alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7307** 

ANDREW JAMMIE MACK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee , and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 4:16

- cv - 00838

- HMH )

Submitted : February 22, 2017 Decided: March 8, 2017

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Andrew Jammie Mack, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andrew Jammie Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealab ility. 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 prisone r 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, 33 6

- 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. Slac k , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government
expense , deny a certificate of appealabilit y , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
# C_2021036EN.01000501.xml

| 2.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/5

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2021/C 36/05)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Italy

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Italy

Subject of commemoration: Healthcare professionals

Description of the design: The design depicts in the centre, a man and a woman in medical clothing with masks, a stethoscope and a medical folder representing doctors and nurses working on the front line in the fight against COVID-19. Above, the word ‘GRAZIE’ followed, on the right, by a heart symbol; on the left, a reproduction of the medical cross; in the centre, ‘RI’, acronym of the Italian Republic; on the right, ‘R’, identifying the Mint of Rome; below,, on the left, ‘CM’, initials of the designer Claudia Momoni; in exergue, the year of the coin’s issue ‘2021’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 3 000 000

Date of issue: January 2021

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
232.102-70 Provisional delivery payments. ( a ) The contracting officer may establish provisional delivery payments to pay contractors for the costs of supplies and services delivered to and accepted by the Government under the following contract actions if undefinitized: ( 1 ) Letter contracts contemplating a fixed-price contract.
( 2 ) Orders under basic ordering agreements.
( 3 ) Spares provisioning documents annexed to contracts.
( 4 ) Unpriced equitable adjustments on fixed-price contracts.
( 5 ) Orders under indefinite-delivery contracts.
( b ) Provisional delivery payments shall be— ( 1 ) Used sparingly;
( 2 ) Priced conservatively; and
( 3 ) Reduced by liquidating previous progress payments in accordance with the Progress Payments clause.
( c ) Provisional delivery payments shall not— ( 1 ) Include profit;
( 2 ) Exceed funds obligated for the undefinitized contract action; or
( 3 ) Influence the definitized contract price.
#### 4.904 Reporting payment information to the IRS.

26 U.S.C. 6041 and 6041A, as implemented in 26 CFR, in part, require payors, including Government agencies, to report to the IRS, on Form 1099, payments made to certain contractors. 26 U.S.C. 6109 requires a contractor to provide its TIN if a Form 1099 is required. The payment office is responsible for submitting reports to the IRS.
1 Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc.

4380 SW Macadam Ave.
Suite 515 Portland, OR 97239 Drew.p@aerialinspectionresources.com

U.S. Department of Transportation January 27

, 2015 Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Amendment to Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. Exemption No. 11467
Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0261

Dear Sir or Madam:

Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. (AIR) is request ing amendment to our FAA Exemption No.

11467, Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0261 for the purpose of conducting commercial UAS operations. In

addition to the DJI S1000, DJI S900, DJI S800, and Ready Copter, AIR wishes to ad d the EZ

- Rig to its

exemption grant, with the authority to operate with a tethered line attached to the UA.

For your ease in reviewing this request for amendment, please refer to the exhibit list which

begins on page 2

.

If we can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or review of this

document, please do not hesitate to contact us at 503

- 312

- 9804 or via email at
Drew.p@aerialinspectio nresources.com

.

Thank you,

Drew Pairamore

Director of Regulatory Compliance

Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc.2 

### Table of Contents

EZ Rig Exhibit

Exhi bit 1: EZ Rig User Manual

... ........................ Uploaded separately due to size constraints3 

### .
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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) by Aspyra, Inc. (“Registrant”), the undersigned
hereby certifies that to his knowledge:




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




2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant as of and for
the periods presented in the Report.




Date:
April 10, 2009




/s/
      Rodney W. SchuttRodney
      W. Schutt, Chief Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Aspyra, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
ORIGINA1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 23-0005 

SEP 1 2 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

IN RE MOTION OF ERNEST H. KOHLMYER, III, 

FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE 

OF MONTANA 

ORDER 

Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, has moved for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Kohlmyer has provided the necessary 

documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion 

under Rule V. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State 

of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the 

Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this Cray of September, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

gez-4-e—,

09/12/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0005
2 

Justices
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Home |
|                                                              |

                  - Program Office:
                  - Rehabilitation Services Administration
                  - CFDA Number:
                  - No CFDA number

The Vending Facility program authorized by the Randolph-Sheppard Act provides persons who are blind with remunerative employment and self-support through the operation of vending facilities on federal and other property. 

**Decisions of Arbitration Panels**

Under section 107d-2(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, the Secretary of Education publishes the **decisions of arbitration panels** selected to adjudicate disputes over the administration of vending facilities on federal and other property.

### For complete information on this program, go to:

**rsa.ed.gov**

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### 326.501 Statutory requirements.

Any contract or subcontract pursuant to subchapter II, chapter 14, title 25 of the United States Code, the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended, or any other Act authorizing Federal contracts with or grants to Indian organizations or for the benefit of Indians, shall, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638, 88 Stat. 2205, 25 U.S.C. 450e(b) which provides preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of such contracts, and preference in the award of subcontracts in connection with the administration of such contracts to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises as defined in section 1452 of title 25, United States Code.
#### 428.307-1 Group insurance plans.

Under cost-reimbursement contracts, before buying insurance under a group insurance plan, the contractor shall submit the plan to the contracting officer for review. During review, the contracting officer shall use all sources of information available, such as audits, industry practice, or other sources of information, to determine whether acceptance of the plan submitted would be in the Government's best interest.
Exhibit
32.4
 
 
 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION
 OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
 UNION
ELECTRIC COMPANY
 (required
by Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)
 
 
 In
connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2005 of Union Electric Company (the “Company”) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I,
Warner L. Baxter, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Dated:
May 10, 2005
 ****By:
    /s/ Warner L. BaxterWarner
      L. BaxterExecutive Vice President andChief Financial
      Officer(Principal Financial
Officer)
47.303-7 F.o.b. destination, within consignee's premises. ( a ) *Explanation of delivery term. F.o.b. destination, within consignee's premises* means free of expense to the Government delivered and laid down within the doors of the consignee's premises, including delivery to specific rooms within a building if so specified.
( b ) *Contractor responsibilities.* The contractor's responsibilities are the same as those listed in 47.303-6(b).
( c ) *Contract clause.* The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-35, F.o.b. Destination, within Consignee's Premises, when the delivery term is f.o.b. destination, within consignee's premises.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 22 (Thursday, February 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02299]



[[Page 8209]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; 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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Blueprint for 
Neuroscience Research: Functional Neural Circuits of Interoception 
(2).
    Date: March 18th, 2021.
    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 
Dem II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Martina Schmidt, Ph.D., Chief Office of 
Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary & Integrative 
Health, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301-594-3456, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7506161d181c1118143518141c195b1b1c1d5b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84f7e7ece9ede0e9e5c4e9e5ede8aaeaedecaae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 27, 2021.
Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02299 Filed 2-3-21; 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>
25.605 Evaluating offers of foreign construction material. ( a ) If the contracting officer has determined that an exception applies because the cost of certain domestic construction material is unreasonable, in accordance with section 25.604, then the contracting officer shall apply evaluation factors to the offer incorporating the use of such foreign construction material as follows: ( 1 ) Use an evaluation factor of 25 percent, applied to the total offered price of the contract, if foreign manufactured construction material is incorporated in the offer based on an exception for unreasonable cost of comparable domestic construction material requested by the offeror.
( 2 ) In addition, use an evaluation factor of 20 percent applied to the cost of foreign unmanufactured construction material incorporated in the offer based on an exception for unreasonable cost of comparable domestic unmanufactured construction material requested by the offeror.
( 3 ) Total evaluated price = offered price + (.25 × offered price, if (a)(1) applies) + (.20 × cost of foreign unmanufactured construction material, if (a)(2) applies).
( b ) If the solicitation specifies award on the basis of factors in addition to cost or price, apply the evaluation factors as specified in paragraph (a) of this section and use the evaluated price in determining the offer that represents the best value to the Government.
( c ) Unless paragraph (b) applies, if two or more offers are equal in price, the contracting officer must give preference to an offer that does not include foreign construction material excepted at the request of the offeror on the basis of unreasonable cost.
( d ) Offerors also may submit alternate offers based on use of equivalent domestic construction material to avoid possible rejection of the entire offer if the Government determines that an exception permitting use of a particular foreign construction material does not apply.
( e ) If the contracting officer awards a contract to an offeror that proposed foreign construction material not listed in the applicable clause in the solicitation (paragraph (b)(3) of 52.225-21, or paragraph (b)(3) of 52.225-23), the contracting officer must add the excepted materials to the list in the contract clause.
[74 FR 14626, Mar. 31, 2009, as amended at 75 FR 53166, Aug. 30, 2010; 86 FR 6189, Jan. 19, 2021]
#### Robert Frankel, Respondent-Appellant, v Mimi Frankel, Appellant-Respondent.

— In a divorce action (1) the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 29, 1977, as awarded her alimony, *pendente lite,*of $250 per week, child support of $150 per week and a counsel fee of $2,000 and (2) (a) the plaintiff appeals from so much of a further order of the same court, entered May 11, 1978, as (i) granted defendant leave to interpose a jury demand and to serve an amended answer and (ii) denied his motion for a protective order and (b) the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied her motion for leave to reargue the motion upon which the order dated August 29, 1977 was granted. Appeal by defendant from so much of the order entered May 11, 1978 as denied reargument dismissed. No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument. Order entered May 11, 1978 modified by deleting therefrom the provision which granted defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer and substituting therefor a provision denying said motion with leave to renew upon compliance with CPLR 3016 (subd [c]). As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from. Order dated August 29, 1977 modified, on the facts, by (1) deleting therefrom the provision which awarded alimony, *pendente lite,*of $250 per week and substituting therefor a provision awarding alimony, *pendente lite,*of $350 per week and (2) deleting therefrom the provision which awarded child support of $150 per week for the parties’ three children and substituting therefor a provision awarding child support of $125 per week per child. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from. Defendant is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record, the alimony and child support awards were inadequate to the extent indicated herein. (We note that since entry of the order dated August 29, 1977, the parties’ oldest child has become emancipated.) Our awards, which are based on affidavits, should have no effect on the trial court in its determination as to the amount of permanent alimony and child support to be awarded, based on all the facts developed at the trial. Whether defendant is entitled to an additional counsel fee is also left to the trial court to determine (see *Spieler v Spieler,*17 AD2d 956). The amended answer in this action set forth an additional counterclaim but failed to specify, as required, the "time and place of each act complained of’ (CPLR 3016, subd [c]). Titone, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
401.201-1 The two councils. ( a ) USDA's representative on the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council is designated by the SPE.
( b ) The Procurement Policy Division will coordinate proposed FAR revisions within USDA.
[61 FR 53646, Oct. 15, 1996, as amended at 70 FR 44, Jan. 3, 2005]