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

Calendar No. 415 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2292 

To provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent charges. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2006 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mrs. 

FEINSTEIN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. TALENT, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BURR, and Mr. 

ALLARD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

APRIL 27, 2006 

Reported by Mr. SPECTER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive 

rent charges. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RELIEF FROM EXCESSIVE RENT CHARGES. 

4 Section 462 of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(g) Effective October 1, 2006, rent charges estab7 lished by the Administrator of General Services for accomVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:01 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2292.RS S2292

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

S 2292 RS

1 modations provided to the judicial branch shall not exceed 

2 the actual costs of operating and maintaining such accom3 modations by the General Services Administration, and no 

4 amounts for shell rent, capital costs, real estate taxes (ex5 cept for taxes actually paid by the Administrator of Gen6 eral Services to lessors), or administrative fees shall be 

7 included in such rent charges. The judicial branch’s repay8 ment to the Administrator of General Services of the cost 

9 of repair and alteration projects performed by the General 

10 Services Administration on judicial branch accommoda11 tions after October 1, 2006, shall be recovered over time 

12 in a manner agreed upon by the Director of the Adminis13 trative Office of the United States Courts and the Admin14 istrator.’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 415 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2292 

A BILL 

To provide relief for the Federal judiciary from 

excessive rent charges. 

APRIL 27, 2006 

Reported without amendment 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### §§ 3560.664-3560.699 [Reserved]
#### § 353.4 Products covered.

Plants and plant products when offered for export or re-export.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEuler flow predictions for an oscillating cascade using a high resolution wave-split schemeA compressible flow code that can predict the nonlinear unsteady aerodynamics associated with transonic flows over oscillating cascades is developed and validated. The code solves the two dimensional, unsteady Euler equations using a time-marching, flux-difference splitting scheme. The unsteady pressures and forces can be determined for arbitrary input motions, although only harmonic pitching and plunging motions are addressed. The code solves the flow equations on a H-grid which is allowed to deform with the airfoil motion. Predictions are presented for both flat plate cascades and loaded airfoil cascades. Results are compared to flat plate theory and experimental data. Predictions are also presented for several oscillating cascades with strong normal shocks where the pitching amplitudes, cascade geometry and interblade phase angles are varied to investigate nonlinear behavior.Document ID19910014794Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsHuff, Dennis L.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Swafford, Timothy W.*(Mississippi State Univ. Mississippi State., United States)*Reddy, T. S. R.*(Toledo Univ. OH., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:104377NASA-TM-104377E-5933Meeting InformationMeeting: International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and ExpositionLocation: Orlando, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: June 3, 1991End Date: June 6, 1991Sponsors:ASMEAccession Number91N24107Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 535-03-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910014794.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
11/11/2013 10:58 FAX 4356343505

Todd C. Emerson, #8175 444 SouthRiver Road St. George, Utah, 84790 Telephone: (435) 634-3530 Facsimile: (435) 634-3505 PEOPLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of: FDMS No. FAA-2013-0292 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0293 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0612 141002

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO NOTICE AND REQUEST TO PARTIES Judge: Richard C. Goodwin

To: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Respondent's Counsel will be available during the months ofJanuary, Februaryand March 2014, with the exception of: .January 7, 2014, .January 16,2014,February 

### 18- February 21, 2014 and March 5, 2014.
DATED this 11'h day ofNovember, 2013.



# ...

Todd C. Emerson Attorney for SkyWestAirlines11/11/2013 10:58 FAX 4356343505 PEOPLE 141 003



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Theundersigned hereby certifies that onthis 11th day ofNovember, 2013, a true and conectcopy ofthe foregoing RESPONDENT'S REPLYTO NOTICE AND REQUESTTO PARTIES was served as follows: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Rm El2-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 Tel: (202) 366-2139 Fax: (202) 366-7536 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk; AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building Federa+ AviationAdministration 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Fax: (202) 493-5142 Robert Spitzer FAA Office ofRegional Counsel 1601 Lind Avenue SW Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 227-2161 Fax: (425) 227-1007

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr52-SPM

ERIC EUGENE BALCOM,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND SECOND MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Eric Eugene Balcom’s

Motion to Show Just Cause for Untimely Appeal (doc. 123), which has been

construed as a motion for reconsideration, and Motion for Relief Pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) in Conjunction with USSG 1B1.10 (doc. 124), which is a

second motion seeking a reduction of sentence under the crack amendments.

Upon consideration, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show

good cause or excusable neglect for the late filing of his notice of appeal. As for

Defendant’s entitlement to a sentencing reduction, there is no basis for altering

the Court’s prior ruling, which is currently on appeal, #08-1397-J. See docs. 103,

104, and 108. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s motions (docs. 123 and

124) are denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 125 Filed 10/10/08 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:02-cr-00052-RH-CAS Document 125 Filed 10/10/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Aleritas Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Hess, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 12, 2008



/s/ Michael S. HessMichael S. HessPresident and Chief Executive Officer




65
Form of Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Units



 Exhibit 10.16a 
  
 NATIONAL FINANCIAL PARTNERS CORP. 
 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 NOTICE OF GRANT OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS 
  
 This
Notice is to certify that the Participant named below has been granted the number of Restricted Stock Units set forth below under the terms and conditions set forth in this Notice. This Notice is subject to and incorporates by reference the terms
and conditions of the Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (the “Agreement”), a copy of which is enclosed. Please refer to the Agreement and the National Financial Partners Amended and Restated 2002 Stock Incentive Plan document for an
explanation of the terms and conditions of this grant and a full description of your rights and obligations. You must sign the Agreement in order for this Notice and grant to be effective. Please sign and date the Agreement on the last page and
return it promptly in the enclosed envelope. 
  

			
	Award Number:	 	 
		
	Name of Participant:	 	 
		
	Number of Restricted Stock Units:	 	 
		
	Grant Date:	 	 
		
	Vesting Commencement Date:	 	 
		
	Vesting Schedule:	 	 
		
	Additional Terms:	 	See the Restricted Stock Unit Agreement.
**Exhibit 32.01**

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer  of Enable IPC Corporation (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB of the Company  for  the  quarter ended  September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934   and  that  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 13, 2006 

/s/ David Walker 

David Walker 

Chief Executive Officer
§ 3550.62 Appraisals. ( a ) *Requirement.* An appraisal is required when the debt to be secured exceeds $15,000 or whenever RHS determines that it is necessary to establish the adequacy of the security. Appraisals must be made in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. When other real estate is taken as additional security, it will be appraised if it represents a substantial portion of the security for the loan.
( b ) *Fees.* RHS will charge a fee for each loan application that requires an appraisal, except the appraisal fee is not required on appraisals done for subsequent loans needed to make minimal, essential repairs or in cases where another party provides an appraisal which is acceptable to RHS. Fees collected in connection with a dwelling constructed under an approved conditional commitment will be paid to the contractor at closing to offset the cost of the real estate appraisal that is included in the conditional commitment fee.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James S. Marcelli, Chief Operating Officer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 result of operations of our Company.



Date:  November 13, 2012

/s/ James S. Marcelli

James S. Marcelli,

President, Chief Operating Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

VON SHEAR ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv114-TKW-MJF 

GULF CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION MEDICAL STAFF AND 

ADMINISTRATION, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 8) and Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 9). Based on my de novo 

review of the issues raised in the objections,

1

I agree with the magistrate judge that

1

 Plaintiff argues in the objections that (1) his failure to disclose the prior cases identified in 

the Report and Recommendation was justified because those cases involved different facts and 

issues than this case, and (2) it is difficult for prisoners to keep documents from their prior cases 

because of storage limitations, etc., so he had to rely on his memory when responding to the 

questions on the complaint form regarding his limitation history. On this first point, even if 

Plaintiff was justified in answering Questions A and B in the negative (because those questions

asked about cases “dealing with the same or similar facts/issues involved in this action”), he was 

not justified in answering Question C in the negative because that question asked more broadly 

whether Plaintiff had initiated any other cases relating to the fact or manner of his incarceration or 

the conditions of his confinement (including habeas petitions and civil rights complaints about any 

aspect of prison life), and the omitted §1983 cases clearly fall within the scope of Question C (as 

does the habeas petition listed for the first time in the objections). On the second point, even if 

Plaintiff could not (or did not) retain the documents from his prior cases, there is no reason that he 

could not have either maintained at least a list of his prior cases or requested a list from the clerks

of courts where the cases were filed before he filed a new lawsuit.

Case 5:20-cv-00114-TKW-MJF Document 10 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 2
2

this case is due to be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to completely disclose 

his litigation history. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted by the 

Court and incorporated into this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00114-TKW-MJF Document 10 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.6021 Injury.

Hurt or impairment from any cause except the fungus or bacterial diseases which attack tobacco in its cured state. (See definition of Damage.) Injury to tobacco may be caused by field diseases, insects, or weather conditions; insecticides, fungicides, or cell growth inhibitors; nutritional deficiencies or excesses; or improper fertilization, harvesting, curing, or handling. Injured tobacco includes dead, burnt, hail-cut, torn, broken, frostbitten, frozen (see Rule 16), sunburned, sun-scalded, bulk-burnt, pole-burnt, shed-burnt, pole-sweated, stem-rotted, bleached, bruised, discolored, or deformed leaves; or tobacco affected by wildfire, rust, frogeye, mosaic, root rot, wilt, black shank, or other diseases. (See Rule 13.)
Editorial Note on Part 3400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3400.11 Composition of peer review groups. ( a ) Peer review group members will be selected based upon their training and experience in relevant scientific or technical fields, taking into account the following factors: ( 1 ) The level of formal scientific or technical education by the individual;
( 2 ) The extent to which the individual has engaged in relevant research, the capacities in which the individual has done so (e.g., principal investigator, assistant), and the quality of such research;
( 3 ) Professional recognition as reflected by awards and other honors received from scientific and professional organizations outside of the Department;
( 4 ) The need of the group to include within its membership experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific or technical fields;
( 5 ) The need of the group to include within its membership experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., universities, industry, private consultant(s)) and geographic locations; and
( 6 ) The need of the group to maintain a balanced membership, e.g., minority and female representation and an equitable age distribution.
( b ) [Reserved]
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 29, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10213

Summary Calendar

 

BARNEY JOE DONALSON, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-143

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Barney Joe Donalson, Jr., a/k/a Damon Downs, Texas prisoner

# 423754, has received permission to appeal the district court’s

imposition of sanctions against him. To the extent that he

challenges the dismissal as frivolous of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition, he has not received permission to do this and we will

not consider these claims.

Donalson asserts that the district court erred in ordering

him to pay $100 because he has been deprived of the ability to
No. 04-10213

-2-

use his prison funds. He has not established that the district

court abused its discretion in imposing such a sanction. 

See Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1998).

Donalson also challenges the district court’s injunction

barring him from filing a lawsuit, civil action, or habeas corpus

petition in the Northern District of Texas or in any other court

where the case could be removed or transferred to the Northern

District of Texas. “[T]he imposition of sanctions must not

result in total, or even significant, preclusion of access to the

courts.” Thomas v. Capital Sec. Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866,

882 n.23 (5th Cir. 1988)(en banc). We have found no authority

approving a blanket prohibition on all filings in the district

court.

Rather than remanding the case for modification of the

sanctions order, however, acting under our general supervisory

power, we MODIFY the sanctions imposed by the district court and

ORDER that: Donalson is barred from filing in the Northern

District of Texas any document that attempts to challenge the

commencement day of his federal sentence vis à vis his potential

release from state custody on mandatory supervision. This

provision augments the earlier sanction requiring Donalson to

obtain permission to file any initial pleading in the district

courts subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See In re Downs,

No. 95-50282 (5th Cir. June 27, 1995)(unpublished).

The sanctions imposed are therefore AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.
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. 1:02-cr-00045-MP-AK

1:03-cr-00026-MP-AK

STEVEN LAWRENCE LAKE,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on a request by the United States Probation Office for a

continuance of the sentencing hearing of Defendant Lake, currently set for Thursday, August 2,

2007. Because Defendant’s objections to the Presentence Report were filed only recently, the

Probation Office states that it has not had enough time to prepare a response to the objections. 

The Court finds that this response is necessary to evaluate Defendant’s objections properly. 

Accordingly, sentencing in Case Numbers 1:02-cr-00045 and 1:03-cr-00026 is continued to

Thursday, August 23, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00045-MP-GRJ Document 161 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY

GLOBAL ACCESS FOR AMERICA 16 Oct 12 MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC-10

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF

5901 Air Guard Dr. Bldg 1001, Rm 121 Oklahoma City, OK 73179-1051

SUBJECT: Title 14 CFR Exemption 5891H (Regulatory Docket FAA-2001-9618)

1. Title 14 CFR Exemption 5891 was granted to the United States Air Force on 4 May 1994. As amended to 5891E, it exempts the USAF from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.209 (a) and (b) through 30 April 2013. The requirement for USAF helicopter aircraft to conduct night-vision device flight training operations without lighted aircraft position lights at or below 500 feet above ground level remains unchanged. On behalf of the USAF, I hereby request a 3-year extension in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 11.

2. If you have questions or need further in formation, please contact me at (405) 582-5024 or

email: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil . I appreciate your assistance.

ALEX E. KRAUSE, Maj, USAF Chief, Flight Standards Division