alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3201.149 Wall coverings. ( a ) *Definition.* Wall coverings are materials that are applied to walls using an adhesive. This category includes, but is not limited to, wallpaper, vinyl wall coverings, and wall fabrics. This category excludes all types of paints or coatings.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 62 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased wall coverings. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased wall coverings.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 1942
Editorial Notes: Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1942.108 Application docket preparation and review. ( a ) *Guides.* Application dockets should be developed in accordance with § 1942.2(c) of subpart A of this part 1942.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Budgets.* All applicants must complete Form RD 442-7, “Operating Budget,” except as provided in this paragraph. Applicants with annual incomes not exceeding $100,000 may, with concurrence of the District Director, use Form RD 1942-52, “Cash Flow Projection,” instead of Form RD 442-7. Projections should be provided for the current year and each year thereafter until the facility is expected to have been in operation for a full year and a full annual installment paid on the loan.
( d ) *Letter of conditions.* The District Director should prepare and issue a letter of conditions in accordance with § 1942.5 (a)(1) and (c) of subpart A of this part 1942.
( e ) *Organizational review.* As early in the application process as practical, the approval official should obtain copies of organization documents from each applicant and forward them through the State Office to the Regional Attorney for review and comments. The Regional Attorney's comments should be received and considered before obligation of funds.
( f ) *National Office review.* Applications that require National Office review will be submitted in accordance with § 1942.5(b) of subpart A of this part 1942.
( g ) *State Office review.* The State Office must monitor fire and rescue and other small community facility project loanmaking and servicing and provide guidance, assistance, and training as necessary to ensure the activities are accomplished in an orderly manner consistent with the Agency's regulations. The processing office should request advice and assistance from the State Office as needed. The State Director may require all or part of a specific application docket to be submitted to the State Office for review at any time. The State Director may determine that one or more of the processing office staffs do not have adequate training and expertise to routinely complete application dockets without State Office review. In such cases, the State Director should establish guidelines by memorandum or by State supplement to the subpart for the necessary State Office reviews.
( h ) *Loan approval and fund obligation.* Loans must be approved and obligated in accordance with § 1942.5(d) of subpart A of this part 1942 and subpart A of part 1901 of this chapter.
[52 FR 43726, Nov. 16, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 47197, Nov. 13, 1989; 67 FR 60854, Sept. 27, 2002; 68 FR 65830, Nov. 24, 2003]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT W. ELLIOTT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-17291

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00041-MMD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2016** 

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Nevada state prisoner Robert W. Elliott appeals from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust, see

Rhoades v. Henry, 638 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010), and we vacate and 

FILED

OCT 03 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
remand. 

Elliott contends that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas petition 

as unexhausted because it had discretion to stay the proceedings. After the district 

court dismissed Elliott’s petition, this court held in Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 

912 (9th Cir. 2016), that “a district court has the discretion to stay and hold in 

abeyance fully unexhausted petitions under the circumstances set forth in Rhines 

[v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)].” We, therefore, vacate and remand for the

district court to determine in the first instance whether Elliott is entitled to a stay

and for any further proceedings. 

Elliott’s request for judicial notice of state court records is granted. 

In light of our disposition of this appeal, we deny Elliott’s request to expand 

the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 

1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). 

VACATED and REMANDED.

 2 14-17291
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 7 -00 238 -CR

Do ugl as Howa r d Do or e s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR99- 255 , HO NORAB LE JACK H. RO B ISO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG
M E M O R

A N D UMO P I N I O N Doug las Howa

rd Doore s seeks to appe al the district c ourt’s order denying his moti on fo r e ntr y of a jud g me nt nun c pr o tunc . It app e a rs that Doo re s is se e kin ga dd iti on a l ja il t ime c re dit . An appe al does not lie fr om an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc to corr ect the a

war d of jail time cre dit. Sa nc he z v . S tate , 112 S.W .3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Corpus C hr i s t i 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t .) ; Everet t v . S tate , 82 S.W .3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. re f’d) . The appropr iate proc edure for a person s ee k i n g ad d i tional jail tim e cr edit is to present the issue to the trial court in a motion for nunc pro tunc judgment and if the m otion is unsuccessf ul, to seek re lief by a petition for writ of mandamus. E xp a r t eYb a rra , 14 9 S .W .3 d 14 7, 14 8- 49 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2004).2 The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Jul y

9, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DWAYNE MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v. 4:03cv239–WS/MAF

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary,

Florida Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

 

ORDER DISMISSING RULE 60(b) MOTION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 21) dated July 25, 2023. The magistrate judge recommends that the petitioner's

Rule 60(b) motion be dismissed as successive. The petitioner has filed objections

(ECF No. 24) to the report and recommendation.

Having reviewed the record in light of the petitioner’s objections, the

undersigned finds—as did the magistrate judge—that this court lacks the authority

to consider the petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion because it constitutes an

unauthorized successive § 2254 petition. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Page 2 of 2

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 21) is

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 10) is DISMISSED as an

unauthorized successive petition, over which this court lacks jurisdiction.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction.”

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of August , 2023.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr61-SPM

MELVIN T. MARTIN,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation (doc. 59). Defendant has been furnished a copy and has

been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States

Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the

Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 59) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s § 2255 motion to vacate (doc. 58) is denied without

prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED this eighth day of June, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00061-MW-CAS Document 61 Filed 06/08/09 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.2317 Width.

The relative breadth of a tobacco leaf expressed in relation to its length. (See chart, § 29.2351.)

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 175TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on November 12, 2014, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Jose Luis Riojas, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00217-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CR1304

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on May 14, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Ultra Custom Cleaners ) ASBCA No. 62737

)

Under Contract No. N00250

- 18

- C

- 0201 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Ms. Zahra Kohl

President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Adam J. Bester

, Esq.

Trial Attorney

Virginia Beach, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: March 22 , 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62737

, Appeal of Ultra Custom

Cleaners , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Cha rter.

Dated: March 23, 2021 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Ja~jE



## A TFS . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION 2 290BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866 +T", PROS"G 

## JUN - 4 2009 Mr. Mark N

. Mauriello, Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection P.O . Box 402 Trenton, New

Jersey 08625-0402 Dear Commissioner Mauriello: On April 21, 2009, we received your request to amend New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The revision involves New Jersey's recently adopted rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements and providing other SIP emission reduction measures for fourteen (14) source categories, as well as related changes to other rules. The specific rules are Subchapter 19, "Control and Prohibition ofAir Pollution fromOxides of Nitrogen (NOx)," Subchapter 16, "Control and Prohibition ofAir Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds," Subchapter 4, "Control and Prohibition ofParticles fromCombustion ofFuel," Subchapter 10, "Sulfur in Solid Fuels," Subchapter 21, "Emission Statements," and Subchapter 8, "Permits and Certificates for Minor Facilities (and Major Facilities Without an Operating Permit) ." We have determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and are reviewing it to prepare a notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In addition, we request that your staff forward copies ofthe codified versions ofeach amended rule as soon as they become available. We appreciate the great effort it took to get these important rules adopted and I believe they will go a long way to help protect the public health and the environment . Sincerely, Ronaljl'J. Borsellino, Acting Director Di~ .ision of Environmental Planning and Protection cc: W

. O'Sullivan, NJDEP C . Salmi, NJDEP

Internet Address (URL) " http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable " Printedwith Vegetable ONBased inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum30% Postconsumer)
Exhibit 10.36


 


General
Terms of Employment between Hercules Incorporated and Certain Executive
Officers.


 


The
following information summarizes certain terms of employment under which
Hercules Executives – namely Craig A. Rogerson, Fred G. Aanonsen, John Y. Televantos,
Israel J. Floyd, Allen A. Spizzo, Paul C. Raymond and Richard G. Dahlen – are
employed.


 


•      Basis
of Employment - Employment at Will (except as modified by Change in Control
Agreements in effect as listed herein)


 


Eligible for
non-guaranteed base salary, annual bonus and long term incentive awards


 


•      Base
Salaries - Reviewed for adjustment upon change in job/position or each March 1.  Increases based on performance and pay level
and are not guaranteed.


 


•      Variable
Annual Incentive – performance based, no guaranteed payout


 


•      Long
Term Incentive Awards – Grants based on position level.  No guaranteed grant or award value.


 


•      Benefits
– Participate in plans applicable to all salaried employees in U.S. on same
basis and same benefit structure as all salaried employees.


 


•      Others
– Mr. Rogerson is provided on a periodic basis a driver to transport him
to and from home and/or meetings depending on business reasons. Upon joining
Hercules, Messrs. Aanonsen, Televantos, and Raymond received employment offer
letters which are set forth in the Exhibits.
Page 1 of 2

Consolidated Case No. 4:19cv236-RH-MJF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIRK NIELSEN et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CONSOLIDATED

v. CASE NO. 4:20cv236-RH-MJF

RON DESANTIS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING ACACIA WILLIAMS’S CLAIMS 

One of the plaintiffs, Acacia Williams, has filed a notice of dismissal of her 

claims, purportedly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that Rule 41(a)(1) 

addresses the dismissal of entire actions, not claims by or against only some 

parties. See Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of La., 891 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2018). But 

Ms. Williams’s notice of voluntary dismissal constitutes an abandonment of her 

claims in this action. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

Ms. Williams’s claims are dismissed without prejudice. I do not direct the 

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 153 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:11cv45-RH/WCS

entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 

SO ORDERED on June 2, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00236-RH-MJF Document 153 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[108th Congress Public Law 393]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ393.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 2246]]

Public Law 108-393
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To clarify the loan guarantee authority under title VI of the Native 
       American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 
              1996. <<NOTE: Oct. 30, 2004 -  [H.R. 4471]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress 
assembled, <<NOTE: Homeownership Opportunities for Native Americans 
Act of 2004. 25 USC 4101 note.>> 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeownership Opportunities for 
Native Americans Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL GUARANTEES FOR FINANCING FOR TRIBAL HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

    Section 601 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4191) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Limitation on Percentage.--A guarantee made under this title 
shall guarantee repayment of 95 percent of the unpaid principal and 
interest due on the notes or other obligations guaranteed.''.

    Approved October 30, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4471 (S. 2571):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-550 (Comm. on Financial Services).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            June 21, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 11, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 3.1(c)

                                                        STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                       SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                 DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                FILED 09:00 AM 11/23/1992
                                                      923295175 - 2063399

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                        THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 VOCALTECH, INC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the
                General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We,  M.  Sue  Benford,   President,  and  Richard  Melnick,  Secretary,  of
VOCALTECH,  INC., a  corporation  organized  and existing  under the laws of the
State of Delaware, do hereby certify as follows:

         FIRST, that the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation has
been amended as follows: 1. By striking out the whole of ARTICLE FIRST as it now
exists and inserting in lieu and instead thereof a new ARTICLE FIRST, reading as
follows:

              "The name of the corporation (hereinafter the "corporation") is
InnoTek, Inc."

         SECOND, that such amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with
the provisions of the General Corporation law of the State of Delaware by the
written consent of the holders of not less than a majority of the outstanding
stock entitled to vote thereon and that written notice of the corporate action
has been given to those stockholders who have not consented in writing, all in
accordance with the provision of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware.





<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this certificate this ____ day
of November, 1992


                                               /s/ M. Sue Benford
                                              ------------------------
                                               M. Sue Benford, President


                                              /s/ Richard Melnick
                                              ------------------------
                                               Richard Melnick, Secretary

                                        2
#### Anna Saccani, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 12, 1966, modified by striking therefrom the words “in all respects denied” and substituting the following: “ granted to the extent of directing defendant to produce all available records in its possession concerning the condition of the sidewalk area in question for a period of three years prior to the date of the accident.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. In our opinion, limiting the information to a period of two years from the date of the accident was unreasonable. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3401

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3401 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3401.11 Other conditions.

The Director may, with respect to any research project grant or to any class of awards, impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any award when, in the Director's judgment, such conditions are necessary to assure or protect advancement of the approved project, the interests of the public, or the conservation of grant funds.
Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

Child Resistant Pa ck aging Saves Lives

009611

The staff of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) estimates that child-resistant

packaging for aspirin and oral prescription medicine

saved the lives of about 700 children since the

requirements went into effect in the early 1970’s.

CPSC analyzed child fatality data for accidental

ingestions of aspirin and oral prescription medicines.

The death rates for aspirin and oral prescription medicines declined even after taking account of the overall

decline in the accidental child death rate from all

causes. The study also accounted for changes in per

capita product consumption and reductions in the

aspirin fatality rate associated with therapeutic overdose.

The CPSC study showed that child-resistant packaging reduced the aspirin-related child death rate by up

to 0.88 deaths per million children under age five. The

results also showed that special packaging reduced

the oral prescription medicine-related death rate by

up to 1.27 deaths per million children under age five.

This represents a fatality rate reduction of up to 45

percent from levels that would have been projected in

the absence of child-resistant packaging requirements.

The lower fatality rate represents a total reduction of

about 700 child deaths since the requirements for

child-resistant packaging on these products went into

effect in the early 1970’s.

The estimate of about 700 lives saved relates to

a s p i rin and oral prescription medicines only and does

not include additional lives that may have been save d

by child-resistant packaging on other products.

T h e r e fo r e, the CPSC’s staff concludes that child-resistant packaging saves live s. Consumers should use

child-resistant packaging to help prevent accidental

poisonings with medicines and household chemicals.
(December 19, 1966)

#### In the Matter of The House of Seagram, Inc., Respondent, v. State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

'Motion to vacate stay of enforcement of judgment pending appeal denied, without costs. Respondent has not demonstrated irreparable injury. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.