alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 69.4 Policy. ( a ) Each DoD DDESS arrangement shall have an elected school board, established and operated in accordance with this part and other pertinent guidance.
( b ) Because members of DoD DDESS elected school boards are not officers or employees of the United States appointed under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2), they may not exercise discretionary governmental authority, such as the taking of personnel actions or the establishment of governmental policies. This part clarifies the role of school boards in the development and oversight of fiscal, personnel, and educational policies, procedures, and programs for DoD DDESS arrangements, subject to these constitutional limitations.
( c ) The DoD DDESS chain of command for matters relating to school arrangements operated under 10 U.S.C. 2164 and 32 CFR part 345 shall be from the Director, DoD DDESS, to the Superintendent of each school arrangement. The Superintendent will inform the school board of all matters affecting the operation of the local school arrangement. Direct liaison among the school board, the Director, and the Superintendent is authorized for all matters pertaining to the local school arrangement.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29267]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; A Solicitation of the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 
Contract Proposals (N01), Topic 098.
    Date: January 27, 2021.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Soheyla Saadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-435-0903, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5968484818c968a8da58b8c848c81cb8b8c8dcb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5c6d4d4d1dcc6daddf5dbdcd4dcd19bdbdcdd9bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 30, 2020.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-29267 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                       793
<INVENTORY>                                     22,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,762
<PP&E>                                         187,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,314
<BONDS>                                         43,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,326
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,537
<SALES>                                         85,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,868
<CGS>                                           63,063
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,526
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (4,340)
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
Date Location Take Off/Land Flight Duration Battery Number Weather Maintena
#### N.C. FARM BUREAU MUT. INS. CO. v. BRILEY

No. 533P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 442

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1998.
### §1638b. Enforcement

#### (a) Warnings

If the Secretary determines that a retailer or person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer is in violation of section 1638a of this title, the Secretary shall—

(1) notify the retailer 1 of the determination of the Secretary; and

(2) provide the retailer 1 a 30-day period, beginning on the date on which the retailer 1 receives the notice under paragraph (1) from the Secretary, during which the retailer 1 may take necessary steps to comply with section 1638a of this title.

#### (b) Fines

If, on completion of the 30-day period described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary determines that the retailer or person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer has—

(1) not made a good faith effort to comply with section 1638a of this title, and

(2) continues to willfully violate section 1638a of this title with respect to the violation about which the retailer or person received notification under subsection (a)(1),

after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the Secretary with respect to the violation, the Secretary may fine the retailer or person in an amount of not more than $1,000 for each violation.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §283, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10816, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 535; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title XI, §11002(3), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1354; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XI, §11002(3), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2116.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–246, §11002(3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (a) and substituted "retailer or person engaged in the business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer" for "retailer" in introductory provisions, added subsec. (b), and struck out former subsecs. (a) and (c) which related to applicability of section 1636b of this title to a violation of this subchapter and fine for violation of section 1638a of this title. The substitution in subsec. (a) was made for "retailer" the first time appearing to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "retailer or person".
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2126

In re: BILLY E. LUNSFORD, a/k/a Peg-leg,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:10-cr-00182-1)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy E. Lunsford, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy E. Lunsford petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging 

the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing 

the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s 

docket reveals that the district court denied Lunsford’s motion on 

December 4, 2015. Accordingly, because the district court has 

recently decided Lunsford’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as 

moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
### §1322a. Repealed. July 3, 1948, ch. 827, title II, §203(b), 62 Stat. 1256

Section, act July 26, 1939, ch. 378, 53 Stat. 1125, related to time for proclamation of referendum.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1950, see section 303 of act July 3, 1948, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
§ 70.5 Procedures. ( a ) Discharge review procedures are prescribed in § 70.8.
( b ) Discharge Review Standards are prescribed in § 70.9 and constitute the basic guidelines for the determination whether to grant or deny relief in a discharge review.
( c ) Complaint Procedures about decisional documents are prescribed in § 70.10.
#### § 516.38 Scope.

This subpart contains guidance, policies, and procedures applicable to all environmental and natural resources civil litigation and administrative proceedings involving missions and functions of DA, its major and subordinate commands, all installations presently or previously managed by DA, and all other sites or issues in which DA has a substantial interest. In this chapter, “litigation” includes civil administrative proceedings.
EXHIBIT 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report, included in this Form 10-K into the Company's previously filed
registration statement on Form S-8, Registration No. 33-94710, relating to the
Company's 1990 Stock Option Plan. It should be noted that we have not audited
any financial statements of the Company subsequent to June 30, 1997, or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
  October 14, 1997
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00401

- CR

Christopher Timothy BRADY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 559662

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 5 , 2020.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7653

ERVIN M. LOPEZ,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District 

Judge. (4:13-cv-02872-BHH)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ervin M. Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Kaycie Smith Timmons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ervin M. Lopez seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Lopez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 339.2 Initial review process. ( a ) Prior to submitting guidance documents for departmental review, Components seeking to issue, modify, or rescind a guidance document should submit a draft copy of that document, along with the component's designation request (see § 339.5 of this part) and good faith cost estimate (see § 339.3 of this part), to their Federal Register Liaison Officer.
( b ) Before such a guidance document can be cleared for departmental review, the appropriate DoD or OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer will review it to ensure that it satisfies the following requirements: ( 1 ) For significant guidance (see § 339.7 of this part), Federal Register required formatting.
( 2 ) The guidance document complies with all relevant statutes and regulations (including any statutory deadlines for agency action);
( 3 ) The guidance document identifies or includes: ( i ) The term “guidance” or its functional equivalent;
( ii ) The issuing component of the Department;
( iii ) A unique identifier, including, at a minimum, the date of issuance and title of the document and its Z-RIN (a regulation identifier number), if applicable;
( iv ) The activity or entities to which the guidance applies;
( v ) Citations to applicable statutes and regulations;
( vi ) A statement noting whether the guidance is intended to revise or replace any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient information to identify the previously issued guidance; and
( vii ) A short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document.
( 4 ) The guidance document avoids using mandatory language, such as “shall,” “must,” “required,” or “requirement,” unless the language is describing an established statutory or regulatory requirement or is addressed to DoD staff and will not foreclose the Department's consideration of positions advanced by affected private parties or is intended to have a substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties;
( 5 ) The guidance document is written in plain and understandable English;
( 6 ) All guidance documents include the following disclaimer prominently: “The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or departmental policies.”
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-3
Registration Statement File No. 33-84496, Form S-8 Registration Statement File
No. 33-69312, Form S-8 Registration Statement File No. 333-02167, Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 333-02179 and Form S-3 Registration Statement
No. 333-26241.


                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Houston, Texas
March 27, 1998
### [§4106. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–226, §2(a)(4), Mar. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 112]

Section, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 434; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, §906(a)(2), (3), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224, related to limitations on amount of training of employees through non-Government facilities.
### §176. Sale of guayule shrub to Reconstruction Finance Corporation

Guayule shrub may be sold to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation at a price reflecting the net realization from the sale of the rubber recovered from such shrub in mills operated by said Corporation after deducting the cost of milling and amortization of the cost of mills constructed for the purpose by said Corporation.

(June 30, 1945, ch. 215, §1, 59 Stat. 310; July 5, 1945, ch. 271, title I, 59 Stat. 423.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Rubber Reserve Company dissolved and functions transferred to Reconstruction Finance Corporation by Joint Res. June 30, 1945, eff. July 1, 1945.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Abolition of Reconstruction Finance Corporation

Section 6(a) of 1957 Reorg. Plan No. 1, eff. June 30, 1957, 22 F.R. 4633, 71 Stat. 649, set out as a note under section 601 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, abolished Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1949

AMY GOSNELL; ANN BOWMAN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CATAWBA COUNTY; CATAWBA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; COY REID; 

DAVID LAIL; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00179-RLV-DCK)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nancy Pulliam Quinn, THE QUINN LAW FIRM, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellants. Patrick H. Flanagan, Virginia M. 

Wooten, CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Amy Gosnell and Ann Bowman appeal the district court’s 

judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss their gender 

discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 

2000e-17 (2012); age discrimination claims, brought pursuant to 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 

U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2012); and state law claims for tortious 

interference with contract, defamation, and punitive damages. 

We have considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Gosnell v. Catawba Cnty., No. 5:14-cv-00179-RLV-DCK (W.D.N.C. 

July 24, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 770.49 Background. ( a ) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is a major naval ship repair facility, with operational requirements to complete repairs and overhaul of conventionally powered and nuclear powered naval vessels. It is vital to national defense that the operation and use of the shipyard be continued without interruption. Additionally, most of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is dedicated to heavy industrial activity where potentially hazardous conditions exist.
( b ) For prevention of the interruption of the stated use of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and prevention of injury to any unsupervised or unauthorized person as a consequence of the hazardous conditions that exist, as well as for other reasons, it is essential to restrict entry upon Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to authorized persons only.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fred C. Schulte, Chief Executive Officer of Elgin National Industries, Inc., certify that:



| | 1. | This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Elgin National Industries, Inc. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    FRED C. SCHULTEFred C. SchulteChief Executive Officer


Date: May 8, 2006