alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3300.85 Period of validity of certificates. In accordance with ATP, Annex 1, Appendix 1, paragraphs 1(b), and Appendix 2, paragraphs 29(c) and 49(b) and (d), considered in combination, certificates will be valid for periods as follows: ( a ) For equipment which passes a test, 6 years.
( b ) For serially-produced equipment of which 1 percent have passed a test, and all units have been inspected and passed such inspection, 6 years.
( c ) For renewal of a U.S. ATP certificate which is nearing its expiration date, where the equipment has passed an inspection but has not been tested, 3 years.
( d ) For equipment currently certified according to a U.S. ATP certificate, where the equipment has been transferred from one domestic owner to another and the equipment has passed an inspection, 3 years or the date of expiration of the current U.S. ATP certificate, whichever gives the later expiration date on the new U.S. ATP certificate.
( e ) For equipment currently certified according to a Foreign-ATP certificate, where the equipment has been transferred from a foreign owner to a domestic owner and the equipment has passed an inspection, 3 years or the date of expiration of the foreign certificate, whichever gives the later expiration date on the newly issued U.S. ATP certificate.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: July 29 , 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013 - 0602 FROM: Lora Strine , EPA SUBJECT: July 24 , 2015 Phone Call Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing

Power Plants **SUMMARY** A phone call was held between EPA and Dave Klemp , State of Montana on July 24 , 2015 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants . The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES State o**  **f Montana** Dave Klemp **US EPA** Lora Strine
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50686

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARRELL DWAYNE DAVIS, also known as Darrell Dewayne Davis,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CR-25-1

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Darrell Dwayne Davis, federal prisoner # 03142-180, seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s grant of his

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on amendments to the

Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. The district court reduced

Davis’s sentence to 235 months of imprisonment, which constitutes the bottom

of the revised guidelines range.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 8, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 08-50686 Document: 00511315440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
No. 08-50686

By moving to proceed IFP, Davis is challenging the district court’s

certification decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is

frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s

inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves

legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Contrary to Davis’s assertion, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

does not apply to a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 130

S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010). Because the district court reduced Davis’s sentence

to the maximum extent allowed by the revised guidelines range, he is not

entitled to any further reduction. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235,

238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009).

Davis has failed to demonstrate that his appeal involves legal points that

are not frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion is

DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Davis’s motions for a continuance and remand are also DENIED.

2

Case: 08-50686 Document: 00511315440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior United States District Judge ***

for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANDRES HERNANDEZ-VARGAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30336

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-05775-RBL-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 13, 2010** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior District

Judge.*** 

FILED

JUL 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Andres Hernandez-Vargas appeals his conviction for possession of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and 841(b)(1)(A). We affirm the district court’s denial of Hernandez-Vargas’s

motion to suppress.

1. At the time of the seizure, the officers had received a tip from a reliable

confidential informant and had corroborated that tip; this constitutes probable

cause. United States v. Trejo-Zambrano, 582 F.2d 460, 463 (9th Cir. 1978). 

2. The officers did not exceed the scope of the search permissible, because the

officers could search the vehicle “as thorough[ly] as a magistrate could authorize in

a warrant particularly describing the place to be searched.” United States v. Ross,

456 U.S. 798, 800 (1982) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3. Hernandez-Vargas’s comments made to Officer Wheeler are admissible,

because they were voluntarily made during a routine traffic stop. Berkemer v.

McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 438–41 (1984). 

Assuming without deciding that Hernandez-Vargas’s subsequent comments

to Officer Burns and Agent Grimm were taken in violation of his rights under

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), we find such error “harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see, e.g.,
3

United States v. Butler, 249 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding improper

admission of comments harmless because of overwhelming evidence of guilt.)

AFFIRMED.
#### § 3430.1009 Administrative duties.

In addition to other reporting requirements agreed to in the terms and conditions of each award, not later than 90 days after the end of each Federal fiscal year, each Center and Subcenter shall submit to NIFA a report that describes the policies, priorities, and operations of the program carried out by the Center or Subcenter during the fiscal year, including the results of all peer and merit review procedures conducted as part of administering the regional competitive research, extension, and educational grant programs; and a description of progress made in facilitating the plan described in § 3430.1007.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2978]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9112-9]


Local Government Advisory Committee; Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

    The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Local 
Government's Advisory Committee (LGAC) will be renewed for an 
additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the 
public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The purpose of LGAC is 
to provide advice and recommendations to EPA's Administrator on ways to 
improve its partnership with Local Governments and provide more 
efficient and effective environmental protection.
    It is determined that LGAC is in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law.
    Inquiries may be directed to Frances Eargle, Designated Federal 
Officer, LGAC, U.S. EPA (mail code 1301A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90f5f1e2f7fcf5bef6e2f1fef3f5e3d0f5e0f1bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f1f5e6f3f8f1baf2e6f5faf7f1e7d4f1e4f5baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 29, 2010.
David G. McIntosh,
Associate Administrator, Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental 
Relations.
[FR Doc. 2010-2978 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JUAN CARLOS ALMONTE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv197-TKW-MAF 

E. WATER, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 3). No objections were filed. Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate judge’s 

determination that this case was filed in the wrong court and is due to be transferred 

to the correct court under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District 

Court for the Western District of New York, and the Clerk shall close the file in this 

Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00197-TKW-MAF Document 6 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2
                          CERTIFICATION

I, James Ivchenko, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Epolin, Inc.;

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

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

     4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officers
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

          (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

          (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

          (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal
quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

          (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting.



Dated:  May 24, 2007          By:  /s/ James Ivchenko
                                   James Ivchenko,
                                   President (Principal Financial
                                   Officer)
§ 3201.122 Cleaning tools. ( a ) *Definition.* Cleaning tools are objects that are used to clean a variety of surfaces or items and can be used multiple times. This category includes tools such as brushes, scrapers, abrasive pads, and gloves that are used for cleaning. The expendable materials used in cleaning, such as glass cleaners, single-use wipes, and all-purpose cleaners, are excluded from this category, as these materials better fit in other categories.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 22 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 cleaning tools. 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 cleaning tools.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerJuly
      26, 2010
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00176-CR

KENDRA PHILLIANA MAXION,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1398848D)

April 4, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

Concurrence and Dissent by Justice 

Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

After reviewing the State’s motion for rehearing, we deny the motion. We 

withdraw our December 31, 2018 opinion and judgment and substitute the following.

This court has again considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. We delete $555 from the order to 

withdraw funds so that it reflects that $0 should be withdrawn from appellant’s 

inmate trust account, and we delete the line in the trial court’s judgment that states, 
“REPARATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $555.” It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2591 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2591

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 12, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 
                                 2012.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROLLOVER OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN AIRLINE CARRIER BANKRUPTCY.

    (a) Extension of Time To File Claim for Refund.--Section 1106(a)(3) 
of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (26 U.S.C. 408 note) is 
amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2015''.
    (b) Definitions and Special Rules.--Section 1106(c) of such Act is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(i) by inserting ``or filed on 
        November 29, 2011,'' after ``2007,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B)--
                    (A) by striking ``terminated or'' and inserting 
                ``terminated,''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, or was frozen effective 
                November 1, 2012'' after ``Pension Protection Act of 
                2006''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 3560.74 Loan for final payments. ( a ) *Use.* The Agency may finance final payments for borrowers holding existing loans for which the Agency approved an amortization period that exceeded the term of the loan.
( b ) *Requirements.* The Agency may finance final payments if documentation regarding the market area shows that a need for low-income rental housing still exists for that area and one of the following conditions has been met. ( 1 ) It is more cost efficient and serves the tenant base more effectively to maintain existing MFH than to build another property in the same location; or
( 2 ) The MFH has been maintained to such an extent that it can be expected to continue providing affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing for 20 years beyond the date of the loan to finance a final payment; and
( 3 ) Funds are available.
( c ) *Term.* The term of Agency loans to finance final payments will not exceed 20 years from the date of the initial loan final payment.
§ 2903.7 Project objectives. ( a ) Successful projects will develop practical indicators or milestones to measure their progress towards achieving the following objectives: ( 1 ) Enhance current efforts to collect and disseminate biodiesel information;
( 2 ) Coordinate with other biodiesel educational or promotional programs, and with Federal, State and local programs aimed at encouraging biodiesel use, including the EPAct program;
( 3 ) Create a nationwide networking system that delivers biodiesel information to targeted audiences, including users, distributors and other infrastructure-related personnel;
( 4 ) Identify and document the benefits of biodiesel (e.g., lifecycle costing); and
( 5 ) Gather data pertaining to information gaps and develop strategies to address the gaps.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Josephine Long, Respondent, v. New York Telephone Company, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal by the self-insured employer from a decision which (1) found that claimant, a telephone switchboard operator, suffers a continuing partial disability from an elbow injury sustained many years before and (2) made an award on the basis of reduced earnings; as against appellant’s contention, as set forth in its application for review of the Referee’s decision, that, although it “ does not dispute the existence of some * * * disability in the claimant’s *left*arm * * * the evidence does not support a finding of 50% disability and does not support a conclusion that she could not operate a GAMA board * * * which only requires the use of her *right*arm.” Appellant’s brief frames the issue in this court as whether *776there was substantial evidence of a condition disabling claimant from accepting appellant’s offer of employment as a CAMA board operator. It is undisputed that claimant sustained an injury which treatment and therapy of various kinds over a long period of time, followed by surgical intervention, failed to cure; that she was awarded and paid compensation for intermittent periods of disability during 13 years; and that there remains disability in some degree, accompanied by pain. Concededly, too, she could not resume her work at a regular telephone switchboard; but appellant contends, with support in its medical proof, that she could operate a CAMA board which allegedly requires the use of but one arm to depress keys so as to record calling numbers received aurally through a headset to an average of 100 or more per hour, while the operator sits in place for a 7%-hour day less two 15-minute relief periods and one hour for lunch. A neuropsyehiatrist reported and testified that claimant’s complaints, including those of pain, impressed him as genuine; that “ she is suffering from a functional overlay on her underlying orthopedic condition * * * that her condition is causally related and she is severely partially disabled.” The doctor’s conclusion that because of a lower than normal threshold of anxiety, attributable to pain and of other emotional stresses, she should not undertake the *“*tedious and tension producing ” work offered, seems to us to have been rationally grounded and presented, or so the board could, and apparently did, find. Appellant’s remaining contentions are largely peripheral and in any event insubstantial. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ:, concur in a memorandum decision by Gibson, P. J.