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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

[Docket Number DARS-2015-0017]

48 CFR Part 216

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical 
Amendment

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial 
changes.

DATES: Effective April 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6088; 
facsimile 571-372-6094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends the DFARS at 216.401-
70 to delete the reference to PGI 216.401-70, which has been removed.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 216

    Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 216 is amended as follows:

PART 216--TYPES OF CONTRACTS

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 216 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

216.401-70   [Amended]

0
2. Amend section 216.401-70 by removing ``In order to comply with this 
statutory requirement, follow the procedures at PGI 216.401-70.''

[FR Doc. 2015-07834 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 25 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 25 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 25-2 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 25-2 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 25-2 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 25-2 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 25-3 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 1
```

[House Report 107-776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-776

======================================================================

 
 WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
                               COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

  November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 2002.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 603]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 603, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of 
Wednesday, November 13, 2002, providing for the consideration 
or disposition of a joint resolution making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003.


```
AFS

- 13

- 454

- E October 21, 2013 Exemption No. 10873 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0633

Mr. Timothy Poole, Jr. GT Aviation, LLC 10300 Glen Way Ft. Washington, MD 20744

Dear Mr. Poole:

This l etter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 1, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of GT Av iati on, LLC (GT Aviation) for an exemption from § 141.5(e) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow GT Aviation to renew its provisional pilot school certificate despite not having graduated ten different people fr om part
141

- approved training courses within the preceding 24 months.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent

- setting petition , and any delay in act ing on this petition would be detrimental to GT Aviation.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petitio n. In Denial of Exemption No

. 10259 (copy e nclosed), the FAA

found that Sky warrior, Inc. ’s school approved training courses in the preceding 24 calendar months is a critical metric in determining a pilot school’s quality of instruction. The FAA requires this period of evaluation to determine that the school’s training course out line s (TCO) have been adequately developed and are being properly implemented. The FAA believes this requirement is an important basis for part 141 pilot school certification, and granting this exemption would allow other similarly situated pilot schools to apply for the same exemption, thus reducing the overall level of safety.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do no t differ materially from those presented by the petition er in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10259 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10259 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption would no t be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 10 6(f), 40113

, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of GT Aviation, LLC

, for an exemption from 14 CFR § 141.5(e)

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BEN F. BEARD, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv653-WHA

 )

LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., )

etc., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s

Motion to Remand (Doc. #23), filed on August 28, 2006, and for good cause shown, the motion

is GRANTED, and the reply brief attached to the motion as Exhibit A is allowed to be filed.

DONE this 29th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 24 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2956 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2956

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear not covering 
          the ankle with coated or laminated textile fabrics.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2006

  Mr. Carper introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reduce temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear not covering 
          the ankle with coated or laminated textile fabrics.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR NOT COVERING THE ANKLE WITH COATED 
              OR LAMINATED TEXTILE FABRICS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.64.12      Women's footwear,   20%          No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         not covering the                                                   31/2009
                         ankle, valued
                         over $20/pair,
                         designed to be
                         worn over, or in
                         lieu of, other
                         footwear as a
                         protection
                         against water,
                         oil, grease or
                         chemicals or cold
                         or inclement
                         weather where
                         such protection
                         includes
                         protection
                         against water
                         that is imparted
                         by the use of a
                         coated or
                         laminated textile
                         fabric (except
                         footwear with
                         waterproof
                         injection molded
                         bottoms, i.e.
                         comprising a
                         complete outer
                         sole and all or
                         part of the
                         upper) (provided
                         in subheading
                         6404.19.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.44 New original inspection.

When circumstances prevent a retest inspection, appeal inspection, or Board appeal inspection, an applicant may request a new original inspection on any previously inspected lot; except that a new original inspection may not be performed on an identifiable commodity lot which, as a result of a previous inspection, was found to be contaminated with filth, other than insect fragments in nongraded processed products, or to contain a deleterious substance. A new original inspection shall be based on a new sample and shall not be restricted to the scope of any previous inspection. A new original inspection certificate shall not supersede any previously issued certificate.
# L_2014268EN.01000901.xml

| 9.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 268/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 268/9

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 8 September 2014

appointing a French member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2014/651/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the French Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 13 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 13 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).

| (2) | A member's seaton the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Julien VALENTIN, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seaton the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Julien VALENTIN,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Julien MARRE is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 8 September 2014.

For the Council

The President

S. GOZI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.

1

---
52.228-9 Cargo Insurance.

As prescribed in 28.313(a), insert the following clause:

Cargo Insurance (May 1999)

(a) The Contractor, at the Contractor’s expense, shall provide and maintain, during the continuance

of this contract, cargo insurance of $______ per vehicle to cover the value of property on each vehicle

and of $_______ to cover the total value of the property in the shipment.

(b) All insurance shall be written on companies acceptable to ____________ [insert name of

contracting agency], and policies shall include such terms and conditions as required by __________

[insert name of contracting agency]. The Contractor shall provide evidence of acceptable cargo

insurance to ____________ [insert name of contracting agency] before commencing operations under

this contract.

(c) Each cargo insurance policy shall include the following statement:

"It is a condition of this policy that the Company shall furnish-

(1) Written notice to __________ [insert name and address of contracting agency], 30 days in advance

of the effective date of any reduction in, or cancellation of, this policy; and

(2) Evidence of any renewal policy to the address specified in paragraph (1) of this statement, not

less than 15 days prior to the expiration of any current policy on file with ____________ [insert name

of contracting agency]."

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.228 [Reserved]
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1158 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-018-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, C, D, D1, 

AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 936 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the control rod, loss 

of tail rotor control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

We estimate that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. We estimate, per helicopter, it will take 

minimal work-hours to do the check, 1 work-hour to measure the bearing play, and 1 work-hour 

to replace 1 control rod. Required parts will cost about $1,724 to replace a control rod per 

helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators is minimal 

for the check. Measuring the bearing play, if needed, would cost $85 per helicopter, and 

replacing 1 control rod would cost $1,809 per helicopter. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
§ 701.210 Qualifying minimum cost of restoration. ( a ) FSA will establish the minimum qualifying cost of restoration, which may vary by State or region.
( b ) An applicant may request a waiver of the qualifying minimum cost of restoration. The waiver request must document how failure to grant the waiver will result in environmental damage or hardship to the person or legal entity, and how the waiver will accomplish the goals of the program.
#### § 764.2 Abbreviations and definitions.

Abbreviations and definitions for terms used in this part are provided in § 761.2 of this chapter.
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 3 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 3 Filed 07/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
§ 784.10 Estates, trusts, and minors. ( a ) Program documents executed by persons legally authorized to represent estates or trusts will be accepted only if such person furnishes evidence of the authority to execute such documents.
( b ) A minor who is otherwise eligible for assistance under this part must, also: ( 1 ) Establish that the right of majority has been conferred on the minor by court proceedings or by statute;
( 2 ) Show a guardian has been appointed to manage the minor's property and the applicable program documents are executed by the guardian; or
( 3 ) Furnish a bond under which the surety guarantees any loss incurred for which the minor would be liable had the minor been an adult.
****Bulletin No. 95-04, Introduction****
****OMB Home****
**METROPOLITAN AREAS 1995**
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 800.6 Provisions for hearings.

Opportunities will be provided for hearings prescribed or authorized by sections 7(g)(3), 7A(c)(2), 9, 10(d), and 17A(d) of the Act, and the hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Administrative Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary under Various Statutes (7 CFR, part 1, subpart H).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       

<CAPTION>



<S>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                      23,434
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         421
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    356
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      70,851
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        72,195
<LOANS>                                    313,486
<ALLOWANCE>                                  3,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             428,121
<DEPOSITS>                                 354,632
<SHORT-TERM>                                24,924
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,612
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,225
<COMMON>                                     8,110
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             428,121
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             20,035
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,006
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                46
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            23,087
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           7,797
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,298
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,789
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  641
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             13,266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,288
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,854
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                17.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                17.79
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                8.08
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,555
<LOANS-PAST>                                   515
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             3,153
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  859
<RECOVERIES>                                   433
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,368
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         3,368
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
        



</TABLE>
§ 51.2281 Color classifications. The following classifications are provided to describe the color of any lot: ( a ) “Extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” and “amber:” The portions of kernels in the lot shall be not darker than the darkest color permitted in the specified classification as shown on the USDA Walnut Color Chart.
( b ) “Red:” There are no color requirements.
[82 FR 39657, Aug. 22, 2017]
Page 1 of 2

1

See Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11TH Cir. 1997) (district courts must treat notices of

appeal in Section 2255 actions as applications for certificates of appealability).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:97cr85/LAC

DWIGHT SPENCER

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 115) which this court construes as

a request for a certificate of appealability.1 Defendant appeals the court’s denial of his

Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. 114, 111). Unless a certificate of appealability is issued, the

defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying a Rule 60(b) motion.

Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003).

A certificate of appealability should not issue in the appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b)

motion in a habeas case unless the petitioner/defendant shows, at a minimum, that it is

debatable among jurists of reason whether the district court abused its discretion, see

Mobley v. Head, 306 F.3d 1096, 1097 (11th Cir. 2002) (“This Court reviews a denial of a

60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.”). Because the court finds the defendant has not

made the requisite showing for the reasons stated in the court’s order denying the motion

(doc. 111), his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Defendant has not filed

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court finds that the appeal is not

taken in good faith and he is not otherwise entitled to so proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3).

Case 3:97-cr-00085-LC-MD Document 119 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:97CR85/LAC

Therefore, defendant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2007.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:97-cr-00085-LC-MD Document 119 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 772.4 Environmental requirements.

Servicing activities such as transfers, assumptions, subordinations, sale or exchange of security property, and leasing of security will be reviewed for compliance with 7 CFR part 799.

[68 FR 69949, Dec. 16, 2003, as amended at 81 FR 51285, Aug. 3, 2016]
# 5152.247-7027 Riding gang members requirements.

(c)(2)(ii)  The head of the contracting activity may waive the requirement, under certain circumstances, for riding gang members to pass a Department of Defense background check.  See Appendix GG for further delegation.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 5152.2 - Texts of Provisions and Clauses