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

Happy New Year to you. I hope you're doing well. My apologies for not getting this to you last night. I'm 

reforwarding my original submission of November 21st.

Please let me know if I can provide anything else.

Best,

David Garland

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: David Garland <dg1918@yahoo.com>

To: "a-and-r-docket@epa.gov" <a-and-r-docket@epa.gov> 

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:29 PM

Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076

Subject: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076

The following comments are in response to Proposed Rule EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076-0001, Air Quality: 

Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver. 

Although the official comment period has passed, we respectfully ask that the following comments be 

admitted to the docket.

The "No-Go Nozzle" (U.S. Patent No. 6,962,177 B1) was originally designed to solve the billion dollar 

problem of drive-off gasoline theft at the pump, by locking the nozzle into the filler pipe until the 

transaction is paid for, at which point the locking mechanism is released.

In addition to being the optimal solution to the problem of drive-off gasoline theft, the No-Go Nozzle has 

several substantial benefits from environmental and safety perspectives as well.

By creating a mechanical seal on the opening of the filler pipe, and by virtue of the design of the No-Go 

Nozzle, this Nozzle could:

1) Improve vapor recovery on non-ORVR cars by 17-20%;

2) Generate a small but measurable improvement on ORVR car vapor recovery;

3) Improve EVR Vacuum Assist efficacy to nearly 100%;

4) Function as a dripless nozzle under "real-world" conditions;

5) Provide all of these environmental benefits with minimal additional cost to service stations.

In addition, because the nozzle tube is constructed of stainless steel, the strength and durability of the 

nozzle has been improved significantly, minimizing damage and safety issues, and prolonging nozzle life. 

Furthermore, if the safety and environmental features of the No-Go Nozzle are damaged, the nozzle will 

not function in a compromised condition, i.e. it will need to be repaired or replaced. This is an 

improvement on current nozzle offerings which continue to operate in damaged condition, compromising 

both the environmental and safety features of these nozzles.

Additional information can be found on the No-Go Nozzle at: www.no-gonozzle.com
Submitted by David Garland at dg1918@yahoo.com
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 29, 2022

No. 04-22-00497-CV

IN RE Paty MCDERMOTT

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On August 8, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes a

serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Respondent and real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this

court no later than September 13, 2022. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on August 29, 2022.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021CI09758, styled James William McDermott v. Paty McDermott, 

pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Martha Tanner presiding.
§ 3550.106 Dwelling requirements. ( a ) *Modest dwelling.* The property must be one that is considered modest for the area, must not be designed for income producing purposes, or have a market value in excess of the applicable maximum area loan limit, in accordance with § 3550.63.
( b ) *Post-repair condition.* Dwellings repaired with section 504 funds need not be brought to the agency development standards of 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A, nor must all existing hazards be removed. However, the dwelling may not continue to have major health or safety hazards.
( c ) *Construction standards.* All work must be completed in accordance with local construction codes and standards. When potentially hazardous equipment or materials are being installed, all materials and installations must be in accordance with the applicable standards in 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78331, Dec. 24, 2002; 72 FR 70222, Dec. 11, 2007; 87 FR 6772, Feb. 7, 2022]
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2576 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify requirements relating to the availability of pipeline safety regulatory documents, and for other purposes. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 2576 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF PIPELINE SAFETY REGU2 LATORY DOCUMENTS. 

3 Section 60102(p) of title 49, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘3 

6 years’’; 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘guidance or’’; and 

8 (3) by striking ‘‘, on an Internet Web site’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


AND 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 GameStop Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 4, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Bell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

/s/ JAMES A. BELLJames A. BellExecutive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerGameStop Corp.June 11, 2019


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1744.61 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 3402

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3402 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3402.10 Application package.

Applications will be available at *http://www.grants.gov* and through the NIFA Web site. An application package will be made available to any potential grant applicant upon request. This package will include all necessary forms and instructions to apply for a grant under this program.
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 amended Quarterly Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kolja Rockov, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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:  November 5, 2013/s/  Kolja RockovKolja RockovExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
§ 205.272 Commingling and contact with prohibited substance prevention practice standard. ( a ) The handler of an organic handling operation must implement measures necessary to prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic products and protect organic products from contact with prohibited substances.
( b ) The following are prohibited for use in the handling of any organically produced agricultural product or ingredient labeled in accordance with subpart D of this part: ( 1 ) Packaging materials, and storage containers, or bins that contain a synthetic fungicide, preservative, or fumigant;
( 2 ) The use or reuse of any bag or container that has been in contact with any substance in such a manner as to compromise the organic integrity of any organically produced product or ingredient placed in those containers, unless such reusable bag or container has been thoroughly cleaned and poses no risk of contact of the organically produced product or ingredient with the substance used.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SAMANTHA MAY MURPHY

, 1 §

§ No. 8, 2023

Respondent Below, Appellant, §

§ Court Below

- Family Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

DYLAN MURPHY

, § File No. C S22

- 04421

§ Petition No. 22

- 05889

Petitioner Below, Appellee

, §

§

and §

§

DONALD W. KRAVITZ and DAWN J. § File No. CS22

- 04760

KRAVITZ, § Petition No. 22

- 11838

§

Petitioner s Below, Appel lees. §

Submitted: July 21, 2023

Decided: August 29 , 202 3

Before TRAYNOR

, LeGROW

, and GRIFFITHS

, Justices.

ORDE R

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family

Court’s order dated January 4 , 202 3 . The Family Court appropriately considered the

best

- interest factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 72 2 in light of the evidence presented

and acted within its broad discretion when deciding the custody and residential

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

arrangements for the children

. 2 “ Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal

unless they are cl early erroneous ,” and [ w ] hen the determination of facts turns on a

question of the credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of

witnesses appearing before the trier of fact , we will not substitute our opinion for

that of the trier of fact. ” 3 As to the appellant’s contention that the Family Court

erroneously prevented her from presenting evidence, the record reflects that the

Family Court gave the appellant significant latitude in presenting her case, 4 and we

discern no abuse of disc retion in the Family Court’s evidentiary rulings. 5

NOW, TH EREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGro w

J ustice

2 See Russell v. Stevens , 2007 WL 3215667, at *2 (Del. Nov. 1, 2007) (affirming Family Court’s

award of primary residential placement and stating that when the Family C ourt appropriately

considers and weighs each of the best interest factors, the “law vests wide discretion in the trial

court to determine where custody shall be placed”).

3 Shimel v. Shimel , 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).

4 See generally Damia ni v. Gill , 2015 WL 4351507, at *1 (Del. July 14, 2015) ( observing that self

represented litigants “are afforded some leniency in presenting their cases”).

5 See Swanson v. Davis , 2013 WL 3155827, at *4 (Del. June 20, 2013) (stating that the standard

of review for a trial court’s evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion).
§ 3430.1205 Funding restrictions. ( a ) *Construction.* Funds made available for grants under this subpart shall not be used for the construction of a new building or facility or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an existing building or facility, including site grading and improvement, and architect fees.
( b ) *Indirect costs.* Subject to § 3430.54, indirect costs are allowable for Education, Extension and Training grants. For Rural Practice Enhancement grants, indirect costs are not allowable; however, overhead costs may be requested, not to exceed 50 percent of the award.
#### The State ex rel. Stinson, Appellant, *v.*Youngstown Osteopathic Hospital et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Stinson v. Youngstown Osteopathic Hosp.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 400.]

(No. 97-2684

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 21, 1998.)

*Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy & Masala Co., L.P.A., Ronald E. Slipski*and *Steven L. Paulson,*for appellant.

*Manos, Pappas & Stefanski Co., L.P.A.,*and *Leonard J. Pappas,*for appellee Youngstown Osteopathic Hospital.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Laurel Blum Mazorow,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

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.
#### § 3560.51 General.

This subpart contains the Agency's loan origination requirements for multi-family housing (MFH) direct loans for Rural Rental Housing, Rural Cooperative Housing, and Farm Labor Housing. Additional requirements for farm labor housing loans and grants are contained in subpart L of this part for Off-Farm Labor Housing and subpart M of this part for On-Farm Labor Housing.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2595 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2595

To help ensure that all items offered for sale in any gift shop of the 
     National Park Service or of the National Archives and Records 
    Administration are produced in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2013

Mr. Israel (for himself and Ms. Kaptur) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To help ensure that all items offered for sale in any gift shop of the 
     National Park Service or of the National Archives and Records 
    Administration are produced in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Parks American Products 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING THAT ITEMS SOLD IN CERTAIN FEDERAL GIFT SHOPS ARE 
              PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) National Park Service.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
ensure that all items offered for sale in any gift shop or visitor's 
center located within a unit of the National Park System are produced 
in the United States.
    (b) National Archives and Records Administration.--The Archivist of 
the United States shall ensure that all items offered for sale in any 
gift shop of the National Archives and Records Administration are 
produced in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
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 can not process your request and what you should do in the next

30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your May 18 , 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Utah Drone Services LLC

into the public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1750 ), but we are unable to process your request any

further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

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

 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 relatin g 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 y ou 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 No t 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/

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2160

GROVER DRUMMOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-1292-K)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Grover Drummond, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his civil complaint wherein he alleged discrimination by

state employees who constantly spy on and otherwise hinder him. The

district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Drummond v. Maryland, No. CA-96-1292-K (D. Md.

July 18, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2581 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to permit 

requirements for dredged or fill material. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2013 

Mr. HURT (for himself, Mr. COSTA, and Mr. MICHAUD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with 

respect to permit requirements for dredged or fill material. 

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 ‘‘Preserving Rural Re5 sources Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL. 

7 Section 404(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Con8 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2581 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Except as 

2 provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the dis3 charge’’ and inserting ‘‘The discharge’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘having as its 

5 purpose bringing an area of the navigable waters 

6 into a use to which it was not previously subject, 

7 where the flow or circulation of navigable waters 

8 may be impaired or the reach of such waters be re9 duced,’’ and inserting ‘‘having as its purpose bring10 ing an area into a use not described in paragraph 

11 (1)’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

FELIX LUIS RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:19cv373-TKW-MJF 

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

/

OR D E R

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

Recommendation (Doc. 19). No objections were filed. Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate judge that this 

case is due to be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Order

directing him to file a third amended complaint on the proper form and the Order 

requiring him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed because of his 

failure to comply with the prior Order.

The Court did not overlook the “third amended complaint” docketed after the 

Report and Recommendation was issued. See Doc. 20 (stricken and re-docketed as 

Doc. 1 in Case No. 4:20cv319-WS-MAF). However, as explained in the Deficiency 

Order issued by the magistrate judge (Doc. 23), the “third amended complaint”

Case 5:19-cv-00373-TKW-MJF Document 23 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2
2

asserts what amounts to an entirely different suit. Thus, to date, Plaintiff has still 

not complied the Orders entered by the magistrate judge.

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 13th day of July, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-00373-TKW-MJF Document 23 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2