alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 22, 2015

Mr. Ryan Badger

Utah Drone Services LLC

1120 East 2700 Street, #J78

Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Dear Mr. Badger:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.105, 91.109(a), 91.119, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and part 21 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 

30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your May 18, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Utah Drone Services LLC

into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1750), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have. If you still have questions please call the 333 Information Line at 

202-267-2999. 
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2443 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain educational 

institutions from the employer health insurance mandate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2013 

Mr. MESSER (for himself, Mr. ROKITA, and Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 

certain educational institutions from the employer health 

insurance mandate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safeguarding Children 

5 Harmed by Obamacare’s Onerous Levies Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2443 IH

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EXEMPT 

2 FROM EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MAN3 DATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4980H(c)(2) of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(F) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN EDU8 CATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.—The term ‘applicable 

9 large employer’ shall not include— 

10 ‘‘(i) any elementary school or sec11 ondary school (as such terms are defined 

12 in section 9101 of the Elementary and 

13 Secondary Education Act of 1965), 

14 ‘‘(ii) any for-profit school which would 

15 be such an elementary school or secondary 

16 school if such school were a nonprofit 

17 school, 

18 ‘‘(iii) any local educational agency or 

19 State educational agency (as such terms 

20 are defined in section 9101 of such Act), 

21 and 

22 ‘‘(iv) any institution of higher edu23 cation (as such term is defined in section 

24 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

25 except that such term does not include inVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:43 Jun 25, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2443.IH H2443

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2443 IH

1 stitutions described in subsection (a)(1)(C) 

2 of such section 102).’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to months beginning after Decem5 ber 31, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T04:46:20-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA 20-0279

DANA ROLAN, on her own behalf

and on behalf of the class she represents,

Plaintiffs/Appellees,

vs.

NEW WEST HEALTH SERVICES,

DARWIN SELECT INSURANCE

COMPANY and ALLIED WORLD

ASSURANCE COMPANY and 

DARWIN NATIONAL

ASSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants/Appellants.

GRANT OF

EXTENSION

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 26(1) and upon Uncontested Motion of Appellees 

for an extension of time to file their response brief, and there being no objection 

from Appellants,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellees are granted a thirty-day 

extension, up to and including October 23, 2020, within which to file their

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 18 2020

09/18/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0279
§ 3430.17 Content of an application. ( a ) The RFA provides instructions on how to access a funding opportunity. The funding opportunity contains the application package, which includes the forms necessary for completion of an application in response to the RFA, as well as the application instructions. The application instructions document, “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for Preparation and Submission of NIFA Applications via Grants.gov,” is intended to assist applicants in the preparation and submission of applications to NIFA. It is also the primary document for use in the preparation of NIFA applications via Grants.gov.
( b ) *Center of Excellence:* In addition to meeting the other requirements detailed in the request for application (RFA), eligible applicants who wish to be considered as a center of excellence must provide a brief justification statement at the end of their project narrative and within the page limits provided for the project narrative, describing how they meet the standards of a center of excellence, based on the following criteria: ( 1 ) The ability of the center of excellence to ensure coordination and cost effectiveness by reducing unnecessarily duplicative efforts regarding research, teaching, and extension in the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application;
( 2 ) In addition to any applicable matching requirements, the ability of the center of excellence to leverage available resources by using public- private partnerships among agricultural industry groups, institutions of higher education, and the Federal Government in the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application. Resources leveraged should be commensurate with the size of the award;
( 3 ) The planned scope and capability of the center of excellence to implement teaching initiatives to increase awareness and effectively disseminate solutions to target audiences through extension activities in the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application; and
( 4 ) The ability or capacity of the center of excellence to increase the economic returns to rural communities by identifying, attracting, and directing funds to high-priority agricultural issues in support of and as a result of the implementation of the proposed research and/or extension activity outlined in this application.
( 5 ) Additionally, where practicable (not required), center of excellence applicants should describe proposed efforts to improve teaching capacity and infrastructure at colleges and universities (including land-grant colleges and universities, cooperating forestry schools, certified Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA) (list of certified NLGCA is available at *http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/pdfs/nlgca_colleges.pdf*), and schools of veterinary medicine).
[74 FR 45740, Sept. 4, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 21109, May 5, 2017]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0151 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD HAROLD VIERECK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 2 1 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 11 2023

01/11/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0151
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Youm Huh, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Youm Huh                         
|Youm Huh                             
|Chief Executive Officer and President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6779

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTWAN RICARDO CONSTANT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00161-D-2)

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 3, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwan Ricardo Constant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6779 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Antwan Ricardo Constant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and for a sentence reduction under 

§ 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. On 

appeal, Constant challenges only the denial of his motion for compassionate release. See 

4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal 

brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues 

preserved in that brief.”). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying Constant’s motion. See United States v. Malone, 

57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. United States v. Constant, No. 5:06-cr-00161-D-2 (E.D.N.C. 

July 21, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6779 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK

DANIEL WRIGHT,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 3446, Report and Recommendation as to Daniel

Wright, recommending that his motion to vacate be denied. The time for filing objections has

passed, and none have been filed. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Wright

has offered no evidence supporting his claim of attorney conflict based on Attorney Steven

Scheck having represented the United States Attorney's sister previously. Also, the Court agrees 

that defendant has not shown any improper conduct by the prosecuting attorney with regard to

whether the prosecutor had a duty to inform Mr. Wright of the Apprendi decision. Accordingly,

it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. This action is DISMISSED, and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK Document 3448 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 1
§ 3550.158 Active military duty. The Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act requires that the interest rate charged a borrower who enters full-time active military duty after a loan is closed not exceed six percent. Active military duty does not include participation in a military reserve or the National Guard unless the borrower is called to active duty. ( a ) *Amount of assistance.* If a borrower qualifies for payment subsidy after reduction of the interest rate to six percent, the amount of payment subsidy received during the period of active military duty will be the difference between the amount due at the subsidized rate for principal and interest and the amount due at a six percent interest rate. The six percent interest rate will be effective with the first payment due after RHS confirms the active military status of the borrower.
( b ) *Change of active military status.* The borrower must notify RHS when he or she is no longer on active military duty. RHS will cancel the six percent interest rate and resume use of the promissory note interest rate. A new payment subsidy agreement may be processed if the borrower is eligible.
[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 (CGP).
**Title:****Financial assistance by geographic area[electronic resource].
 
2010 (4.3M, 3354pp)
 
SuDoc Number:HE 1.57:
Item Number:0444-M-11 (online)
CGP System Number:000577727
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 7, 2017********
§ 319.8-13 From Northwest Mexico. Contingent upon continued freedom of Northwest Mexico and of the West Coast of Mexico from infestations of the pink bollworm and other plant pest conditions that would increase risk of pest introduction into the United States with importations authorized under this section, entry of the following products may be authorized under permit subject to inspection upon arrival to determine freedom from hazardous plant pest conditions: ( a ) Lint, linters, and waste.
( b ) Cottonseed.
( c ) Cottonseed hulls.
( d ) Covers that have been used for cotton only.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ALBERT BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-95-443, CA-99-1109-3-19)

Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 13, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Albert Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
-2-

PER CURIAM:

James Brown appeals the district court’s judgment denying his

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 1999). On

appeal, Brown first contends that the district court erred by

denying his motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.

No hearing is required, however, where the record conclusively

establishes that a petitioner is entitled to no relief. See

Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 215 (1973). Our review of

the record discloses that the district court properly determined

that no hearing was required in this case.

Brown next argues that the district court erred by sentencing

him based on his involvement with the distribution of “crack”

cocaine without requiring the Government to prove this as an

element of the offense. We decline to address this argument as it

is improperly raised initially on appeal. See Muth v. United

States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We also note that,

contrary to Brown’s contention, his appellate counsel was not

required to raise every argument on appeal that Brown instructed

him to raise. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1983).

Hence, his failure to do so does not constitute ineffective

assistance of counsel. Finally, we reject Brown’s assertion that

testimony by accomplices offered against him at trial was

inadmissable because it was offered in exchange for considerations

of leniency in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994), as this
-3-

argument is foreclosed under our recent decision in United

States v. Richardson, F.3d , 1999 WL 686892 (4th Cir.

Sept. 3, 1999).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss this appeal. 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 the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING DOCKET NO. OJP (DOJ) 1540 AG ORDER NO. 3255
- 2011; RIN1121
- AA77 76 FR 11705 (MARCH 3, 2011) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR

STATE CAPITAL COUNSEL SYSTEMS
MEETING SUMMARY RE: MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF SENATOR LEAHY STAFF DATE/TIME OF MEETING: MAY 26, 2011 2:00 PM
- 3 :00 PM PLACE OF MEETING: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RFK BUILDING (By Conference Call) ATTENDEES: FROM SENATOR LEAHY STAFF : 

### Noah Bookbinder, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee staff Anya McMurray , U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee staff Liz Aloi, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee staff FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE : Pamela Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy Lisa Ellman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy Caroline Nguyen, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy Brette Steele, Counsel, Office of Legal Policy SUMMARY OF MEETING: The representatives of Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee staff requested a meeting with the Department of Justice to discuss their reactions to and comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which was formally published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2011. The meeting took place as a conference call. The representatives noted that capital counsel is an issue of significant interest to Senator Leahy. They introduced the session by explaining that they were generally pleased with the proposed rule, which they considered a substantial improvement over the previous (now remov ed) rule on the subject. The Department explained that this meeting, in accordance with policy, was to be a listening session only. The Department emphasized that it welcomed comments to the proposed rules and would carefully consider all submissions. T he meeting continued with the representatives of Senator Le ahy ’s staff making a number of specific suggestions to further strengthen the rule

. In particular, the representatives expressed their views that : 1) the second option under Competency Standards s hould be strengthened to include thesecond portion of the Innocence Protection Act, involving training and monitoring ; 2) the third

option under Competency Standards is too vague , and the Department should clarify that a mechanism cannot be certified unde r that option unless it is at least as effective in providing for competent counsel as the mechanisms described in Options 1 and 2; and 3) there should be a timing r equirement in the rule to clarify that counsel must be appointed in a timely manner. The meeting ended with the Department encouraging the representatives to lay out the full extent of their concerns in their formal comments.