alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1951.233-1951.239 [Reserved]
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
View Full Screen

AEO Table Browser - Energy Information Administration Page 1 of 1

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/ 6/25/2015
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.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.

/S/ John Fermanis
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
July 20, 2005

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7432** 

JULIUS IRICK GILYARD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. CECILIA REYNOLDS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 01167

- JFA )

Submitted : January 31, 2012 Decided: F ebruary 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Julius Irick Gilyard, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Julius Irick Gilyard 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 (2006) 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) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relie f 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 c onstitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilyard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
628 S.E.2d 891

#### In the Matter of Pamela BUCHANAN-LYON, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has filed a petition requesting respondent be transferred to incapacity inactive *187status pursuant to Rule 17(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR,1 and requesting appointment of an attorney to protect the interests of respondent’s clients pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Respondent consents to being transferred to incapacity inactive status and to the appointment of an attorney to protect her clients’ interests.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent is placed on incapacity inactive status until further order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Susan I. Johnson, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain. Ms. Johnson shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Ms. Johnson may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating accounts of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Susan I. Johnson, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Susan I. Johnson, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and the authority to direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Ms. Johnson’s office.

This appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless request is made to this Court for an extension.

/s/ Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT

1

. *See*Rule 28, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.
From: "Klein, Michael" <Michael.Klein@dep.state.nj.us>

To: Stanley Tong/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: "Bouzid, Bachir" <Bachir.Bouzid@dep.state.nj.us>

Date: 07/24/2012 06:51 AM 

Subject: RE: NJ rules for municipal solid waste (MSW) NOx limits? 

Sub19 - 2011.pdf 

Stan – Attached is the regulation. See Section 19.12. Limit is 150 ppmvd@7%O2 based on a calendar day (24-hr), 

determined by CEMS. With that said, I looked at the current (State) allowables for our 4 MWCs. All limits are by CEMS: 

 

Essex – 300 ppmvd@7%O2 (1-hr), 155 ppmvd@7%O2 (3-hr) 

Warren – 300 ppmvd@7%O2 (3-hr) 

Union – 225 ppmvd@7%O2 (3-hr), 180 ppmvd@7%O2 (24-hr) 

Gloucester – 150 ppmvd@7%O2 (24-hr), also higher limits that expired per rule. 

Camden - 150 ppmvd@7%O2 (24-hr), 300 ppmvd@7%O2 (3-hr), also other limit that expired per rule (but not stated it 

expired.) 

 

Three of the five have limits that are not consistent with the regulation. I assume that they have Alternative Emission 

Limits approved, per Section 19.13 of the rule. I’ve copied Bachir Bouzid (Section Chief of Operating Permits) in case he 

has anything additional to add regarding the limits. 

 

Michael A. Klein 

NJDEP – BTS 

(609) 530 - 4041 

 

From: Stanley Tong [mailto:Tong.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 2:41 PM

To: Klein, Michael

Cc: Idalia Perez; Robert Marinaro

Subject: NJ rules for municipal solid waste (MSW) NOx limits? 

 

Michael, 

I'm searching for the NJ rules and NOx limits for MSW. EarthJustice commented that NJ had more stringent NOx limits (or 

were adopting more stringent limits) than San Joaquin Valley. 

Can you give me a link to the NJ rule and if there are plans to amend the rule - or forward this to the right section? 

Also, just wondering ... IF we had to dig more, would past test reports be available for your MSW facilities? Thanks. 

Stan 

Stanley Tong 

U.S. EPA Region IX 

Rules Office (AIR-4) 

75 Hawthorne St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

415-947-4122 -voice 

415-947-3579 -fax
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

LACY CREW ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2386

[ December 4, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrew L. Siegel

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 06

- 8250CF10A

.
Lacy Crew

, Punta Gorda , pro se.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. Jean

- Michel v. State , 96 So. 3d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Marshall v. State , 277 So. 3d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Romero v. State , 105 So. 3d 550, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

G ROSS , D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.1015 Applications. In addition to the application material specific to the applicable program identified in § 1980.1002, each applicant seeking funding under this subpart must provide the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section. ( a ) A Strategic Economic and Community Development application form (Form RD 1980-88);
( b ) A description of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which the Plan is to be implemented;
( c ) Documentation that the Plan was developed through the collaboration of multiple stakeholders in the jurisdiction of the Plan, including the participation of combinations of stakeholders;
( d ) Documentation that the Plan demonstrates leveraging of the applicable region's assets to support the Plan;
( e ) Documentation indicating whether or not the Plan includes monetary or non-monetary contributions from strategic partners; and
( f ) Documentation that the Plan contains: ( 1 ) Clear, measurable performance objectives with action steps for implementation; and
( 2 ) The ability to track progress toward meeting the Plan's objectives.
[85 FR 59394, Sept. 22, 2020]
I• • 

Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- ~J3 0L17~ Directorate Identifier: 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Airlines for America Joe White (202-626- 12/3 112012 No response. 

(formerly Air 4000) 

Transport 

Association of 

America) 

Other/ Additional Information: 

9
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.407 Limitations. The amount of the TA grant depends on the experience and capability of the applicant and must be justified based on the number of families to be assisted. As a guide, the maximum grant amounts for any grant period will be limited to: ( a ) An average TA cost per equivalent unit of no more than 15 percent of the cost of equivalent value of modest homes built in the area. (Upon request, the County Supervisor will provide the grantee the average cost of modest homes for the area); or
( b ) An average TA cost per equivalent unit that does not exceed the difference between the equivalent value of modest homes in the area and the average mortgage of the participating families minus $1,000; or
( c ) A TA per equivalent unit cost that does not exceed an amount established by the State Director. The State Director may authorize a greater TA cost than paragraph (a) or (b) of this section when needed to accomplish a particular objective, such as requiring the grantee to serve very low-income families, remote areas, or similar situations; or
( d ) A negotiated amount for repair and rehabilitation type proposals. At a minimum, applicants applying for repair and rehabilitation grants must include information on the proximity of the houses in a project, the typical needed repairs, and the cost savings between self-help and contractor rehabilitation and repair.
[55 FR 41833, Oct. 16, 1990; 56 FR 19253, Apr. 26, 1991]
#### John W. SEDERQUIST, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7020.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 5, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of John W. Seder-quist, Jr.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal in *Sederquist v. Nicholson,*04-1664 (Vet.App.),

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs
Amendments to Regulation .26 and new Regulation .26-1

under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from

Specific Processes

NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

and

NO ONE ATTENDED PUBLIC HEARING
| **Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity (unaudited) (Parenthetical) - $ / shares** | 6 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Stockholders' Equity [Abstract]**                                             |           |   |
| Cash Dividends per share (in dollars per share)                                              | $ 0.36         | $ 0.32 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=27012166&loc=d3e187085-122770Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfStockholdersEquityAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From;, Ralph Hensel [kc2eqb@yahoo.com] 

.SeDt~ SatIJrday, February 13, 2010 9:32 AM ., T O·~"","K, ", "Swanson, Brian (OST) 


Cc: Devany, Dennis (OST) 


Subject: EAS ~\J:bsidy, PBG..

. tferiilemen: 

_. 

Ijust finished readi~e article by Andrew Schonbek in Saturday's Press-Republican and agree completely 


with the well written article. The only logical choice for the EAS subsidy is Cape Aic (won'trepeat all of the 


points in Mr.Scii~bek's article but will again say that I agree with him completely. . . " 


I have some ktiowl:e:dge in' these matters as I was the Airport Manager for Clinton CountXAirport (PLB) for' 


twenty years and Pfflttsburgh Int'l Airport (PBG) for the four years we were developing the.facility. I am now 


retired. 


I would think thaCfrom DOT's perspective, Cape Air provides the best service at the lowesl(;ost and would be 


the obvious choice; I hope so. 


With that, I'll just say"good luck" with your efforts to manage this program that is so very. important to small 


communities. Thank you for your efforts, regardless of your decision. 


Ralph L. Hensel .. 


Retired Airport Manager of PBG and PLB 


1
#### M. C. French & Son, Appellant, v. Stanley Trusevitz, Respondent.

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and case remitted to Steuben County Court for further proceedings in accordance' with Memorandum. Memorandum: In January, 1964, plaintiff obtained a money judgment against defendant in a Justice Court of the Town of Bath. Defendant appealed to Steuben County Court and demanded a new trial in that court. (Cf. Justice Ct. Act, § 442.) An undertaking to stay execution executed by individual third parties was filed but .the required affidavit of justification (CPLR 2502) was not attached thereto. Furthermore, the undertaking was not approved by the Justice of the Peace or the County Judge as mandated by section 434 of the Justice Court Act. Plaintiff’s motion for appropriate relief .to remedy these defects was denied. These deficiencies could have been readily remedied upon a showing by appellant that they were due to mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Justice Ct. Act, § 433; *Harrison Bros. Co.*v. *Excelsior Bag & Mfg. Co.,*180 App. Div. 790.) We remand the ease to give the appellant an opportunity to move within a reasonable time to remedy the defects. Upon proof of failure to do so County Court should make an order dismissing so much of the appeal as demanded a new trial and proceed to decide the. appeal upon the return before it (Justice Ct. Act, § 451). ' Respondent not having raised the question, it is not necessary to decide whether or not the order is appealable. (Cf. CPLR 5703, subd. [b].) (Appeal from order of Steuben County Court denying plaintiff’s motion to strike notice of appeal.) Present— Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
#### The Commonwealth *vs.*Cornell.

Indictment *for obstructing a road.*

If a party indicted for obstructingaroad, would defend Jiimselfbyshow ing that he was authorized by the county ct. to change the course of the road, *he*must show that he had opened the new road ire core *fortuity to the*order,before he closed the old one: it is not for the com’lth toprovethatthe new road is variant from the érder.

[Atto. Gen. Morehead for the Commonwealth: Messrs. Sanders and Depew for Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Gallatin County.

*April*28.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court

Cornell being indicted for obstructing a public road, by placing a fence across it, and attempting, on the trial, to defend his act, by proving that the county court had, by its order, given him leave to change the road, and that he had opened a new road in consequence of that order, — the circuit court instructed the jury, that it was not his duty to prove, that he had made the change as authorized by the order ; but that it was the duty of the commonwealth to prove, that the new road was not as designated by the order ; and, thereupon, verdict and judgment were rendered against the commonwealth.

This instruction cannot be sustained. Before the old road should be deemed to have been. discontinued, and before Cornell had a right to close it, it was indispensable, that he had made the new road conformably with the authority given by the county court; and, of course, he could not justify the obstruction of, the old road without proving, not only that he had opened a new road, but that he had done it in the manner prescribed by the order of the county court.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.13    
    


 
 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
    


        THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of March 11, 2005, by and between UbiquiTel Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and James J.
Volk, Chief Financial Officer of the Company ("Executive"), and amends an Employment Agreement between the parties entered into and effective as of November 19, 2003 ("Employment Agreement"). 


        The
parties agree as follows: 


        1.     Section 1.a.(2)(B)
of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the words ", and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Incentive Stock Option
Agreement or Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with the Company executed hereafter that grants incentive or nonqualified stock options to Executive," after the words "each as may be amended from
time to time" and before the words "any unexercised portion of the Options". As amended, Section 1.a.(2)(B) will read as follows (amended language underscored): 



        (B)  Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in Section 5 of Executive's Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with the Company dated as of July 16, 2001, as
amended, Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with the Company dated as of May 2, 2002 and Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with the Company dated as of August 7, 2003, each as may be
amended from time to time, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Incentive Stock Option Agreement or Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with the Company executed hereafter that grants
incentive or nonqualified stock options to Executive, any unexercised portion of the Options (as defined therein) shall automatically and without notice terminate and become null and void on the date
that is the earlier of (I) three (3) years following the date on which Executive's employment with the Company or a successor-in-interest of the Company is
terminated or (II) the date set forth in Section 5(f) of the applicable Stock Option Agreement. 




        2.     In
all other respects the parties reaffirm the Employment Agreement without change. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written. 



	

 	
 	

UBIQUITEL INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	


	 	 	Its:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	

 	
 	

EXECUTIVE:
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

 James J. Volk













QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.13


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
#### § 1c.124 Conditions.

With respect to any research project or any class of research projects the department or agency head of either the conducting or the supporting Federal department or agency may impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of approval when in the judgment of the department or agency head additional conditions are necessary for the protection of human subjects.
#### §§ 1780.49-1780.52 [Reserved]