alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                              |  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|  Asset Management                                       |  | **Search FHWA:**   |
| FHWA >  Infrastructure >  Asset Management >HERS-ST |
|                                                              |
|                                                              |
|                                                              |

|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | HERS-ST Documentation
To view PDF files, you need the Acrobat® Reader®Word files can be viewed with the Word 97/2000 Viewer
- GAO Report on HERS  (pdf)
- GAO Report on HERS-ST  (pdf)  
- HERS-ST Fact Sheet  ( PDF , 53 kb)
- HERS-ST Overview  (FHWA IF-02-056)
- HERS-ST Pilot Program Report  (FHWA IF-02-057)
- HERS-ST Technical Report  (FHWA-IF-02-059)
- HERS-ST User's Guide   (FHWA-IF-02-060)  
- Induced Demand and Elasticity  (FHWA IF-02-055) |
|        |

----

FHWAInfrastructureAsset ManagementFeedback
§ 3419.2 Matching funds requirement. ( a ) *1890 land-grant institutions.* The distribution of capacity funds are subject to a matching requirement. Matching funds will equal not less than 100% of the capacity funds to be distributed to the institution.
( b ) *1862 land-grant institutions in insular* areas. The distribution of capacity funds are subject to a matching requirement. Matching funds will equal not less than 50% of the capacity funds to be distributed to the institution.
( c ) For fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter, the matching funds shall equal not less than 50 percent of the formula funds to be distributed to the eligible institution.
[65 FR 21631, Apr. 21, 2000, as amended at 83 FR 21849, May 11, 2018]
§ 318.13-11 Posting of warning notice and distribution of baggage declarations. ( a ) Before any aircraft or any ship, vessel, or other surface craft moving to Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa from Hawaii or any other territory or possession of the United States arrives in Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa, a baggage declaration, to be furnished by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, calling attention to the provisions of the Plant Protection Act and the quarantine and regulations in this subpart, must be distributed to each adult passenger. These baggage declarations shall be executed and signed by the passengers and shall be collected and delivered by the master or other responsible officer of the aircraft, ship, vessel, or other surface craft to the inspector on arrival at the quarantine or inspection area.
( b ) Every person owning or controlling any dock, harbor, or landing field in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands from which ships, vessels, other surface craft, or aircraft leave for ports in any other State shall post, and keep posted at all times, in one or more conspicuous places in passenger waiting rooms on or in said dock, harbor, or landing field a warning notice directing attention to the quarantine and regulations in this subpart. Every master, or other responsible officer of any ship, vessel, other surface craft, or aircraft leaving Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands destined to a port in any other State, shall similarly post, and keep posted at all times, such a warning notice in the ship, vessel, other surface craft, or aircraft under his charge.
* 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 June 21, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41450 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN LEDESMA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-241-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Martin Ledesma-Sanchez (Ledesma) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for attempted illegal reentry following deportation. He argues for the first time on appeal that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Ledesma acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. ApprendiNo. 04-41450 -2- did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). For the first time on appeal, Ledesma argues that the district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005). Because he did not raise this issue in the district court, this court reviews the argument for plain

error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005). Ledesma makes no showing, as required by Valenzuela-Quevedo , that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme.
See id. at 733-34. Similarly, there is no indication from the court’s remarks at sentencing that the district court would have reached a different conclusion. Thus, Ledesma has not met his burden to show that the district court’s imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. See id. ; see also United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993). Ledesma’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. Ledesma also contends that the written judgment incorrectly reflects that he was convicted of being present in the United States rather than of attempted illegal reentry, and he asks that the district court amend the written judgment pursuant to F ED . R. C RIM . P. 36. The record reflects that Ledesma in fact pleaded guilty to attempted illegal reentry. Accordingly, we remand toNo. 04-41450 -3- the district court for correction of the judgment pursuant to
F ED . R. C RIM . P. 36 to reflect that Ledesma was convicted of a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for attempted illegal reentry, not illegal reentry, into the United states after deportation. AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:03-cv-00181-RH Document 1 Filed 06/11/03 Page 8 of 8
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr108/LAC

JOHN WESLEY MONTGOMERY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on July 15, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO RELEASE DEFENDANT ON PRETRIAL RELEASE FOR

PURPOSES OF ENTERING RESIDENTIAL DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM (scheduled to

enter on Monday, July 18, 2005 at 8:30am)

Filed byDEFENDANT on7/15/05 Doc.# 258

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ / Mary Maloy-Wells

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy-Wells

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 15th day of

July, 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is GRANTED.

(b) Defendant to be released Monday, July 18, 2005 at 7:30 AM to report

immediately to the Lakeview Center in Pensacola. Defendant shall abide by all

terms and conditions of his Supervised Release with the additional condition that

Defendant remain confined to the grounds of the Lakeview Center during

Defendant’s treatment. Probation is to notify the Court when Defendant’s

treatment program ends so that the Court can schedule Defendant’s case for

sentencing. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:98-cr-00108-LC-CJK Document 259 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, KeithR. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best ofmy knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Keith R. Schroeder  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Keith R. Schroeder      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 6, 2010             |

 

1

----
#### The State ex rel. Kozlik, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Kozlik v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 368.]

(No. 97-1195

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*369
      *Mitchell A. Stem,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William J. McDonald,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 831 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 25 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### § 29.6127 Stripper (C Group).

This group consists of tobacco from which the trash and trashy Farm Fillers have been removed but does not meet the specifications of the Binder group.

| U.S. grades | Grade names, minimum specifications, and tolerances |
| --- | --- |
| C1 | Fine Quality Stripper. Heavy, ripe, firm, semielastic, normal strength and width, and 16 inches or over in length. Uniformity, 90 percent; injury tolerance, 10 percent. |
| C2 | Fair Quality Stripper. Heavy, mature, close, inelastic, normal strength, narrow, and 16 inches or over in length. Uniformity, 80 percent. Tolerances: 5 percent crude, 5 percent frozen, and 20 percent injury. |
| C3 | Low Quality Stripper. Heavy, immature, close, inelastic, weak, and narrow. Uniformity, 70 percent. Tolerances: 10 percent crude, 10 percent frozen, and 30 percent injury. |
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DIVISION

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:03CR12-SPM/AK

CARLOS HERMAN SALMERON,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 89. Defendant pled guilty to

conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with

intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug

trafficking offense on April 14, 2003. Docs. 36 & 39. He was sentenced on October 20,

2003, to a term of 117 months imprisonment. Doc. 83. He did not appeal the sentence.

On this occasion, Defendant maintains that he has been subjected to an

unconstitutionally enhanced sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines in contravention

of Blakely. Doc. 89.

Case 4:03-cr-00012-SPM-AK Document 90 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:03cr12-spm/ak

Following its decision in Blakely v. Washington, which involved the

constitutionality of state sentencing guidelines, the United States Supreme Court

determined that Blakely applies to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as well. United

States v. Booker, ____ U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed. 2d 442 (2204). However,

the Eleventh Circuit has recently determined that Booker is not retroactively applicable

to cases on collateral review, as “Booker’s constitutional rule falls squarely under the

category of new rules of criminal procedure that do not apply retroactively to § 2255

cases on collateral review.” Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005).

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Defendant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, Doc. 27, be DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida, this 27th day of June, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 4:03-cr-00012-SPM-AK Document 90 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 292.6 Eligibility. Children eligible for Summer EBT include those who, at any time during the period of eligibility, are: ( a ) School-aged and categorically eligible.
( b ) Enrolled in an NSLP/SBP-participating school, except for special provision schools, and: ( 1 ) Categorically eligible;
( 2 ) Meet the requirements to receive free or reduced price meals at § 292.5(a), as determined through an NSLP/SBP application;
( 3 ) Otherwise are determined eligible to receive a free or reduced price meal; or
( 4 ) Determined eligible through a Summer EBT application, consistent with § 292.13.
( c ) Enrolled in a special provision school, and: ( 1 ) Categorically eligible;
( 2 ) Otherwise meet the requirements to receive free or reduced price meals at § 292.5(a), as determined through an NSLP/SBP application; or
( 3 ) Determined eligible through a Summer EBT application, consistent with § 292.13.
Case 3:19-mj-00261-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:19-mj-00261-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:19-mj-00261-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:19-mj-00261-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 4
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Mayes, Appellant.

of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, *703rendered February 2, 1979, affirmed. (See *People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400.) Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano, and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of AtriCure, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Julie A. Piton, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 13, 2011



By:

/s/ Julie A. PitonJulie A. PitonVice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)


A
signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to AtriCure, Inc. and
will be retained by AtriCure, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the report
or as a separate disclosure document.
§ 3201.71 Interior paints and coatings. ( a ) *Definition.* ( 1 ) Pigmented liquids, formulated for use indoors, that dry to form a film and provide protection and added color to the objects or surfaces to which they are applied.
( 2 ) Interior paints and coatings products for which Federal preferred procurement applies are: ( i ) Interior latex and waterborne alkyd paints and coatings.
( ii ) Interior oil-based and solventborne alkyd paints and coatings.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The minimum biobased content for all interior paints and coatings products shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product. The applicable minimum biobased contents for the Federal preferred procurement products are: ( 1 ) Interior latex and waterborne alkyd paints and coatings—20 percent.
( 2 ) Interior oil-based and solventborne alkyd paints and coatings—67 percent.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 23, 2012, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased interior paints and coatings. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased interior paints and coatings.
( d ) *Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content product.* Qualifying biobased products within the interior latex and waterborne alkyd paints and coatings subcategory may, in some cases, overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content products: Reprocessed latex paints and consolidated latex paints. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide information on the USDA Web site of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the product, information on whether or not the product contains any recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance standards against which the product has been tested. This information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated reprocessed latex paints and consolidated latex paints and which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
Note to paragraph ( d
):
Biobased interior latex and waterborne alkyd paints and coatings products within this subcategory can compete with similar reprocessed latex paint and consolidated latex paint products with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated reprocessed latex paints and consolidated latex paints containing recovered materials as items for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.12.
[76 FR 43817, July 22, 2011]
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr46-03/RV

MICHAEL JOE POTTER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Vinson on 02/14/2007 

Type of Motion/Pleading MOTION FOR THE TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED

RELEASE

Filed by: Defendant Potter on 2/13/07 Doc. No. 207

( X ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading

RESPONSES:

on Doc. No.

on Doc. No.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

Deputy Clerk: Val Harmon

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 14th day of

 February , 2007, that:

(a) The requested relief is GRANTED, effective March 1, 2007.

(b) 

/s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:98-cr-00046-RV Document 208 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 1