alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3560.408 Lease of security property. ( a ) *General.* Borrowers must obtain Agency approval prior to entering into a lease agreement related to any property serving as security for Agency loans. Agency approvals of lease agreements are considered loan servicing actions under 7 CFR part 1970, and as such do not require additional NEPA analysis and documentation.
( b ) *Leases to public housing authorities.* Borrowers may not lease all or part of their housing facilities to a housing authority. Lease agreements in place prior to the effective date of this regulation may be continued provided that leases are in a form acceptable to the housing authority and are on terms that will enable the borrower to comply with Agency program requirements, to meet Agency program objectives, and make loan and other required payments to the Agency on an Agency approved schedule.
( c ) *Lease of a portion of the security property.* The Agency may, subject to the applicable provisions governing loan purposes found in of § 3560.53, § 3560.553 and § 3560.603, approve the leasing of facilities related to a housing project (e.g., central kitchens, recreation facilities, laundry rooms, and community rooms) when the borrower will continue to operate the facilities for the purposes for which the loan was made. Agency approval is not required for leases with a term of less than 30 days. The Agency will only approve a lease with a term over 30 days if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The lease is in the best interest of the borrower, the tenants, and the Federal Government.
( 2 ) The amount of the consideration agreed to in the lease is adequate to pay all prorated operating and maintenance expenses, a prorated share of the annual reserve deposit, and the prorated part of the loan amortization at the note rate of interest.
( 3 ) All compensation and considerations, whether payments, a share of proceeds, or improvements to the property paid for by the lessee, must be disclosed to the Agency. No payments or compensation for entering into a lease shall flow to the borrower or any identity-of-interest related to the borrower.
( 4 ) The lease provides at its termination for the restoration of the leased space to its original condition or a condition acceptable to the owner and the Federal Government.
( 5 ) Consent to the lease will not exceed 3 years at a time unless the Agency determines that a longer lease is advantageous to the borrower, the tenants, and the Federal Government.
( 6 ) When another lienholder's mortgage requires that lienholder's consent to a lease, the borrower must obtain written consent from the lienholder before the Agency will consider approving the lease.
( d ) *Mineral leases.* Mineral leases will be handled according to 7 CFR 3550.159 except that all references to County Supervisor will be construed to mean District Director when applied to the MFH Programs.
[69 FR 69106, Nov. 26, 2004, as amended at 81 FR 11049, Mar. 2, 2016]
5.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes policies and procedures for publicizing contract opportunities and award information.    **Parent topic:** Part 5 - Publicizing Contract Actions
•L-:1 Davis Wright 

•• Trema1ne LLP 

July 3, 2014 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence A venue, Southwest 

Washington, DC 20591 

Jeffrey M. Harper 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Re: Request to Cancel Hearing, FAA Case No. 2103WP910206 

To Hearing Docket Clerk: 

Suite 2200 

1201 Third Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101-3045 

Mark Bartlett 

206-757-8298 tel 

markbartlett@dwt.com 

RE. ·cFIVED 

' ~~ 

JUL 1 C. 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Heath Teena and the FAA have reached a settlement with regard to FAA Case No. 

2013WP91 0206. As a result, Heath Teena wishes to cancel its June 13 request for a hearing. 

Sincerely, 

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

Mark 

MJr>~ Bartlett
Exemption# 11575

Docket# FAA-2015-0353

Re: Request to fly non-towered airport in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d) (Flight Planning Requirements) under 

FAA Form 7711-1 page 5 without letter of agreement

The approval letter (page 5, Section 16) states as follows:

“Letter of agreement with the airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA.”

Section C (2) (b) (c) (d) under FAA Form 7711-1 page 5 as follows:

b) 3 NM from an airport having a published instrument flight procedure, but not having an operational 

control tower; or

c) 2 NM from an airport not having a published instrument flight procedure or an operational control 

tower; or

d) 2 NM from a heliport, gliderport or seaport

Facts: These airport managers do not actually own/control airspace 2 or 3 nm from airport. Therefore, 

they do not have authority to approve or not approve the use of such areas. Ikust LLC have contacted 

several airport managers, but they are not cooperative.

Action taken: Ikust LLC requested a COA to use the areas defined in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d). However, 

senior ATC analyst (COA office) stated that the request cannot be processed through a COA. Therefore, 

Ikust LLC is submitting the request here. 

Request: Ikust LLC to perform one of the followings in order to fly the areas in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d).

(1) NOTIFIES the airports in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d) for the operations of drone instead of obtaining 

LETTER of AGREEMENT, or

(2) Notify and coordinate with nearest ATC for the drone operations.

Other requirements, such as filing NOTAM, stays the same.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2027

GREGORY ANTHONY VANTRECE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00124-LO-MSN)

Submitted: January 23, 2023 Decided: June 28, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Anthony VanTrece, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2027 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Anthony VanTrece appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s 

(ALJ) denial of VanTrece’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental 

security income. “In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same 

standard of review as does the district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the 

determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual 

findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 

F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial 

evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 

It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” 

Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “In reviewing for 

substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility 

determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence 

allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility 

for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) 

(cleaned up).

We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the 

correct legal standards in evaluating VanTrece’s claims for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual 

findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment upholding the denial of benefits. VanTrece v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:20-cv00124-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2021). We also deny VanTrece’s motion to remove 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2027 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

online access to his case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2027 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/28/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2488 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an independent 

safety assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 3, 2006 

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct 

an independent safety assessment of the Indian Point 

Nuclear Power Plant. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INDEPENDENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT. 

4 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

5 of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall sub6 mit to Congress a report containing the results of— 

7 (1) a focused, in-depth independent safety as8 sessment of the design, construction, maintenance, 

9 and operational safety performance of the systems at 

10 the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, Reactors 2 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 2488 IS

1 and 3, located in Westchester County, New York, in2 cluding the systems described in section 2; and 

3 (2) a comprehensive evaluation of the radio4 logical emergency plan for the Indian Point Nuclear 

5 Power Plant, Reactors 2 and 3, conducted by the 

6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Depart7 ment of Homeland Security, which shall include— 

8 (A) a detailed explanation of the factual 

9 basis on which the Nuclear Regulatory Commis10 sion and the Federal Emergency Management 

11 Agency relied (during the period beginning on 

12 July 25, 2003, and ending on the date of enact13 ment of this Act) in— 

14 (i) approving the radiological emer15 gency plan; and 

16 (ii) making subsequent annual find17 ings of reasonable assurance that the plan 

18 would adequately protect the public in the 

19 event of an emergency; and 

20 (B) a detailed response to each of the criti21 cisms of the radiological emergency plan con22 tained in the Review of Emergency Prepared23 ness of Areas Adjacent to Indian Point and 

24 Millstone, published by James Lee Witt Associ25 ates on January 10, 2003. 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 2488 IS

1 SEC. 2. SYSTEMS. 

2 The systems referred to in section 1(1) are— 

3 (1) the reactor protection system; 

4 (2) the control room ventilation system and the 

5 containment ventilation system; 

6 (3) the 4.16 kV electrical system; 

7 (4) the condensate system; and 

8 (5) the spent fuel storage system. 

9 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT MODEL. 

10 The independent safety assessment conducted at the 

11 Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant under this Act shall 

12 be equal in depth and breadth to the independent safety 

13 assessment of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, lo14 cated near Bath, Maine, conducted by the Nuclear Regu15 latory Commission during 1996. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3.103-1 Solicitation provision.       The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination, in solicitations when a firm-fixed-price contract or fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment is contemplated, unless-                                       (a)                    						            The acquisition is to be made under the simplified acquisition procedures in part  13;                                          (b)                    						            [Reserved]                                          (c)                    						            The solicitation is a request for technical proposals under two-step sealed bidding procedures; or                                          (d)                    						            The solicitation is for utility services for which rates are set by law or regulation.    **Parent topic:** 3.103 Independent pricing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

 ADAM PERSHA

 Docket No 7:20‐cv‐00504‐MCR‐GRJ

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 MDL No. 3:19-md-2885

 Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

 Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

NOTICE OF DESIGNATION FORUM

COMES NOW Plaintiff, ADAM PERSHA, and files this Notice of 

Designated Forum pursuant to Case Management Order 33. Absent the direct filing 

Order entered by this Court, venue is also proper in the Southern District of 

California reserves the right to amend this designation of proper venue and forum, 

once case specific fact and expert discovery is complete.

Dated: February 9, 2022. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ W. Troy Bouk 

W. Troy Bouk, Florida Bar No. 43384

Levin, Papantonio, Rafferty, Proctor, 

Buchanan, O’Brien, Barr & Mougey, P.A.

316 South Baylen St., Ste. 600

Pensacola, FL 32502

Tel: 850-435-7155 / Fax: 850-436-6155

Email: tbouk@levinlaw.com

Case 7:20-cv-00504-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that the foregoing Notice was filed 

electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system on February 9, 

2022 and served electronically on all counsel of record. 

/s/ W. Troy Bouk

W. Troy Bouk, Florida Bar No. 43384

Case 7:20-cv-00504-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL****OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-KSB (the “Report”) of ANTs software inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2004: 

          1. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

          This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

| Date:  March 10,   2005 | By:    | /s/ KENNETH RUOTOLO                                     |
|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   |                                                         |
|                              |   | Kenneth Ruotolo   Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
(April 24, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Jones, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on September 6, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Fein, Sandler and Silverman, JJ.
#### § 400.402 Definitions.

*Act.* The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.*).

*Applicant.* A person who has submitted an application for crop insurance coverage under the Act.

*Authorized person.* Any current or past officer, employee, elected official, general agent, contractor, or loss adjuster of FCIC, the insurance provider, or any other government agency whose duties require access to administer the Act.

*Disposition of records.* The act of removing and disposing of records containing a participant's SSN or EIN by FCIC, or the insurance provider.

*FCIC.* The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation of the United States Department of Agriculture or any successor agency.

*FSA.* The Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, or a successor agency.

*Insurance provider.* A private insurance company approved by FCIC, or a local FSA office providing crop insurance coverage to producers participating in any program administered under the Act.

*Past officers and employees.* Any officer or employee of FCIC or the insurance provider who leaves the employ of FCIC or the insurance provider subsequent to the effective date of this rule.

*Person.* An individual, partnership, association, corporation, estate, trust, or other legal entity, and whenever applicable, a state, political subdivision, or an agency of a state.

*Policyholder.* An applicant whose application for insurance under the crop insurance program has been accepted by FCIC or the insurance provider.

*Retrieval of records.* Retrieval of a person's records by that person's SSN or EIN, or name.

*Safeguards.* Methods of security to be employed by FCIC or the insurance provider to protect a participant's SSN or EIN from unlawful disclosure and access.

*Storage.* The secured storing of records kept by FCIC or the insurance provider on computer disks or drives, computer printouts, magnetic tape, index cards, microfiche, microfilm, etc.

*Substantial beneficial interest.* Any person having an interest of at least 10 percent in the applicant or policyholder.

*System of records.* Records established and maintained by FCIC or the insurance provider containing SSN or EIN data, name, address, city and State, applicable policy numbers, and other information related to multiple peril crop insurance policies as required by FCIC, from which information is retrieved by a personal identifier including, but not limited to the SSN, EIN, or name.

[62 FR 28608, May 27, 1997]
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. 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK

JOHN RICHARD KNOCK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 993, Defendant Knock’s First Motion for

Extension of Time to File Reply. For good cause shown, the Court finds the motion is well

taken, and it is GRANTED. Knock shall file his reply no later than July 11, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 994 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Denise Smith, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; 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 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



---

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: May 16, 2007















/s/ Denise Smith





Denise Smith









Chief Financial Officer