alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1970.11 Timing of the environmental review process. ( a ) Once an applicant decides to request Agency financial assistance, the applicant must initiate the environmental review process at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning, design, and other decisions reflect environmental policies and values, avoid delays, and minimize potential conflicts. This includes early coordination with the Agency, all funding partners, and regulatory agencies, in order to minimize duplication of effort.
( b ) The environmental review process must be concluded before the obligation of funds; except for infrastructure projects where the assurance that funds will be available for community health, safety, or economic development has been determined as necessary by the Agency Administrator. At the discretion of the Agency Administrator, funds may be obligated contingent upon the conclusion of the environmental review process prior to any action that would have an adverse effect on the environment or limit the choices of any reasonable alternatives. Funds so obligated shall be rescinded if the Agency cannot conclude the environmental review process before the end of the fiscal year after the year in which the funds were obligated, or if the Agency determines that it cannot proceed with approval based on findings in the environmental review process. For the purposes of this section, infrastructure projects shall include projects such as broadband, telecommunications, electric, energy efficiency, smart grid, water, sewer, transportation, and energy capital investments in physical plant and equipment, but not investments authorized in the Housing Act of 1949.
( c ) The environmental review process is formally concluded when all of the following have occurred: ( 1 ) The Agency has reviewed the appropriate environmental review document for completeness;
( 2 ) All required public notices have been published and public comment periods have elapsed;
( 3 ) All comments received during any established comment period have been considered and addressed, as appropriate by the Agency;
( 4 ) The environmental review documents have been approved by the Agency; and
( 5 ) The appropriate environmental decision document has been executed by the Agency after paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section have been concluded.
( d ) For proposed actions listed in § 1970.151 and to ensure Agency compliance with the conflict of interest provisions in 40 CFR 1506.5(c), the Agency is responsible for selecting any third-party EIS contractor and participating in the EIS preparation. For more information regarding acquisition of professional services and funding of a third-party contractor, refer to § 1970.152.
[81 FR 11032, Mar. 2, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 59271, Nov. 23, 2018; 84 FR 49648, Sept. 23, 2019]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Baker, 7:20cv39

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 6

This Order addresses Defendants’ objections and counter-designations to 

Plaintiff’s affirmative deposition designations and Plaintiff’s objections to 

Defendants’ counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Myers, Brian 12-12-2019

SO ORDERED, on this 6th day of June, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 154 Filed 06/06/21 Page 1 of 1
REGISTRATION NOT TRANSFERABLE UN ITED S T A TES OF AMER I CA I This ce rtifi ca te

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP ORTAT I O N- FED ERA L AVIAT ION ADMINISTRATION must be in the airCERTIFICATE OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION craft when op e r a t e d. NATIONALITY AND I AIRCRAFT SERIAL NO. REGISTRATION MARKS N 301BD 113 MAN UF A C T URER AND MANU F AC T U RE R 'S DE S IGN ATI ON OF AIR C RA FT

UAV SOLUTIONS INC PHOENIX 30 ICAO A i rcraft 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.

Corporation0 II is certified that the above described aircraft has been entered on the register of the Federal Aviation Administration, United States of Amer i ca , i n accordance with the Convention on

International Civil Aviation dated December 7, 1 944, 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!ltlgria t iQP,_ **~ ~tw::~Ui!tlatr.oti** **_i!**

E X PIRATION DATE April 30, 2018 A DM INI ST RA TOR Administration : " '•-t·
Exhibit 23



                   Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
 of KLLM Transport Services, Inc. of our report dated January 31, 1997, except 
for Note B as to which the date is March 7, 1997, included in the 1996 Annual 
Report to Shareholders of KLLM Transport Services, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of KLLM Transport 
Services, Inc. listed in
Item 14(a)(2).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's 
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.  
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken 
as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information as set 
forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement (Post-effective Amendment No. 6, Form S-8, No. 33-14545) pertaining 
to the KLLM Transport Services, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and in the 
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-09605) pertaining to the KLLM 
Transport Services, Inc. 1996 Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated 
January 31, 1997, except for Note B as to which the date is March 7, 1997, 
with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by 
reference and our report included in the preceding paragraph with
respect to the financial statement schedule of KLLM Transport Services, Inc. 
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of KLLM Transport Services, Inc..


<TABLE>
       
<S>                                <C>
                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Jackson, Mississippi
March 31, 1997


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the annual Report of Morgan Creek Energy Corp. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Douglas
      Humphreys President/Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Grant Atkins,
      Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer/Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:
                May
                14, 2006
            
            
            Date:
              May
              14, 2006/s/ Douglas
              Humphreys
            
            
            /s/ Grant
              AtkinsDouglas
              HumphreysPresident/Chief Executive Officer
            
            
            Grant
              AtkinsTreasurer/Chief
              Financial Officer
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

• VOC Limits and Effective Dates Establish VOC limit of 50 grams per liter (g/l) of material for the use of direct-contact lubricants, 75 g/l of material for metalworking flu ids and 130 g/l of material for precision metal removal fluids, effective January 1 , 2012. Distinguish military specified rust preservatives from general metal pro tecting fluids and establish a limit of 340 g/l, effective January 1, 2011. Exempt the use of dimethyl carbonate for a unique metalworking application.

• VOC Content Test Method Establish a thermogravimetric test method or metho ds to determine VOC content of applicable fluids. ASTM E 1868-10, with work instr uctions, and SCAQMD Method

319 are both included in the rule.

• Prohibition of Sale Expand the prohibition of sale to include the newl y incorporated categories. Prohibit the sale of non-compliant lubricants and rust inhib itors.

• Sell-through Provision Expand the sell-through provision to allow metalwo rking fluids and direct-contact lubricants manufactured prior to the appropriate ef fective date to be sold or applied

for six months.

• Container Labeling Require containers for all fluids subject to the r ule to display the date of manufacture and VOC content. This provision does not apply to consumer products.

• Recordkeeping Streamline the recordkeeping provisions to allow f acilities an alternative to daily recordkeeping.

• Administrative Require manufacturers and suppliers of metalworkin g fluids and direct-contact lubricants to submit annual quantity and emission r eports for a three year period.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 4, 2006*

[Cite as *05/04/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2192.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-2436.

#### State v. Trimble.

Portage C.P. 2005CR0022. This cause is pending before the court as a death penalty appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for an extension of time to transmit the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the time for transmitting the record is hereby extended to May 31, 2006.
#### § 29.2295 Semifired (SF).

Tobacco that is partially or lightly smoked or has not received the amount of smoke that is characteristic of fire-cured tobacco.

[51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
§ 1902.1 General. This subpart prescribes the policies and procedures in establishing and using supervised bank accounts, and in placing Multi-Family Housing (MFH) reserve accounts in supervised bank accounts. 7 CFR part 2018, subpart D, provides the procedures Servicing Officials should follow in ordering loan and grant disbursements. This subpart is inapplicable to Farm Service Agency, Farm Loan Programs. ( a ) Borrowers referred to in this subpart include both loan and grant recipients. They are referred to as “depositors” in the deposit agreements hereinafter described. References herein and in deposit agreements to “other lenders” include lenders and grantors other than Rural Development.
( b ) Banks and savings associations referred to in this subpart are those in which deposits are insured by the FDIC.
( c ) Credit unions referred to in this subpart are those in which deposits are insured by the NCUA.
( d ) Financial institutions as referred to in this subpart include banks, savings associations, and credit unions which are covered by the proper insurance coverage cited in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( e ) Supervised bank accounts referred to in this subpart are bank, savings association, or credit union accounts established through deposit agreements entered into between the borrower, the United States of America acting through Rural Development, and the Financial Institution on Form RD 402-1, “Deposit Agreement”.
( f ) Form RD 402-1 provides for the deposit of funds in a supervised bank account to ensure the performance of the borrower's obligation to Rural Development in connection with a loan and/or grant.
( g ) “Interest-Bearing Deposit Agreement” (Exhibit B of this subpart), provides for the deposit of loan or grant funds that are not required for immediate disbursement in specified interest-bearing deposits, and it is executed in conjunction with Form RD 402-1.
( h ) Servicing officials referred to in this instruction include county supervisors, district directors, local supervisors, area supervisors, and National Office grant program managers.
( i ) Automated systems referred to in this instruction refers to the loan accounting systems; e.g., Program Loan Accounting System, Automated Multi-Housing Accounting System, and Dedicated Loan Origination System, from which loan and grant disbursements are ordered.
( j ) This subpart includes the National Office directly servicing a grant recipient or recipient of cooperative agreement funds.
[70 FR 59225, Oct. 12, 2005, as amended at 80 FR 9869, Feb. 24, 2015]
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Brian Carter, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dirt Motor Sports, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); andc) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.     Date: December 29, 2005 /s/ Brian Carter     Brian Carter,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10858

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MORRIS MARK WOMACK,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:93-CR-135-X-2-R

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Morris Mark Womack appeals the district court’s revocation

of his supervised release. Womack argues that the protections

afforded by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and FED.

R. CRIM. P. 11 should be extended to supervised-release revocation

proceedings. He contends that his revocation, therefore, should

be vacated because the district court did not inquire on the

record whether his plea of true was knowing and voluntary.
No. 02-10858

-2-

Because Womack raises this argument for the first time on

appeal, this court’s review is for plain error only. United

States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en

banc), abrogated in part, Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461

(1997). Contrary to Womack’s assertion, plain error review

applies to issues of law raised for the first time on appeal. 

See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1993).

In United States v. Johns, 625 F.2d 1175, 1176 (5th Cir.

Unit B 1980), this court held that FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 is

inapplicable to probation-revocation hearings. As the procedures

for supervised-release revocations and probation revocations are

the same, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.1, the issue whether the

district court should have conducted a FED. R. CRIM. P. 11

colloquy at Womack’s supervised-release revocation hearing is

arguably foreclosed by Johns. Thus, Womack fails to demonstrate

that the district court erred, plainly or otherwise, by not

conducting a FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 colloquy. 

This court has not yet addressed the issue whether Boykin is

applicable to supervised-release or probation-revocation

hearings. See Johns, 625 F.2d at 1176. Given the lack of

controlling authority in this circuit on this issue, any error by

the district court with regard to Boykin was not clear or obvious

and, therefore, does not meet the plain-error standard. See

Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162-64. Accordingly, the district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.
§ 1a.2 Authorization. Any official of the Office of Inspector General who is designated by the Inspector General according to §§ 1a.3 and 1a.5 of this part and who is engaged in the performance of his/her official duties under the authority provided in section 6, or described in section 9, of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), is authorized to— ( a ) Make an arrest without a warrant for any criminal felony violation subject to § 1a.4, if such violation is committed, or if the official has probable cause to believe that such violation is being committed, in his/her presence;
( b ) Execute and serve a warrant for an arrest, for the search of premises, or the seizure of evidence if such warrant is issued under authority of the United States upon probable cause to believe that any criminal felony violation, subject to § 1a.4, has been committed; and
( c ) Carry a firearm.
[50 FR 13759, Apr. 8, 1985]
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-17 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-17 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-17 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-17 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-17 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 1-17 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMI CLAIRE et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 4:20cv20-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel Non-Party Mercer Health and 

Benefits LLC to Produce Documents Responsive to Subpoena. ECF No. 81. Nonparty Mercer Health and Benefits LLC is hereby ordered to show cause as to why 

Plaintiffs’ motion should not be granted on or before November 20, 2020. The 

Clerk is directed to both mail and email a copy of this Order to non-party Mercer 

Health’s point of contact in this matter.1 Defendants are likewise directed to email a 

copy of this Order to Mercer Health, and file a notice with this Court when they have 

1 Per Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ motion, Mercer Health’s prior objections to Plaintiff’s 

subpoena came from litigation paralegal Ted Hattemer-Maier of Marsh & McLennan Companies, 

Inc. This Order should be served upon him at: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 1166 Avenue 

of the Americas New York, NY 10036 and Ted.Hattemer-Maier@mmc.com. 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 82 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 2
2

done so. 

SO ORDERED on November 6, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 82 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51012 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. OSCAR FERNANDEZ-AGUILAR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-450-ALL Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Oscar Fernandez-Aguilar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with A nders v. Californi a, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Fernandez-Aguilar has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave toNo. 06-51012

2 withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIAM HERNANDEZ,

Inmate No. M27195,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv3650/MCR/EMT

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

December 7, 2021 (ECF No. 61). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report 

and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed 

objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the record, I have 

determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

61) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-03650-MCR-EMT Document 63 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv3650/MCR/EMT

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and 

failure to comply with an order of the court.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of January 2022.

 M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03650-MCR-EMT Document 63 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 2