alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ':31-\ '13

# 61• REC_EIYED 

# <J..i. 

# SOCMA OPP f CBIC**~·~** ' -C**I~:;·'·** i**l~** t·f'·P:'t:**~ ,.~.** **;.t~;~·~,!!-(·r~ (.~** **/.~~~;~~:.:;..__**

I 

### ::::3 I Document Control Office (DCO) (7407 M) Office of Pollution Prevention and Taxies (OPPT) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA East Building, Room E6428 (202-564-8930) 1201 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Attention: TSCA Section 4 40 CFR 799.5087 Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531 To Whom It May Concern: 

# lOll JU' 

# 39 

# Bit I.

# hh

July 30, 2012

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 2

RE: Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group ofChemicals. Federal Register 76 (5), 1067-1093, January 7, 2011. 1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)·Triethanol (CAS No. 4719-04-4) The MEATriazine Consortium makes this final submission to fulfill the reporting obligations underthe subject test rule for 1,3,5-triazine-1 ,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol (CAS No. 4719-04-4), also known as MEA Triazine. The consortium is formed and managed under the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA). The consortium has completed the testing for the following endpoint in compliance with the test rule and according to current OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines: Toxicity to Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218-04e1 Included in this submission are the Final Report from the test facility, Harlan Laboratories Ltd., and a Robust Summary. The participating member companies ofthe MEA Triazine Consortium are: Baker Petrolite Corporation (a Baker Hughes company) Champion Technologies, Inc. Clearwater International, LLC Conlen SurfactantTechnology, Inc. GE Betz, Inc. doing business as GE Water & Process Technologies Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. 

## CONTAfNS NO Cf?0 2 Technologies, LLC Stepan Company Syrgis PChem 

# SOCMA

Please contact the undersigned directly at 202-721-4154 or helmest@socma.com forfurther information orfollow up concerning this testing orthe final report.

cc: Paul Campanella Sincerely,

C. Tucker Helmes, Ph.D. Executive Director MEATriazine Consortium
#### § 959.124 Reports.

Each handler of onions shipping under Certificates of Privilege shall supply the committee with reports as requested by the committee, or its duly authorized agents, showing the name and address of the shipper; the car or truck identification; the loading point; destination; consignee; the inspection certificate number when inspection is required; and any other information deemed necessary by the committee.
§ 764.108 General insurance requirements. The applicant must obtain and maintain insurance, equal to the lesser of the value of the security at the time of loan closing or the principal of all FLP and non-FLP loans secured by the property, subject to the following: ( a ) All security, except growing crops, must be covered by hazard insurance if it is readily available (sold by insurance agents in the applicant's normal trade area) and insurance premiums do not exceed the benefit. The Agency must be listed as loss payee for the insurance indemnity payment or as a beneficiary in the mortgagee loss payable clause.
( b ) Real estate security located in flood or mudslide prone areas must be covered by flood or mudslide insurance. The Agency must be listed as a beneficiary in the mortgagee loss payable clause.
( c ) Growing crops used to provide adequate security must be covered by crop insurance if such insurance is available. The Agency must be listed as loss payee for the insurance indemnity payment.
( d ) Prior to closing the loan, the applicant must have obtained at least the catastrophic risk protection level of crop insurance coverage for each crop which is a basic part of the applicant's total operation, if such insurance is available, unless the applicant executes a written waiver of any emergency crop loss assistance with respect to such crop. The applicant must execute an assignment of indemnity in favor of the Agency for this coverage.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWABS, INC.
                 CWABS ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2006-19
                   ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-19


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                    Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3186 

To extend temporarily the suspension of the duty on Terrazole. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of the duty on 

Terrazole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERRAZOLE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.59 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking the date in the effective period column and 

7 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2009’’. 

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

9 this section shall apply with respect to goods entered, or 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3186 IS 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 15 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 15 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00674-WKW-TFM Document 15 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 3
Debra P. Hackett

Clerk, U.S. District Court

15 LEE ST STE 206

MONTGOMERY AL 36104-4055

August 11,2008

Appeal Number: 08-13066-H

Case Style: Clarence Waters v. Kenneth L. Jones

District Court Number: 06-00650 CV-F-N

TO: Debra P. Hackett

CC: Clarence Waters (132116)

CC: StephenN.Dodd

CC: Troy King

CC: Administrative File

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 52 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 3
United States Court of Appeals

Eleventh Circuit

56 Forsyth Street, NW.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Thomas K. Kahn

Clerk

August 11,2008

Debra P. Hackett

Clerk, U.S. District Court

15 LEE ST STE 206

MONTGOMERY AL 36104-4055

Appeal Number: 08-13066-H

Case Style: Clarence Waters v. Kenneth L. Jones

District Court Number: 06-00650 CV-F-N

For rules and forms visit

www.cal l.uscourts.gov

The enclosed certified copy of this Court's order denying the application for a Certificate

of Appealability is issued as the mandate of this court. $ 11th Cir. R. 41-4. Counsel

and pro se parties are advised that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-2, "a motion to reconsider,

vacate, or modify an order must be filed within 21 days of the entry of such order. No

additional time shall be allowed for mailing."

The district court clerk is requested to acknowledge receipt on the copy of this letter enclosed

to the clerk.

Sincerely,

THOMAS K. KAHN, Clerk

Reply To: Case Initiation Blue Team/wl/404-335-6125

End.

DIS-4 (3-2005)

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 52 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES COLTRT OF

FOR THE ELEVENTH

No. 08-13066-H

CLARENCE WATERS,

rt1OMAS K, KAHN

CLERK

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH L. JONES,

Warden.

TROY KING,

The Attorney General of the State of Alabama,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Alabama

ORDER:

Appellant's motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED because appellant has failed

to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Appellant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.

,s/ R. Lanier Anderson, III

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

FILED

IS. COURT OF APPEALS

AUG 11 Z008

A True Co - Atk4:

aeik, US. Court ot 4pO

Eventh Circuit

29

Deputyc

Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 52 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY )

241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, N.E. )

Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3374, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action File No: 3:06-cv-00698-SRW

)

MICHAEL BRITT MOON, )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

COMES NOW Plaintiff Georgia Power Company ("Georgia Power"), by and through the

undersigned counsel, and gives this Honorable Court notice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(i) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure that it hereby voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action without

prejudice.

___/s/ Phillip E. Adams____________________

PHILLIP E. ADAMS (ASB-9946-D56P)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL

Adams, Umbach, Davidson

& White, LLP

Post Office Box 2069

Opelika, Alabama 36803-2069

(334) 745-6466

Case 3:06-cv-00698-SRW Document 4 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document upon:

Michael Britt Moon

3300 McKee Road

Upatoi, Georgia 31829

by placing a copy of the same in the United States mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid this

the 5 day of March, 2007. th

_/s/ Phillip E. Adams___________________

OF COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00698-SRW Document 4 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
###### 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.

#### § 868.253 Basis of determination.

The determination of kernels damaged by heat, heat-damaged kernels, parboiled kernels in nonparboiled rice, and the special grade Parboiled brown rice for processing shall be on the basis of the brown rice for processing after it has been milled to a well-milled degree. All other determinations shall be on the basis of the original sample. Mechanical sizing of kernels shall be adjusted by handpicking as prescribed in FGIS instructions, or by any method which gives equivalent results.

[42 FR 40869, Aug. 12, 1977; 42 FR 64356, Dec. 23, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 34516, Aug. 10, 1982; 54 FR 21403, 21406, May 18, 1989, and further redesignated at 60 FR 16364, Mar. 30, 1995]
Case 3:06-cv-00627-WKW-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 5129.1 - General **Parent topic:** Part 5129 - Taxes5129.101 Resolving tax problems.    (a)  The contracting officer shall provide to the legal counsel a comprehensive statement of facts and issues supported by –       (i)  Copies of correspondence and documents needed to understand the problem;       (ii)  A copy of the contract or relevant portion; and       (iii)  The comments and recommendations of the contracting officer, the reviewer and local counsel at each echelon of command through which the correspondence passes.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF

NORTHERN DIVISION

FRANK BLAIR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-651-MEF

)

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

It is hereby ORDERED that the stay of the Rule 26(f) discovery conference granted

by the Court on September 11, 2006 is lifted. 

DONE this the 28th day of November, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00651-MEF-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 1305.2 - Synopses of Proposed Contract Actions

**Parent topic:**PART 1305 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

## 1305.202 Exceptions.

The designee authorized to decide, in writing, that advance notice through the GPE (Governmentwide Point of Entry) is not appropriate or reasonable is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XUEQIANG XU, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 12-73356 

Agency No. A089-992-399 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

Xueqiang Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-73356 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th 

Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Xu references in his opening brief that are 

not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even if credible, 

Xu’s experiences in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. 

INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel finding of past 

persecution where petitioner did not suffer economic deprivation rising to the level 

of persecution and did not suffer any significant physical harm); see also Jiang v. 

Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner “cannot qualify for refugee

status solely on the basis of [his wife’s] forced abortion”). Substantial evidence 

also supports the BIA’s conclusion Xu failed to establish a well-founded fear of 

future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(applicant did not present compelling evidence of a well-founded fear of future 

persecution). Thus, Xu’s asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Xu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his 

withholding of removal claim fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. We lack 

jurisdiction to consider Xu’s contentions regarding a pattern and practice of 
3 12-73356 

persecution or membership in a disfavored group. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative 

proceedings below).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief 

because Xu failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See Silaya v. 

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 16, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60426 Summary Calendar

MARIA DEL ROSARIO MOLINA, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A77 788 231

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Maria Del Rosario Molina petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Molina’s application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), as well as her request for voluntary departure. Molina argues that: (1) the federal crime for which she was previously convicted did not involve moral turpitude; (2) her federal crime was not an aggravated felony offense; (3) the IJ erred by admittingNo. 02-60426 -2- uncertified evidence that her application for temporary resident status had been denied; and (4) the IJ erred by not allowing testimony regarding hardship to family members resulting from her removal. Because Molina does not warrant any relief, we pretermit any jurisdictional issues under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). See United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). This court reviews only the decision of the BIA and not that of the Immigration Judge, except to the extent that the decision of the Immigration Judge influenced the BIA’s decision. See Carbajal-Gonzales v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). This court conducts a de novo review of the BIA’s legal rulings but “will defer to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration regulations if the interpretation is reasonable.” Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Fact findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. See id. The BIA’s denial of Molina’s application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) was not erroneous because Molina failed to submit any evidence showing that she was a permanent resident alien. See 8 C.F.R. § 240.11(e)(2001)(alien bears burden of proof to show eligibility for cancellation of removal). Molina does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she abandoned her application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). She has therefore not shown that the BIA erred in denying relief under that subsection. Accordingly, Molina’s petition for review is DENIED.
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Property Investors8 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer ofthe Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financialofficer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

99 

KA 11-01945 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRENT NELSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN MCDERMOTT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R.

Merrill, A.J.), rendered September 20, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree

and grand larceny in the fourth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of

justice and on the law by vacating the amount of restitution ordered

and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted

to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with

the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third

degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§

155.30 [5]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the

incarceration component of the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Although defendant’s contention with respect to the restitution

component of the sentence is not properly before us (see People v

Lawson [appeal No. 7], ___ AD3d ___, ___ [Jan. 2, 2015]; see generally

People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281), we nevertheless exercise our

power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the

interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Upon that review, we

agree with defendant that “the record ‘does not contain sufficient

evidence to establish the amount [of restitution to be imposed]’ ”

(Lawson, ___ AD3d at ___). We thus conclude that County Court 

“ ‘erred in determining the amount of restitution without holding a

hearing’ ” (id.). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the

amount of restitution ordered, and we remit the matter to County Court

for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be paid by

defendant.

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court