the written safety program at least annually, or as mining conditions or practices change that may adversely affect the health and safety of miners or other persons, as accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile equipment changes or modifications are made.
( c ) The operator shall solicit input from miners and their representatives in developing and updating the written safety program.