alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9.308-2 Testing performed by the Government.       (a)                                                         (1)                          								                The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.209-4, First Article Approval-Government Testing, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and it is intended that the contract require first article approval and that the Government will be responsible for conducting the first article test.                                                            (2)                          								                If it is intended that the contractor be required to produce the first article and the production quantity at the same facility, the contracting officer shall use the basic clause with its Alternate I.                                                            (3)                          								                If it is necessary to authorize the contractor to purchase material or to commence production before first article approval, the contracting officer shall use the basic clause with its Alternate II.                                                                             (b)                                                         (1)                          								                The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.209-4, First Article Approval-Government Testing, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated and it is intended that the contract require first article approval and that the Government be responsible for conducting the first article test.                                                            (2)                          								                If it is intended that the contractor be required to produce the first article and the production quantity at the same facility, the contracting officer shall use a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.209-4, First Article Approval-Government Testing, with its Alternate I.                                                            (3)                          								                If it is necessary to authorize the contractor to purchase material or to commence production before first article approval, the contracting officer shall use a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.209-4, First Article Approval-Government Testing, with its Alternate II.    **Parent topic:** 9.308 Contract clauses.
Instructions for Completing the Electronic Version of the Eleventh Circuit

Transcript Information Form

An electronic version of the Transcript Order Information Form is available on the Northern

District of Florida website.  The following instructions and guidance are provided:

1. Click on the link below to obtain the Transcript Order Information Form from the

Northern District of Florida website:

http://www.flnd.uscourts.gov/forms/Attorney/ECCA_transcript_form_fillable.pdf

2. Complete the form electronically using Adobe Acrobat or other PDF editor.  The form

should be signed using the s/ name convention for electronic signatures.

3. Save the completed form as a PDF document (using the full version of Adobe Acrobat,

PDF 995, etc.) or “print” the completed form to a PDF file (using programs which only

have PDF print capabilities).  The save option is preferred since it then allows the court

reporter to complete their portions electronically.

4. File the form electronically with the district court using the CM/ECF system.  From the

main CM/ECF menu select:

Civil or Criminal Events; Appeal Documents; Transcript Request Appeal Part I

5. After the transcript information form is e‐filed, use the notice of electronic filing to

access the PDF image of the form and print it for the following step.  This version of the

document contains the case number, filing date, and document number information in a

header along the top, if you have that feature enabled.

6. Mail the printed form to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; 56 Forsyth Street NW,

Atlanta, GA 30303.

7. Your transcript information form will automatically be e‐mailed to the court reporter

when the form is e‐filed with the court.  Follow the prompts during the event. ***

Please note, if the court reporter is a contract reporter, a hard copy of the form will

need to be mailed to that particular reporter.

Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 215 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 400.675 Purpose.

This subpart prescribes conditions under which a person may be determined to be ineligible to participate in any program administered under the authority of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. This subpart also establishes the criteria for regaining eligibility.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7526

RONALD THOMAS-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1363-WMN) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Ronald Thomas-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The order from which Thomas-Bey appeals was filed on September 11, 1998, and entered on the district court’s docket sheet on September 15, 1998. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), September 15, 1998, is therefore the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Thomas-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Thomas-Bey v. Corcoran , No. CA97-1363-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 15, 1998). * 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
|   | The undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 that: |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|

| 1. | The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 18, 2010 |
|-------|-------------------|

|   | /s/ Cheryl P. Beranek |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | Cheryl P. Beranek |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | /s/ Bruce G. Blackey |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Bruce G. Blackey |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Investors Bancorp, Inc.;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 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; andc)
    
    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; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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; andb)
    
    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: November 14, 2005
    /s/ Robert M. CashillRobert M. CashillPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Foreword

The FAR is the primary regulation for use by all executive agencies in their acquisition of supplies

and services with appropriated funds. It became effective on April 1, 1984, and is issued within

applicable laws under the joint authorities of the Administrator of General Services, the Secretary of

Defense, and the Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under the

broad policy guidelines of the Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of

Management and Budget.

The FAR precludes agency acquisition regulations that unnecessarily repeat, paraphrase, or

otherwise restate the FAR, limits agency acquisition regulations to those necessary to implement

FAR policies and procedures within an agency, and provides for coordination, simplicity, and

uniformity in the Federal acquisition process. It also provides for agency and public participation in

developing the FAR and agency acquisition regulation.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) includes all Federal Acquisition Circulars through 2024-03

effective February 23, 2024. Beginning in fiscal year 2019, designation of Federal Acquisition

Circulars was changed to reflect the fiscal year in the first four digits and the sequence of the issued

circular in the last two digits.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs. Case No. 5:19cr69/TKW

KYLE MARTIN HUDSON

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY
Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s
consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the plea of guilty
of the Defendant, KYLE MARTIN HUDSON, to Count I of the Indictment is hereby
ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.
PR
DONE and ORDERED this day of December 2019.
F Wo Whew ar
Ji
T. KENT WETHERELL, IT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.3035 Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Examination Requirements for RBICs.

Except for § 4290.600(d), Subpart H, Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Examination Requirements for RBICs, of this part applies to Non-leveraged RBICs.
### On **- board	Circulation	and	Seating	Subcommittee**  **(# 7** **)** U.S.	Access	Board:	Rail	Vehicle s Access	Advisory	Committee Subcommittee	on	On - board	Circulation	and	Seating

July10 ,	2014 1:00
– 3 :00	Eastern 1.		Introductions 2.		Approval	of	the	Agenda 3.		Review and	completion	of	the	attached	matrix. In	an	effort	to	close	in	on	key	items	that	are	the	responsibility	of	this	Subcommittee	the attached	matrix	contains	dimensions	defined	in	existing	regulations	and	recommended	PRIAA guidelines.		The	goal	of	this	meeti ng	is	to	“fill	in	the	blanks”	for	each	feature	of	each	vehicle	type in	the	rows	labeled	“RVAAC” 4 .		Next	Steps : A.	With	the	information	from	the	table	the	chair	will	draft	proposed	language	including	the dimensional	information	with	the	functional	/	amenity	issues	established	early	in	the	RVAAC process B.	Proposed	Homework	for	representatives	of	rail	entities	and	/	or	carbuilders	to	apply	and report	the	impact	of	the	dimensional	information	from	the	Matrix. C.		Draft	language	and	impact	reports	to	be	s ent	to	subcommittee	members	for	review	two weeks	prior	to	the	next	Subcommittee	meeting	so	that	meeting	can	be	used	to	adjust	the recommendations	as	needed. 5 .		Action	Items 6 .		Assignments 7 .		Deadlines 8 .		Next	Meeting

Attachments
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2325 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain audio headphones achieving fullspectrum noise reduction. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2006 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain audio headphones 

achieving full-spectrum noise reduction. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN AUDIO HEADPHONES ACHIEVING 

4 FULL-SPECTRUM NOISE REDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2325 IS

‘‘ 9902.85.18 Audio headphones achieving 

full-spectrum noise reduction 

by using electronics that 

equalize all audio signals, including those passing 

through an acoustically resistive opening and a port, 

in parallel, that connect 

walls separating an interior 

of the enclosure from an exterior of the enclosure outside the earcup (provided for 

in subheading 8518.30.20) .. 2.5% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:88cr1007-MP-003

RUFUS C. ROCHELL

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on Limited Remand from the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. 1442). The Eleventh Circuit notes that the

defendant seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”), as construed from his notice of

appeal. Because the court has made no ruling with respect to a COA, the Eleventh Circuit

has remanded so that this court may consider whether such certificate is appropriate for

any of the issues the defendant seeks to raise on appeal.

This court will issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A

petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with

the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the

issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034 (2003). “Where a plain procedural

bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a

reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the

petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000).

As set out in the court’s order, defendant’s motion for relief attacks the sentence

imposed by this court and is construed as a § 2255 motion. Defendant was previously

denied collateral relief on the merits of his § 2255 motion, and therefore is barred from

seeking such relief in this court absent prior certification from the Eleventh Circuit. See 28

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1448 Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, the court finds that petitioner fails to make

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and the issues are not adequate

enough to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, no certificate of

appealability is appropriate in this case. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Certificate of Appealability (doc. 1443) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 1:88cr1007-MP-003

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1448 Filed 04/05/12 Page 2 of 2
U.S. Department of Transportation, Advisory Committee for 

Aviation Consumer Protection Meeting

Posting consumer rights information at U.S. airports

Presenter: Laura McKee 

Vice President, Airline Services 

Airlines for America

December 16, 2013
The U.S. Airlines Continue to Deliver Solid Results for Customers

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD 

Sep-13

Flight Completion Factor

(% of scheduled domestic departures) 97.84 98.04 98.61 98.24 98.09 98.71 98.49

On-Time Arrival Rate

(% of domestic flights within 00:15) 73.42 76.04 79.49 79.79 79.62 81.85 78.19

Mishandled Bags

(per 1,000 domestic passengers) 7.05 5.26 3.91 3.57 3.39 3.09 3.22

Involuntary Denied Boardings

(per 10,000 passengers) 1.12 1.10 1.19 1.09 0.82 0.99 0.92

Customer Complaints

(per 100,000 systemwide passengers) 1.37 1.13 0.97 1.20 1.18 1.42 1.20

Sources: NTSB, BTS and DOT Air Travel Consumer Report (http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/air-travel-consumer-reports)

2 airlines.org
Bag-Handling Performance Continues to Improve Despite Rising 

Rate of Checked Bags

Complaints Lowest in Four Years – Less Than 0.9 for Every 100,000 Customers

DOT: “October Airline Service Improved from Previous Year in all Major Categories”

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

2010 2011 2012 2013

October Checked Bags 

per Customer1

2.52 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2010 2011 2012 2013

October Mishandled Bags 

per 1,000 Customers2

October Complaints per 

100,000 Customers2

0.84 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2010 2011 2012 2013

1 Number of persons screened at U.S. airport checkpoints

2 Number of passengers enplaned on U.S. airlines in domestic service Sources: TSA and DOT Air Travel Consumer Report

3 airlines.org
Fall Operations Remain Strong, with U.S. Airlines Completing More Than 

99 Percent of Scheduled Flights and Arriving On Time at a Rate of 84 

Percent

Flight Completion Rate (%) On-Time Arrival Rate (%)

2012 2013 2012 2013

September 99.2 99.1 83.3 83.8

October 97.2 99.4 80.2 84.1

November 99.0 TBD 85.7 TBD

December 98.4 TBD 76.6 TBD

Sources: DOT Air Travel Consumer Report DOT Air Travel Consumer Reports Hyperlink and masFlight

4 airlines.org
Information is Readily Available on U.S. Airline Websites

Source: www.usairways.com

5 airlines.org
Information is Readily Available on U.S. Airline Websites 2

Source: www.southwest.com

airlines.org 6
Information is Readily Available on U.S. Airline Websites 3

Source: www.united.com

airlines.org

7
Screen shot of US Department of Transportation Airline Service 

Complaints and Comments

8
Screen shot of US Department of Transportation Air Travel Tips

9
European Commission Poster Excerpt

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/transport

10
European Commission Leaflet Excerpt

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/transport

11
www.airlines.org

12
Mr. Dave Brown

Compliance Manager, Sierra Pacific Industries

P.O. Box 496028

Redding, California 96049

Re: Final Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Sierra Pacific Industries- Anderson

Division

Dear Mr. Brown:

In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C 7401 et seq.), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA) has reviewed your application for a CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit authorizing the construction and operation of a new 31

megawatt biomass and natural gas-fired cogeneration unit and auxiliary equipment at the Sierra Pacific Industries- Anderson Division facility in Anderson, California.

EPA issued and published requests for public conrment regarding EPA’s proposed action on the above- referenced application in September 2012. EPA received comments during the public comment period. Enclosed is a copy of our Response to Comments document for our final permit decision. After consideration ofthe expressed views of all commenters, the pertinent federal statutes and regulations, and additional material relevant to the application and contained in our Administrative Record, EPA hereby issues the enclosed PSD Permit for the facility described above. The final permit, Response to Comments document and other key documents relevant to the fmal PSD permit are also available through a link at our website, www.epa. gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html#psd, or at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID # EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0634).

Within 30 days after the service of notice announcing the EPA’s final permit decision, any person who filed comments on the proposed permit may petition the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review any condition ofthe final permit. The petition must include a statement ofthe reason(s) for requesting review by the EAB, including a demonstration that any issues being raised were raised during the public comment period to the extent required by the regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 and when

appropriate, a showing that the conditions in question are based on 1) a finding of fact or conclusion of law which is erroneous, or 2) an exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration which the EAB should, in its discretion, review. Please see 40 CFR § 124.19 and visit http:I/www.epa.govleab/ for

more information regarding the procedures for appeal of a PSD permit decision to the EAB.

This PSD permit shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date ofservice of notice ofEPA’s final

permit decision unless a petition(s) fbr appeal is properly and timely filed with the EAB. In the event a

Printed on Recycled Paper
cc: Eric Albright, Environ

John Waidrop, Shasta County Air Quality Management District

Michael Tolistrup, California Air Resources Board

Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

2