alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3430.704 Project types and priorities. ( a ) *Technical Topic Areas.* Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI) awards shall be directed (in consultation with the Biomass Research and Development Board, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and heads of other appropriate departments and agencies) in the following three primary technical topic areas: ( 1 ) *Feedstocks Development.* Research, development, and demonstration activities regarding feedstocks and feedstock logistics (including the harvest, handling, transport, preprocessing, and storage) relevant to production of raw materials for conversion to biofuels and biobased products.
( 2 ) *Biofuels and Biobased Products Development.* Research, development, and demonstration activities to support— ( i ) The development of diverse cost-effective technologies for the use of cellulosic biomass in the production of biofuels and biobased products; and
( ii ) Product diversification through technologies relevant to production of a range of biobased products (including chemicals, animal feeds, and cogenerated power) that potentially can increase the feasibility of fuel production in a biorefinery.
( 3 ) *Biofuels Development Analysis* — ( i ) *Strategic Guidance.* The development of analysis that provides strategic guidance for the application of renewable biomass technologies to improve sustainability and environmental quality, cost effectiveness, security, and rural economic development.
( ii ) *Energy and Environmental Impact.* Development of systematic evaluations of the impact of expanded biofuel production on the environment (including forest land) and on the food supply for humans and animals, including the improvement and development of tools for life cycle analysis of current and potential biofuels.
( iii ) *Assessment of Federal Land.* Assessments of the potential of Federal land resources to increase the production of feedstocks for biofuels and biobased products, consistent with the integrity of soil and water resources and with other environmental considerations.
( b ) *Additional considerations.* Within the technical topic areas described in paragraph (a) of this section, NIFA, in cooperation with DOE, shall support research and development to— ( 1 ) Create continuously expanding opportunities for participants in existing biofuels production by seeking synergies and continuity with current technologies and practices;
( 2 ) Maximize the environmental, economic, and social benefits of production of biofuels and derived biobased products on a large scale; and
( 3 ) Facilitate small-scale production and local and on-farm use of biofuels, including the development of smallscale gasification technologies for production of biofuel from cellulosic feedstocks.
[75 FR 33498, June 14, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 38549, July 1, 2011]
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-089
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

    The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., and its officers and agents

Date:  September 10, 2007


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum

Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior officer in charge of securitization
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,305]

                    By application dated January 14, 2010, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on December 11, 2009. The Notice of Determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 25, 2010 (75 FR 3932).                

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of paperboard packaging and like or directly competitive products did not contribute importantly to workers separations at the subject firm and no shift in production occurred during the relevant period.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information and alleged that Shorewood Packaging shifted production from the subject facility abroad.

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of January 2010.

Del Min Amy Chen,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-3011 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,603,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,186,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                   127,207
<INVENTORY>                                    676,685
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,822,191
<PP&E>                                       3,276,567
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,121,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,373,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,257,661
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       317,472
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,125,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,373,163
<SALES>                                      2,588,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,588,907
<CGS>                                        2,575,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,703,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,128,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             757,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,839,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,680
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,850,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        


</TABLE>
§ 3570.262 Applicant eligibility requirements. There are two types of Applicants. The applicant must be either a Technical Assistance Provider or an Ultimate Recipient, and must meet eligibility requirements before being considered for Agency assistance. ( a ) Applicants applying as Technical Assistance Providers must: ( 1 ) Be a public body or a private nonprofit corporation, (such as States, counties, cities, townships, and incorporated towns and villages, boroughs, authorities, districts, and Indian tribes on Federal and State reservations);
( 2 ) Be legally established and located within one of the following: ( i ) A State as defined § 3570.252; or
( ii ) The District of Columbia; and
( 3 ) Have the proven ability, background, experience (as evidenced by the organization's satisfactory completion of Project(s) similar to those proposed), legal authority and actual capacity to provide Technical Assistance and/or training to Ultimate Recipients as provided in § 3570.252. To meet the requirement of actual capacity, an Applicant must either: ( i ) Have the necessary resources to provide Technical Assistance and/or training to associations in Rural Areas through its staff,
( ii ) Be assisted by an affiliate or member organization which has such background and experience and which agrees, in writing, that it will provide the technical assistance, or
( iii ) May contract with a nonaffiliated organization for not more than 49 percent of the awarded grant to provide the proposed technical assistance.
( 4 ) Nonprofits applying as Technical Assistance Providers must be designated tax exempt by the Internal Revenue Service.
( b ) Applicants applying as Ultimate Recipients must be: ( 1 ) A public body,
( 2 ) An Indian Tribe, or
( 3 ) A Nonprofit corporation that demonstrates Community ties to the Rural Area by: ( i ) Obtaining substantial public funding through taxes revenue bonds, or other local Government sources, and/or substantial voluntary community funding,
( ii ) Having a broadly-based ownership and control by members of the community, or
( iii ) Demonstrating all of the following characteristics: ( A ) Members of the organization are primarily from the local rural community,
( B ) Membership is open to all adults in the local rural community,
( C ) Members of the organization have ultimate control of the proposed community facility; and
( D ) The organization receives the majority of its funding from its members or their volunteer efforts.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 29, 2017

s0926

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2017

154370

_________________________________________

In re Estate of JAMES ERWIN, SR. SC: 154370

COA: 331846

Saginaw PC: 13-130558-DE

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 6, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 94 Filed 02/07/00 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 94 Filed 02/07/00 Page 2 of 2
# 27.405-2 Existing works.

The clause at 52.227-18, Rights in *Data*-Existing Works, is for use in contracts exclusively for the *acquisition* (without modification) of existing works such as, motion pictures, television recordings, and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; musical, dramatic, and literary works; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; and works of a similar nature. The contract *may* set forth limitations consistent with the purposes for which the works covered by the contract are being acquired. Examples of these limitations are means of exhibition or transmission, time, type of audience, and geographical location. However, if the contract requires that works of the type indicated in this paragraph are to be modified through editing, translation, or addition of subject matter, etc. (rather than purchased in existing form), then see 27.405-1.

**Parent topic:**27.405 Other data rights provisions.
#### § 3565.214 [Reserved]
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03568

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### § 3560.630 Financial management.

Financial information must be submitted in an Agency-approved format and will show operation of the housing in a non-profit manner.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 4290.3011-4290.3014 [Reserved]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41168

Summary Calendar

 

TERRY PRESTON MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID FORREST, MAJOR; BOBBY LANE, MAJOR;

A. J. JINKINS, DOCTOR; KENNETH SULEWSKI, CAPTAIN,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:96-CV-271

- - - - - - - - - -

December 11, 1997

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Preston Miller filed an action under § 1983 against

several employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 

The district court dismissed the claim without prejudice because

Miller failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking

relief in the district court. Miller appeals. 

After the district court entered final judgment, Miller

introduced additional evidence of administrative exhaustion into
No. 96-41168

-2-

the record. Because the district court reached the proper

conclusion based on the evidence it was able to consider, we

affirm the dismissal without prejudice. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

Kemlon Prod. & Dev. Co. v. United States, 646 F.2d 223, 224 (5th

Cir. 1981). Miller is free to refile his complaint with

consolidated evidence of administrative exhaustion. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 457.3 Premium rates, production guarantees or amounts of insurance, coverage levels, and prices at which indemnities shall be computed. ( a ) The Manager shall establish premium rates, production guarantees or amounts of insurance, coverage levels, and prices at which indemnities shall be computed for the insured crop which will be included in the actuarial table on file in the applicable agents' office for the county and which may be changed from year to year.
( b ) At the time the application for insurance is made, the applicant will elect an amount of insurance or a coverage level and price from among those contained in the actuarial table for the crop year.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-60474

Summary Calendar

_____________________

CLYDE WENDALL SMITH,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WALTER BOOKER; MIKE MOORE, Attorney 

General, State of Mississippi,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. m:98-CV-58-S-B

_________________________________________________________________

January 12, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clyde Wendall Smith, Mississippi prisoner #44932, appeals the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, in which he raised five

ineffective assistance claims. The district court granted a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) on each claim.

Smith does not renew his claim that counsel was ineffective in

failing to move for a severance, and the claim is waived due to his

failure to brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a). For the first time on

appeal, he argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to
2

present evidence that the use of brass knuckles would leave

permanent scars and in failing to point out that the victim, Lynn

Robinson, did not have any such scars. Not only does the COA not

include this issue, but this court will not consider a new theory

of relief raised for the first time on appeal. See Brown v.

Lensing, 171 F.3d 1031, 1032 n.10 (5th Cir. 1999); Leverette v.

Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

Smith’s claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to call

Officer Thurmond fails because, even if it is assumed that counsel

was deficient in not securing Officer Thurmond’s presence, Smith

has not demonstrated any resulting prejudice since the substance of

the proposed testimony was presented via counsel’s crossexamination of Patricia Robinson. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 694, 697 (1984). Smith’s claim that counsel was

ineffective in failing to impeach Patricia Robinson also fails

because he concedes that counsel cross-examined her regarding her

prior inconsistent statements. See id. at 687. To the extent that

Smith argues that counsel should have attempted to introduce the

prior statements formally into evidence, the claim fails because he

cannot demonstrate any prejudice flowing from the alleged error.

Id. at 694, 697. Smith’s claim that counsel was ineffective in

failing to impeach Wendell Wright with prior inconsistent

statements also fails for lack of prejudice. Id. The claim that

counsel breached the duty of loyalty is simply a restatement of
3

Smith’s other ineffective assistance claims and fails for the

reasons already stated. Id.

A F F I R M E D.
# 19.502-7 	Inclusion	of Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

When using competitive procedures in	accordance with 8.602(a)(4),	agencies *shall* include Federal Prison *Industries*, Inc. (FPI), in	the *solicitation* process and consider a timely *offer* from FPI.

**Parent topic:**19.502 Setting aside acquisitions.
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Alphonse Gainer Case No: 5:94cr5004/LAC

USM No: 03352-017

Date of Previous Judgment: 17 May 1994

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of 9 the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons : the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. : GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 540 months is reduced to 405 .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 38 Amended Offense Level: 36

Criminal History Category: VI Criminal History Category: VI

Previous Guideline Range: 360 to Life months Amended Guideline Range: 324 to 405 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

The defendant has 26 criminal history points—twice that necessary to be in the criminal history category VI, the

highest category. This justifies the sentence at the high end of the guideline range.

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 17 May 1994 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: s/L.A. Collier 30 April 2008

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Lacey A. Collier, Senior U.S. District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 5:94-cr-05004-LC-MD Document 147 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 39 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 4
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 39 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 4
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 39 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 4
Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 39 Filed 01/11/22 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO




SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




I, Andrew Stewart, the President, Chief
Executive Officer and principal executive officer of Man Investments (USA)
Corp., the Managing Member of Man-AHL 130, LLC (“Man-AHL 130”), certify that (i)
the Quarterly Report of Man-AHL 130 on Form 10-Q for the period ending December
31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Man-AHL 130.




Date:  February
16, 2010








/s/ Andrew
      StewartAndrew
      StewartPresident,
      Director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating
  Officer