alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(April 10, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lillian Abreu, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered May 5, 1978, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing her to three years to life, modified, as a matter of discretion and in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to one year to life, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. We believe the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Silver-man and Carro, JJ.; Lupiano, J., dissents in part in a memorandum as follows: I would not disturb the sentence. The Sentencing Judge properly exercised his discretion.
Record of Conversation

Re: Exemption Petition FAA 2015-1083 SimCon Training Centers

Date of Contact: 2JUL2015

FAA participant in conversation: Douglas Lundgren, Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-810

Industry Participant: Michael Young, Director of Training Operations, SimCon Training Centers

On this date I contacted Mr. Michael Young of SimCom to discuss their exemption request FAA 

2015-1083. I informed him that in order to process this exemption request we needed more information 

in terms of equivalent level of safety and public interest.

Mr. Young and I discussed what the company might propose as an alternative to the 50 hours aircraft 

pilot-in-command (PIC) time requirement of SFAR 108, and what the company’s experience and training 

current requirements are for their simulator and aircraft instructors. Mr. Young said that he would send 

in supplementary information to address these issues.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1303

DA RUI LI,

Petitioner,

versus

PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A98-639-478)

Submitted: October 15, 2007 Decided: October 25, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. David V.

Bernal, Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Da Rui Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic

of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the

immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Li challenges the

determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Li fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary

result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Li’s request for

withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the

facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of

removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Li fails to show that he is

eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal.
- 3 -

Li also seeks protection under the Convention Against

Torture. Because he failed to raise this claim before the Board,

we find that we have no jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal

only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies

available to the alien as of right.”); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d

264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005)

(holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument that was

not raised before the Board).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent, v. HOWARD, et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Action by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company against George A. Howard and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON , DC 20460



### RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

DATE: 01/04/2011 

### Receipt of Delivery

TO: The Honorable John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives The Capitol, H-209 Washington, D.C. 20515

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A Washington, DC 20460

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS :

1. Alaska: Adequacy of Alaska’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program [FRL # 9247-6, Region 10] Direct Final Rule

2. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and Regulations for Control of Air Pollution; Permitting of Grandfathered and Electing Electric Generating Facilities [FRL # 9248-9, Region 6] Final Rule

3. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes [FRL # 9247-8, OW] Final Rule

4. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals [FRL # 8846-9, OCSPP] Final Rule

RECEIVED BY: ______________________________ Date:________________UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON , DC 20460



### RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

DATE: 01/04/2011 

### Receipt of Delivery

TO: The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr.

President of the Senate The Capitol, S-212 Washington, DC 20510

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A Washington, DC 20460

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS :

1. Alaska: Adequacy of Alaska’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program [FRL # 9247-6, Region 10] Direct Final Rule

2. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and Regulations for Control of Air Pollution; Permitting of Grandfathered and Electing Electric Generating Facilities [FRL # 9248-9, Region 6] Final Rule

3. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes [FRL # 9247-8, OW] Final Rule

4. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals [FRL # 8846-9, OCSPP] Final Rule

RECEIVED BY: ____________________________ Date:________________UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON , DC 20460



### RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

DATE: 01/04/2011 

### Receipt of Delivery

TO: General Counsel Government Accountability Office

Room 7175 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A Washington, DC 20460

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS :

1. Alaska: Adequacy of Alaska’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program [FRL # 9247-6, Region 10] Direct Final Rule

2. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and Regulations for Control of Air Pollution; Permitting of Grandfathered and Electing Electric Generating Facilities [FRL # 9248-9, Region 6] Final Rule

3. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes [FRL # 9247-8, OW] Final Rule

4. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals [FRL # 8846-9, OCSPP] Final Rule

RECEIVED BY: ___________________________ Date:________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dayton J. Weathers, Appellant.

— Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for a hearing and findings on the issue of defendant’s waiver of his right to be present at the trial of the indictment. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court — robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Witmer and Moule, JJ.
2006-0778.

#### State ex rel. Roddy v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 04AP-930, 2006-Ohio-1185.
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 9 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 10 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 11 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 12 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 13 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 14 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 15 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 16 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 17 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 18 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 19 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 20 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 21 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 22 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 23 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 24 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 25 of 26
Case 3:20-cv-05462-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 06/23/20 Page 26 of 26
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian A. Lutes, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TWC Holding LLLC;

 

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

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

----

 

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date:  November 15, 2005

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brian A. Lutes      |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Brian A. Lutes          |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|        |        |                         |        |  |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7358

FLINT FITZGERALD JOHNSON, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Wallace W. Dixon, 

Magistrate Judge. (1:10-cv-00346-TDS-WWD)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 27, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Flint Fitzgerald Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Flint Johnson, Jr. seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2254 (West 2010) petition for failure to pay the requisite 

filing fee. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 10, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on September 

13, 2010. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the 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.

, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81605-81606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32662]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0877; FRL-8858-9]

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP); Announcing the 
Availability of a Draft for Weight-of-Evidence Guidance Document: 
Evaluating Results of EDSP Tier 1 Screening To Identify Candidate 
Chemicals for Tier 2 Testing; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a notice in the Federal Register of November 4, 
2010, concerning a draft guidance document titled, ``Weight-of-Evidence 
Guidance Document: Evaluating Results of EDSP Tier 1 Screening To 
Identify Candidate Chemicals for Tier 2 Testing.'' EPA received a 
request for an extension of the comment period. EPA is extending the 
comment period from January 3, 2011, to February 3, 2011.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2010-0877, must be received on or before February 3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES 
in the Federal Register document of November 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Don 
Bergfelt, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7203M), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8472; e-mail 
address: bergfelt.don@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    This document extends the public comment period established in the 
Federal Register notice of November 4, 2010 (75 FR 67963) (FRL-8849-8). 
In that notice, EPA announced the

[[Page 81606]]

availability for public review and comment of a draft guidance document 
titled, ``Weight-of-Evidence Guidance Document: Evaluating Results of 
EDSP Tier 1 Screening To Identify Candidate Chemicals for Tier 2 
Testing.'' EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to 
end on January 3, 2011, to February 3, 2011.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the 
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal 
Register notice of November 4, 2010. If you have questions, consult the 
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Endocrine disruptors, Screening assays, 
Weight-of-evidence.

    Dated: December 20, 2010.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-32662 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
§ 3550.57 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, unless RHS authorizes an exception under this paragraph (a). An exception may be granted on a case-by-case basis to accommodate the specific needs of an applicant, such as to serve exceptionally large households or to provide reasonable accommodation for a household member with a disability. Any additional loan amount approved must not exceed the amount required to address the specific need. Existing properties with in-ground swimming pools may be considered modest; however, in-ground swimming pools with new construction or with properties which are purchased new are prohibited. ( 1 ) *Area-wide exception.* Area-wide exceptions may be granted when RHS determines that the section 203(b) limit is too low to enable applicants to purchase adequate housing.
( 2 ) *Individual exceptions.* Individual exceptions may be granted to accommodate the specific needs of an applicant, such as to serve exceptionally large households or to provide reasonable accommodation for a household member with a disability. Any additional loan amount approved must not exceed the amount required to address the specific need.
( b ) *New dwellings.* Construction must meet the requirements in 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A.
( c ) *Existing dwellings.* Existing dwellings must be structurally sound; functionally adequate; in good repair, or to be placed in good repair with loan funds; have adequate electrical, heating, plumbing, water, and wastewater disposal systems; and be free of termites and other wood damaging pests and organisms.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78329, Dec. 24, 2002; 72 FR 70222, Dec. 11, 2007; 87 FR 6772, Feb. 7, 2022]
(October 14, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Gloria Davis, Respondent, v Anthony Sadowski et al., Respondents, and Estella B. Diggs, Respondent-Appellant.

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about October 8, 1980, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Permission is granted appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and this court, pursuant to CPLR 5713, states that questions of law have arisen which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ.
#### § 29.1042 Offtype.

Tobacco of distinctly different characteristics which cannot be classified as Flue-cured, U.S. Types 11-14 or Foreign Type 92. (See Rule 23.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, and at 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and further redesignated at 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
#### § 29.2517 Fiber.

The term applied to the veins in a tobacco leaf. The large central vein is called the midrib or stem. The smaller lateral and cross veins are considered from the standpoint of size and color.
```

[108th Congress Private Law 5]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:pvtl005.108]

Private Law 108-5
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
        For the relief of Rocco A. Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, 
              Florida. <<NOTE: Dec. 3, 2004 -  [S. 2042]>> 

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF BACK PAY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mr. Rocco A. 
Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the sum of $10,000 for 
compensation for back pay not received as an employee of the Department 
of Defense Overseas Dependent Schools for service performed during the 
period beginning April 14, 1966, through June 30, 1975. Payment under 
this subsection is made after the transmission of the applicable report 
of the United States Court of Federal Claims under section 2509 of title 
28, United States Code.
    (b) No Inference of Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed as an inference of liability on the part of the United States.
    (c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment authorized under 
subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of Rocco A. 
Trecosta against the United States for back pay in connection with his 
service in the Department of Defense Overseas Dependent Schools.
    (d) Limitation on Agents and Attorneys Fees.--No more than 10 
percent of the payment authorized by this Act may be paid to or received 
by any agent or attorney for services rendered in connection with 
obtaining such payment, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. 
Any person who violates this subsection

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine in the 
amount provided in title 18, United States Code.

    Approved December 3, 2004.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 3400

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3400.22 Merit review for education and extension activities.

Merit review is an evaluation of a proposed project or elements of a proposed program whereby the technical quality and relevance to regional or national goals are assessed. The merit review shall be performed by peers and other individuals with expertise appropriate to evaluate the proposed project. Merit reviewers may not include principals, collaborators or others involved in the preparation of the application under review.