alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1304.114 Responsibility for maintaining adequate safeguards. The Board has the responsibility for maintaining adequate technical, physical, and security safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure or destruction of manual and automatic record systems. These security safeguards shall apply to all systems in which identified personal data are processed or maintained, including all reports and output from such systems that contain identifiable personal information. Such safeguards must be sufficient to prevent negligent, accidental, or unintentional disclosure, modification, or destruction of any personal records or data; must minimize; to the extent practicable, the risk that skilled technicians or knowledgeable persons could improperly obtain access to modify or destroy such records or data; and shall further ensure against such casual entry by unskilled persons without official reasons for access to such records or data. ( a ) *Manual systems.* ( 1 ) Records contained in a system of records as defined in this part may be used, held, or stored only where facilities are adequate to prevent unauthorized access by persons within or outside the Board.
( 2 ) Access to and use of a system of records shall be permitted only to persons whose duties require such access to the information for routine uses or for such other uses as may be provided in this part.
( 3 ) Other than for access by employees or agents of the Board, access to records within a system of records shall be permitted only to the individual to whom the record pertains or upon his or her written request.
( 4 ) The Board shall ensure that all persons whose duties require access to and use of records contained in a system of records are adequately trained to protect the security and privacy of such records.
( 5 ) The disposal and destruction of identifiable personal data records shall be done by shredding and in accordance with rules promulgated by the Archivist of the United States.
( b ) *Automated systems.* ( 1 ) Identifiable personal information may be processed, stored, or maintained by automated data systems only where facilities or conditions are adequate to prevent unauthorized access to such systems in any form.
( 2 ) Access to and use of identifiable personal data associated with automated data systems shall be limited to those persons whose duties require such access. Proper control of personal data in any form associated with automated data systems shall be maintained at all times, including maintenance of accountability records showing disposition of input and output documents.
( 3 ) All persons whose duties require access to processing and maintenance of identifiable personal data and automated systems shall be adequately trained in the security and privacy of personal data.
( 4 ) The disposal and disposition of identifiable personal data and automated systems shall be done by shredding, burning, or, in the case of electronic records, by degaussing or by overwriting with the appropriate security software, in accordance with regulations of the Archivist of the United States or other appropriate authority.
### Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 6539 Dir ID: 2015

- NM

- 036

- AD

C on t acts. W ith w h o m o u tside t h e F A A h a s th i s prop os al been di s cu s sed?

Organ i zat i on P erson C ont a cted D ate R e s pon s e

N at i o n a l B u s ine s s Air c r af t As s o ci at i o n E li C ott i 3 / 6 / 1 5

Re g i o n a l Airline A ss o ci at i o n 3 / 6 / 1 5

Air c r af t O w ners & P il ot s A s s o ci at i o n R o bert Ha ck m a n 3 / 6 / 1 5

Airlines fo r A m e r ica R o bert I r e l a nd 3 / 6 / 1 5
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael A. Hart,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of NF Investment Corp.;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 1, 2017



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Hart                                               
|Michael
Hart Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Citizens Financial Corp.**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert J. Schoonover, President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens Financial Corp., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Citizens Financial Corp; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results in operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 mostrecent 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 havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 10, 2005
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 6, 2013

p0130

Order 

February 6, 2013

145912 & (62)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145912

COA: 303750 

Wayne CC: 10-011562-FH

KEITH MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment’s resolution 

of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel advanced in the defendant’s Standard 4 

brief, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of that 

issue. See Haines v Kerner, 404 US 519, 520 (1972). In declining to review the 

defendant’s ineffective assistance claims, the Court of Appeals “stress[ed]” that the 

“defendant made no effort to expand the record by moving to remand or for a new trial or 

evidentiary hearing below, nor [did] he suggest these remedies on appeal,” yet the 

defendant’s Standard 4 brief contained two requests for a remand for an evidentiary 

hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), and the defendant attached 

to his Standard 4 brief his affidavit, those of the three witnesses whom he contends 

defense counsel erred in failing to interview or call, and the allegedly deficient warrant 

affidavit that defense counsel failed to challenge. See People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 

498-499 (2003). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The 

motion to remand to the trial court is DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

B. B., a minor, by and through his mother )

and next friend, OWENA KNOWLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:06-CV-00715-MHT-TFM

)

PAWN CITY, INC., INTERSTATE ARMS )

CORPORATION, NORINCO a/k/a CHINA )

NORTH INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, et al )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon of review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Norinco’s Discovery

Responses Within Fourteen (14) Days (Doc. 21, filed February 20, 2007) and Response of

China North Industries Corp. To Show Cause Order Dated February 20, 2007 (Doc. 24,

filed February 28, 2007), it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Norinco’s Discovery

Responses Within Fourteen (14) Days (Doc. 21) is DENIED as moot. 

DONE this 1st day of March, 2007.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

 TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 25 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
§ 1014.2 Administrative claim; when presented; appropriate office. ( a ) For purposes of these regulations, a claim shall be deemed to have been presented when DOE receives, at a place designated in paragraph (b) of this section, an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an incident, accompanied by a claim for money damages in a definite amount for injury to or loss of property, personal injury, or death, that is alleged to have occurred by reason of the incident. A claim that should have been presented to DOE but which was mistakenly addressed to or filed with another Federal agency, shall be deemed to be presented to DOE on the date the claim is received by DOE. A claim mistakenly addressed to or filed with DOE shall be transferred to the appropriate Federal agency, if ascertainable, or returned to the claimant.
( b ) Claims should be mailed in envelopes marked “Attention Office of General Counsel.” Claims shall be mailed or delivered to the DOE installation or office employing the person or persons whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused the loss, damage, or injury, unless the claimant does not know that address. If the proper address is unknown, claims may be mailed or delivered to: The General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585. Forms may be obtained from the same places.
( c ) A claim may be amended by the claimant at any time before final DOE action or before the exercise of the claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a). Amendments shall be submitted in writing and signed by the claimant or a duly authorized agent or legal representative. If an amendment to a pending claim is filed in time, the DOE shall have 6 months to decide the claim as amended. The claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) shall not accrue until 6 months after the filing of an amendment.
§ 110.82 Hearing request or intervention petition. ( a ) A person may request a hearing or petition for leave to intervene on a license application for an import or export requiring a specific license.
( b ) Hearing requests and intervention petitions must: ( 1 ) State the name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
( 2 ) Set forth the issues sought to be raised;
( 3 ) Explain why a hearing or an intervention would be in the public interest and how a hearing or intervention would assist the Commission in making the determinations required by § 110.45.
( 4 ) Specify, when a person asserts that his interest may be affected, both the facts pertaining to his interest and how it may be affected, with particular reference to the factors in § 110.84.
( c ) Hearing requests and intervention petitions will be considered timely only if filed not later than: ( 1 ) 30 days after notice of receipt in the Federal Register, for those applications published in the Federal Register;
( 2 ) 30 days after publication of notice on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov ;*
( 3 ) 30 days after notice of receipt in the Public Document Room; or
( 4 ) Such other time as may be provided by the Commission.
[43 FR 21641, May 19, 1978, as amended at 49 FR 47202, Dec. 3, 1984; 60 FR 37565, July 21, 1995; 60 FR 55183, Oct. 30, 1995; 65 FR 70291, Nov. 22, 2000; 75 FR 44093, July 28, 2010]
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Industrial Waste Management, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dong Jinqing, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: November 19, 2007 By: /s/ Dong Jinqing Dong Jinqing Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Industrial Waste Management Inc. and will be retained by China Industrial Waste Management Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ABEL GONZALEZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00306

- CR

Appeal from the

399th Judicial District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2020

- CR

- 11841)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20 24

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley

, C. J., Palafox and Soto, J J

.
#### Donald V. Van Liere et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim. No. 46052.)

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and the facts by reducing the award to $48,600 and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The State appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims entered July 19, 1968 which awarded claimants $82,125 for the appropriation of 271.62 acres of unimproved land in Wayne County. The *735State correctly contends that since the trial court expressly disapproved the values assigned by claimants’ appraiser, the judgment should be modified to reflect the values posted by the State’s appraiser because the values adopted by the court find no support in the record. In reaching the award the court divided the parcel into three land categories and reached the following values: lake frontage, $6,000; “hardland”, $48,000; marsh and woodland, $29,925. Although neither appraiser made a similar division of the land into these categories, the parties do not now question this approach and we adopt it. We must conclude, however, that there is no basis in the relevant market data submitted by the parties for a value of $500 per acre for “ hardland ” or $175 per acre for marsh and woodlands as found by the trial court; and, of course, it is fundamental that the court’s view of the property cannot be a substitute for any lack of any relevant market data in the record. *(McNitt*v. *State of New York,*24 A D 2d 544.) Since the land classifications used by the appraisers differed from those used by the court, it was required to make an independent analysis of the comparable sales. Examination of these sales reveals a value of $280 per acre for “ hardland ” and $55 per acre for marsh and woodland. The record further reveals that both appraisers agreed that 30 acres of “hardland” would be suitable for development so as to have a value of $500 per acre. We therefore conclude that the record supports an award as follows: lake frontage, $6,000; 30 acres of “hardland” for development, $15,000; 66 acres of other *“*hardland ”, $18,200; and 171 acres of marsh and woodland, $9,200, or a total award of $48,600. The award should not be reduced to give a value for an interest in the property reserved by claimants’ grantor since that interest was included by the appraisers in determining the value of the lake frontage. The findings of the Court of Claims should be modified as indicated above and the claimants awarded the sum of $48,600, together with appropriate interest. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims in action for damages for permanent appropriation.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                                    |                                                                                          |                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                                    |                                                                                               |
|                                               |                                                                                     |                          |
| Date: May              17,              2007  | By:                                                                                 | /s/ Dong              Jinqing |
|                                                    | Dong                JinqingChief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                    |                                                                                          |
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.33 Office of Enforcement. The Office of Enforcement— ( a ) Develops policies and programs for enforcement of NRC requirements;
( b ) Manages major enforcement action;
( c ) Assesses the effectiveness and uniformity of Regional enforcement actions; and
( d ) Manages the NRC allegation program.
[70 FR 69422, Nov. 16, 2005]
Order printed copies of this report (free) || View PDF of entire report (11,022,097 bytes)

Similar reports from other NAWQA study units

---

# Water Quality in the Las Vegas Valley Area and the Carson and Truckee River
Basins, Nevada and California, 1992-96

*By* Hugh E. Bevans, Michael S. Lico, and Stephen J. Lawrence

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1170

A contribution of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program

- National Water-Quality Assessment Program
- Summary of Major Issues and Findings
- Environmental Setting and Hydrologic Conditions
- Major Isssues and Findings
- Geology and climate have determined natural water
chemistry
- Urban activities have been sources of nutrients,
synthetic organic compounds, and trace elements
- Agricultural activities have been sources of irrigation
drainage, nutrients, and pesticides
- Historical mining activities have been sources
of trace elements to Carson River bottom sediment
- Water-Quality Conditions in a National Context
- Study Design and Data Collection
- Summary of Compound Detections and Concentrations
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Glossary

Numbers in [ ] refer to References.

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.

In-text links to figures generally point to the figure caption, below the actual figure.

---

|| Next Section ||

Suggested citation:
Bevans, H.E., Lico, M.S., and Lawrence, S.J., 1998, Water Quality in the
Las Vegas Valley Area and the Carson and Truckee River Basins, Nevada and
California, 1992-96, on line at <URL: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1170>, updated 19 March 1998

ISBN 0-607-89270-6

Further information:
Nevada Basin and Range NAWQA Study || National
Water-Quality Assessment Program || U.S.
Geological Survey

This page is <URL:http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1170>
Email questions and comments to [email protected]

Last modified: Wed Oct 14 17:00:57 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tony Harris, Appellant.

Judgement rendered on May 6, 1968, convicting defendant, upon

his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a narcotic drug in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, after a hearing adjudicating him a narcotic addict, to the care and custody of the Narcotics Addiction Control Commission for a period not exceeding 36 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remitting the case for a jury trial on the sole issue of whether the defendant is a narcotic addict and otherwise affirmed. The Court of Appeals recently held, in the case of *People*v. *Fuller*(24 N Y 2d 292, 301) as follows: “ We hold that in failing to accord a convicted addict a jury trial on the issue of his addiction, section 208 (subd. 2) of the Mental Hygiene Law violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Save in that respect the statute contains no constitutional defect”. Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Bastow, JJ.