alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

U.S. Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.

# SUMMARY:

This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair designee for the Department of Energy.

# DATES:

This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2010. Susan F. Beard.

Issued in Washington, DC, November 3, 2010.

Sarah J. Bonilla,

Director, Office of Human Capital Management.

[FR Doc. 2010-28372 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
EXHIBIT 32

In connection with the quarterly report of Holloman Energy Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) Mark Stevenson, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Robert Wesolek, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:

(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.



|                |     |                                            
|--------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------
|                |     |                                            
|August 12, 2010 | By: | /s/MARK STEVENSON                          
|                |     | Mark Stevenson, Principal Executive Officer
|                |     |                                            
|                |     |                                            
|                |     |                                            
|                |     |                                            
|August 12, 2010 | By: | /s/ ROBERT WESOLEK                         
|                |     | Robert Wesolek, Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28697]



[[Page 69633]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XV57


Marine Mammals; File No. 15206

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Sea World, LLC, 9205 South Park 
Center Loop, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32819 [Brad Andrews, Responsible 
Party] has been issued a permit to import one beluga whale 
(Delphinapterus leucas) for public display.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376; and Southeast Region, 
NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 
824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Laura Morse, 
(301)713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 31, 2010, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (73 FR 29111) that a request for a public display 
permit to import one male adult beluga whale from the Vancouver 
Aquarium Marine Science Center, British Columbia, Canada to Sea World 
of Texas, had been submitted by the above-named organization. The 
requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 
regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 
CFR part 216).
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the 
activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: November 5, 2010.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28697 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>			5
<MULTIPLIER>		1
       
<S>	<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>		YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>	DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>		JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>		DEC-31-1997
<CASH>			24,548
<SECURITIES>		0
<RECEIVABLES>		14,494
<ALLOWANCES>		0
<INVENTORY>			0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>		446,563
<PP&E>			455,121
<DEPRECIATION>		158,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>		1,004,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	2,560,137
<BONDS>			2,582,500
<COMMON>			192,065
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>	411,920
<PREFERRED>			1,875
<OTHER-SE>			(4,743,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	1,004,952
<SALES>			14,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>		14,394
<CGS>				9,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>		1,621,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>		0
<LOSS-PROVISION>		0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>	326,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>		(1,888,082)
<INCOME-TAX>		0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>	(1,888,082)
<DISCONTINUED>		0
<EXTRAORDINARY>		0
<CHANGES>			0
<NET-INCOME>		(1,888,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>		(0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>		(0.10)
        	

</TABLE>
#### § 28.26 Samples for Form C determination.

Samples submitted for Form C determination shall be drawn under the supervision of a Division employee who shall retain custody or control of the samples until they are shipped prepaid or delivered at the applicant's expense to the Classing Office serving the territory in which the bales of cotton are located.

[52 FR 30881, Aug. 18, 1987]
#### § 29.2638 Rule 22.

Tobacco shall be designated No Grade, using the grademark “No-G,” when it is dirty, nested, offtype, semicured, damaged 20 percent or more, extremely wet or watered, or when it needs to be reworked, contains foreign matter, or has an odor foreign to type.
#### § 27.43 Validity of cotton class certificates.

Each cotton class certificate for cotton classified as tenderable shall be valid for use in the tender of such cotton on a basis grade contract made in accordance with the Act and this subpart and the rules of an exchange not inconsistent therewith.

[22 FR 10926, Dec. 28, 1957, as amended at 42 FR 40677, Aug. 11, 1977]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7380
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO SIVAL CAMPBELL, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-90-30-A, CA-97-690-AM) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Sival Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Campbell , Nos. CR-90-30-A; CA-97-690-AM (E.D. Va. July 30, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Fw: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS--need some help understanding what 

we're doing on Thursday

Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 05/03/2010 01:41 PM

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/03/2010 01:41 PM -----

From: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>, Heidi King <hking@omb.eop.gov>, James 

Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott 

Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/03/2010 01:39 PM

Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS--need some help understanding what we're doing on Thursday

I had assumed the first was on the standard and the second on the implementation, which covers the 

monitoring/modeling. Whatever works best, but when we try and do all together, we never get time for 

the implementation side, so that's why we proposed 2 separate meetings. Plus, we would not have to 

have all the implementation folks on the first call if we're focusing just on the standard. Hoping to 

maximize folks time as well.

Chet

________________________________________

Richard A. "Chet" Wayland

Director, Air Quality Assessment Division

U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

(919) 541-4603

Lydia Wegman I need some clarification of what we're doing on... 05/03/2010 01:35:16 PM

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Heidi King <hking@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>, James Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael 

Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/03/2010 01:35 PM

Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS--need some help understanding what we're doing on Thursday

I need some clarification of what we're doing on Thursday. Is the first meeting in the morning just to 

discuss the standard and nothing about monitoring, modeling and implementation? If so, we don't need a 

full hour for that meeting, as it will not take us long to explain the standard and the basis for the decision. 

We had thought we could use the first meeting to go over the specifics of the entire package, including an 

overview of the monitoring and implementation provisions, and the general role to be played by modeling, 

and then have a further discussion on SO2 modeling in the afternoon. Please let me know if this makes 

sense to the two of you or if you want to have just a NAAQS discussion in the morning, in which case we'll 

shorten the morning meeting. Thanks. 

Richard Wayland Great! We'll set it up for 2pm Thursday. ______... 05/03/2010 12:30:38 PM

"King, Heidi R." 2pm sounds pretty good! heidi 05/03/2010 12:13:41 PM
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------



                Consent of Mann Frankfort Stien & Lipp CPAs, LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-38606) of Blue Dolphin Energy Company and in the related  Prospectus
of our  report  dated  February  28,  2003,  with  respect  to the  consolidated
financial  statements included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Blue Dolphin
Energy Company for the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/ Mann Frankfort Stien & Lipp CPAs, LLP
-----------------------------------------
Houston, Texas
February 28, 2003
#### § 29.2481 Key to standard grademarks.

## Groups

A—Wrappers.

B—Heavy Leaf.

C—Thin Leaf.

X—Lugs.

N—Nondescript.

S—Scrap.

## Qualities

1—Choice.

2—Fine.

3—Good.

4—Fair.

5—Low.

## Colors

L—Light brown.

F—Medium brown.

D—Dark brown.

M—Mixed or variegated.

G—Green.

GL—Light green.

GD—Dark green.

[45 FR 44293, July 1, 1980]
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent ,

v.
DONALD K. LEACOCK , Petitioner

. N o . 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0186 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No s

. S0300 CR 2008 0187 S0300CR2008 0511 The Honorable Mark R. Moran , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL
Coconino County Attorney’s Office , Flagstaff By Stacy Lynn Krueger Counsel for Respondent

Donald K. Leacock , Florence Petitioner FILED 7-31-2018S TATE v. LEACOCK Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz , Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Donald K. Leacock seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Ru le of Criminal Procedure 3 2.1. Thi s is petitioner’s third successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the supe rior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
**Exhibit31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Paul J. Cornell, certify that:1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Quintana Maritime Limited. 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-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 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 report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     By:          /s/ Paul J. Cornell     Paul J. Cornell  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   Date: August 26, 2005
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of D.J.C. and J.R.C., Children

No. 06

- 18

- 00042

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CV36948 ). Opinion delivered by Ju stice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. W e note that the appellant has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal.
Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 12, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-59-MMP-AK

JEROME W. JOHNSON,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to strike the Government’s

response to the Court’s order directing it to provide appellate counsel’s affidavit and supporting

documents. Doc. 218; see also Doc. 212. In response to the Court’s order, the Government resubmitted the unsworn letter from counsel which had previously been filed, but on this occasion,

counsel swore to the contents of the letter and the attached documents under penalty of perjury. 

This is plainly sufficient to meet the Court’s order. Defendant’s motion, Doc. 218, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2008.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cr-00059-MP-AK Document 220 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 1
1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DONNIE JACKSON

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv33-MW/GRJ

MAYO CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 16. Upon consideration, no objection having 

been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without 

prejudice for abuse of the judicial process and pursuant to the three-strikes rule 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The pending motion, ECF No. 15 is DENIED.” The 
2

Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on April 14, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Terminaltrends**** 
SuDocNumber:TD4.2:T 27/3
ItemNumber:431-C-08(online)
CGPsystem Number:000589879
 
TerminalTrends Volume 7 - April 2003
TerminalTrends Volume 6 - December 2002
TerminalTrends Volume 5 - September 2002
TerminalTrends Volume 4 - July 2002
TerminalTrends Volume 3 - April 2002
TerminalTrends Volume 2 - December 2001
TerminalTrends Volume 1 - August 2001
 
February 24, 2020
 **
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 15, 2006*

[Cite as *05/15/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2345.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-0266.

#### State v. Moore.

Cuyahoga App. No. 83703, 2004-Ohio-6303. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this case is no longer held for the decisions in 2004- 1171, *State v. Mathis,*Cuyahoga App. No. 83311, 2004-Ohio-2982, and 2004-1267, *State v. Fair,*Cuyahoga App. No. 82278, 2004-Ohio-2971.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case now be held for the decision in 2005-1692, *State v. Evans,*2005-Ohio-3847. The briefing schedule remains stayed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRIS DEWAYNE JENKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CR-97-162)

Submitted: September 9, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris Dewayne Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Chris Dewayne Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582 (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must file his

notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310

(5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in

nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a

motion, the district court may grant an extension of time of up to

thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353

(4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered its order denying the motion for

reduction of sentence on November 6, 2002; the ten-day appeal

period expired on November 20, 2002. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(b)(1)(A), 26. Jenkins filed his notice of appeal after the tenday period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect

period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable

neglect period, we remanded the case to the district court for the

court to determine whether Jenkins could demonstrate excusable

neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal

period. Although the district court ordered Jenkins to provide

evidence of excusable neglect or good cause, Jenkins failed to

comply with the order. Because the record does not show excusable
3

neglect or good cause, we dismiss Jenkins’ appeal as untimely. 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 in the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### § 28.465 Leaf Grade 5.

Leaf Grade 5 is leaf which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Low Middling, effective July 1, 1987.”