alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REGISTRATION NOT TRANSFERABLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I This certificate 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION- FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION must be in the airCERTIFICATE OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION craft when operated. 

NATIONALITY AND I AIRCRAFT SERIAL NO. 

REGISTRATION MARKS N 301BD 113 

MANUFACTURER AND MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF AIRCRAFT 

UAV SOLUTIONS INC PHOENIX 30 

ICAO Aircraft Address Code: 50621446 This certificate is 

issued for 

I UAV SOLUTIONS INC registration purposes 

s 8280 PATUXENT RANGE ROAD SUITE 3 only and is not a 

s JESSUP MD 20794 certificate of till e. 

u The Federal Aviation 

E 

Administration does 

D 

not determine rights 

of ownership as 

T 

between private 

0 

persons. 

Corporation 

II is certified that the above 0 described aircraft has been entered on the register of the Federal Aviation Administration, United States of America, in accordance with the Convention on 

International Civil Aviation dated December 7, 1944, and with Title 49, United States Code, U.S. Department 

and regulations issued thereunder. 

DATE OF ISSUE April 29, 2015 

~&6c~ 2:::79· . ~ If.<W!ltlgriatiQP, _ ~ ~tw::~Ui!tlatr.oti_i! EXPIRATION DATE April 30, 2018 ADMINISTRATOR Administration 

:" 

'•-t·
#### §§ 1778.24-1778.30 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.424 Dwelling construction and standards.

All construction will be performed in accordance with subpart A of part 1924 of this chapter. The planned work must meet the building requirements of 7 CFR part 3550 and meet the Development Standards as defined in subpart A of part 1924 of this chapter and in any local codes. Sites and site developments must conform to the requirements of subpart C of part 1924 of this chapter.

[55 FR 41833, Oct. 16, 1990, as amended at 67 FR 78328, Dec. 24, 2002]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 13, 2010.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

                    1.                     *Bitterroot Holding Company, Lolo, Montana,*                     to retain shares of West One Bank, Kalispell, Montana.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 12, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-28953 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 15

- 00301

- CR IN RE Israel LARA Jr. Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2015
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On May 13, 2015, relator Israel Lara Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district clerk to transmit his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to the convicting court . However, this court does not have jurisd iction to grant the requested relief. By statute, this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our ap pellate jurisdiction. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221 (a)

- (b) ( West 2004)



### . We conclude the writ requested is not necessa ry to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11

- 1327

- CR, styled The State of Texas v. Israel Lara , pending in the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Dwight E. Peschel presiding.
From: "Whiteman, Chad" <Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov>

To: Venu Ghanta/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/25/2013 06:45 PM Subject: RE: 1/23 EPA Respo nse pertaining to 2013 RFS Volume Standards [RIN 2060

- AR43]



### Attached is a suggested sentence, highlighted in green, that would at the least let UCS know that we

have heard their concerns. It also echoes what USDA and some of the other stakeholders have stated in EO meetings. This would be inserted in the first pa ragraph on page 44. Feel free to give me a call on my BB if you want to discuss.



### Nevertheless, we recognize that some uncertainty exists in the projected availability of other advanced biofuels. The single largest source, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol , was exported at lower

total volumes in 2010

- 2012 than the U.S. would need in 2013 to meet the 2.75 bill gal advanced biofuel requirement. Moreover, the need for 666 mill gal of Brazilian sugar ethanol in 2013

exceeds all historical volumes of ethanol imported into the U.S. from Brazil by a substantial margin. In addition, EPA is aware of concerns by some stakeholders that sugar ethanol imported by the US may be replaced in the exporting country ’ s domestic market by either non

- advanced biofuels, or by petroleum, which could frustrate the purpose of the RFS program to generate a net increase in the production and use of advanced biofuels. There may be enough uncertainty to warrant a more cautious approach to advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2013, for example a reduction of 200 mill gal to approximate the uncertainty discussed above. Therefore, while we are not proposing to redu ce the required volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for 2013, we request comment on whether and to what extent a reduction is warranted; we have the discretion to reduce the advanced biofuel volume requirement for 2013 by up to the amount that the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement is reduced (986 mill gal in today's proposal). Were we to do so, as discussed in Section III.A, we would also simultaneously reduce the total renewable fuel requirement by the same amount.

From: Ghanta.Ve nu@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Ghanta.Venu@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:21 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad; Korotney.David@epamail.epa.gov; Farber.Glenn@epamail.epa.gov; Simon.Karl@epamail.epa.gov; Stewart.Lori@epamail.epa.gov; Jutras.Nathaniel@epa mail.epa.gov; Argyropoulos.Paul@epamail.epa.gov; hannon.john@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: 1/23 EPA Response pertaining to 2013 RFS Volume Standards [RIN 2060

- AR43]

Hi Chad

Please find the redline of what we intend to be our final passback attached. I h ave added in the changes on pp. 11, 24, 43, and 50 that we discussed this morning. We also made some minor edits in light of today's DC Circuit decision.

Please contact me if you need anything else.



### (See attached file: EO12866_RFS standards 2060

- AR43 NPR M FRN_20130125.docx)

Venu Ghanta Office of Transportation and Air QualityUS Environmental Protection Agency

202

- 564

- 1374 (phone)
** **

**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,David Zinberg, certify that:

1. Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bidz.com, Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: April 30, 2007 |                    |
|----------------------|-------------------------|
|                 |                    |
|                 | /s/ David Zinberg       |
|                 | David Zinberg           |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated August 2, 2010, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on September 1, 2010 (75 FR 53718), Cambrex Charles City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleOpium, raw (9600)
IIPoppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the basic classes of controlled substances to manufacture a bulk intermediate which will be distributed in bulk to the company's customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: November 1, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-28512 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.575 Section 515 Rural Rental Housing (RRH) loans. ( a ) *Amount available for allocations.* See § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
( b ) *Basic formula criteria, data source and weight.* See § 1940.552(b) of this subpart. The criteria used in the basic formula area: ( 1 ) State's percentage of National rural population,
( 2 ) State's percentage of National number of rural occupied substandard units, and
( 3 ) State's percentage of National rural families with incomes below the poverty level. The data source for the first two of these criterion is the most recent decennial Census data. The data source for the third criterion is the 5-year data from the American Community Survey (ACS) or, if needed, other Census Bureau data. Each criterion is assigned a specific weight according to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each criterion is multiplied by the weight assigned and summed to arrive at a State factor (SF). SF = (criterion No. 1 × weight of 33 1/3%) + (criterion No. 2 × weight of 33 1/3%) + (criterion No. 3 × weight of 33 1/3%)
( c ) *Basic formula allocation.* See § 1940.552(c) of this subpart.
( d ) *Transition formula.* See § 1940.522(d) of this subpart.
( e ) *Base allocation.* See § 1940.552(e) of this subpart. Jurisdictions receiving administrative allocations do not receive base allocations.
( f ) *Administrative allocations.* See § 1940.552(f) of this subpart. Jurisdictions receiving formula allocations do not receive administrative allocations.
( g ) *Reserve.* See § 1940.552(g) of this subpart.
( h ) *Pooling of funds.* See § 1940.552(h) of this subpart.
( i ) *Availability of the allocation.* See § 1940.552(i) of this subpart.
( j ) *Suballocation by the State Director.* See § 1940.552(j) of this subpart.
( k ) *Other documentation.* Not applicable.
[53 FR 26229, July 12, 1988, as amended at 80 FR 9877, Feb. 24, 2015]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM HENRY MOORE, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:00-cr-00016-JBF-2)

Submitted: January 9, 2009 Decided: February 13, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Henry Moore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, Ne wport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William Henry Moore, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying Moore’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Moore , No. 4:00-cr00016-JBF-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2008). 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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69461-69462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28513]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated August 13, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on

[[Page 69462]]

September 1, 2010 (75 FR 53719), Noramco Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, 
Athens, Georgia 30601, made application by letter to the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of 
Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670), a basic class of controlled substance 
listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in bulk 
to manufacture other controlled substances solely in bulk for 
distribution to the company's customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 
registration of Noramco Inc. to import the basic class of controlled 
substance is consistent with the public interest, and with United 
States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Noramco Inc. 
to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 
958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company 
is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled 
substance listed.

    Dated: November 1, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-28513 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.104 Authorities and responsibilities. ( a ) *Redelegation of authority.* Rural Development officials will redelegate authorities to the maximum extent possible, consistent with program objectives and available resources. ( 1 ) Any authority in this subpart which is specifically provided to the Administrator or to an Assistant Administrator may only be delegated to a State Director. The State Director cannot redelegate such authority.
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the State Director may redelegate, in writing, any authority delegated to the State Director in this subpart, unless specifically excluded, to a Program Chief, Program Specialist, or Property Management Specialist on the State Office staff.
( 3 ) The District Director may redelegate, in writing, any authority delegated to the District Director in this subpart to an Assistant District Director or District Loan Specialist. Authority of District Directors in this subpart applies to Area Loan Specialists in Alaska and the Director for the Western Pacific Territories.
( 4 ) The County Supervisor may redelegate, in writing, any authority delegated to the County Supervisor in this subpart to an Assistant County Supervisor, GS-7 or above, who is determined by the County Supervisor to be qualified. Authority of County Supervisors in this subpart applies to Area Loan Specialists in Alaska, Island Directors in Hawaii, the Director for the Western Pacific Territories, and Area Supervisors in the Western Pacific Territories and American Samoa.
( b ) *Responsibility.* ( 1 ) National Office program directors are responsible for reviewing and providing guidance to State, District and County Offices in disposing of inventory property.
( 2 ) The State Director is responsible for establishing an effective program and insuring compliance with Rural Development regulations.
( 3 ) District Directors are responsible for disposal actions for programs under their supervision and for monitoring County Office compliance with Rural Development regulations and State Supplements.
( 4 ) County Supervisors are responsible for timely disposal of inventory property for programs under their supervision.
[53 FR 27830, July 25, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 7568, Jan. 24, 2001]
#### Linda Sagan, Respondent, v Carl Sagan, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 11, 1979, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted, without costs or disbursements. The parties had been married in 1968. On August 27, 1977, they signed a handwritten document entitled "Preliminary agreement, Marriage settlement,” which contained property disposition and custody provisions. There was a subsequent handwritten addendum purporting to modify the preliminary agreement. It was never signed. Neither party adhered to the terms of the preliminary agreement. Subsequently, both *510plaintiff and defendant retained separate counsel. A separation agreement was drafted but not signed by the parties. The terms of the proposed separation agreement contained provisions significantly different from those of the handwritten document. The plaintiff wife brought this action seeking, *inter alia,*a declaration that a valid separation agreement exists. The defendant moved at Special Term for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that no contract existed between the parties and that the preliminary agreement was in any event abandoned. Special Term denied the motion, and we would reverse. The preliminary writing sought to be enforced is at best an agreement to agree. All the essential terms were not fully set forth. Even in the wife’s complaint the document is characterized as "referring to *certain*of the parties’ understandings” (emphasis added). This conclusion is substantially confirmed by the conceded fact that, after the parties retained counsel, a substantially different arrangement was proposed but never agreed upon by the parties. Finally, the preliminary agreement cannot pass muster as a separation agreement, since the parties did not specifically state an intent to live separate and apart. Under these circumstances, the husband was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Bloom, Lane, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.