alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1008.3 Employee standards of conduct with regard to privacy. ( a ) The Headquarters DOE Privacy Act Officer shall assure that DOE personnel are advised of the provisions of the Privacy Act, including the criminal penalties and civil liabilities provided therein, (subsections (g) and (i) of the Act), and that DOE personnel are made aware of their responsibilities: to protect the security of personal information to assure its accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness; to avoid unauthorized disclosure; and to insure that no system of records concerning individuals, no matter how insignificant or specialized, is maintained without public notice.
( b ) DOE personnel shall: ( 1 ) Collect or maintain no information of a personal nature about individuals unless relevant and necessary to achieve a purpose or carry out a responsibility of the DOE as required by statute or by Executive Order. See subsection (e)(1) of the Act and § 1008.18(a).
( 2 ) Collect information, wherever possible, directly from the individual to whom it pertains. See subsection (e)(2) of the Act and § 1009.19(a).
( 3 ) Inform individuals from whom information is collected of the authority for collection, the principal purposes for which the information will be used, the routine uses that will be made of the information, and the effects of not furnishing the information. See subsection (e)(3) of the Act and § 1008.19(b).
( 4 ) Collect, maintain, use or disseminate no information concerning an individual's rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, unless: ( i ) The individual has volunteered such; or
( ii ) The information is expressly authorized by statute to be collected, maintained, used or disseminated; or
( iii ) The activities involved are pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity. See subsection (e)(7) of the Act and § 1008.18(b).
( 5 ) Advise their supervisors of the existence or proposal of any system of records which retrieves information about individuals by the individual's name or other identifying number, symbol, or identifying particulars assigned to the individual.
( 6 ) Maintain an accounting, in the prescribed form, of all disclosures of information other than those to officers or employees who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties and those required under the Freedom of Information Act. See subsection (c) of the Act.
( 7 ) Disclose no records other than to DOE personnel without the advance written consent of the individual, except as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) including routine uses published in the Federal Register.
( 8 ) Maintain and process information concerning individuals with care to insure that no inadvertent disclosure of the information is made. See subsection (e)(10) of the Act.
( 9 ) Inform the proper DOE authorities of any information maintained in a DOE system of records which is not authorized by the Privacy Act of 1974.
( c ) Heads of Headquarters Divisions and Offices and heads of the other DOE locations shall review annually the systems of records subject to their responsibility to insure compliance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974.
§ 1021.102 Applicability. ( a ) This part applies to all organizational elements of DOE except the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
( b ) This part applies to any DOE action affecting the quality of the environment of the United States, its territories or possessions. DOE actions having environmental effects outside the United States, its territories or possessions are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions” (3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 356; 44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), DOE guidelines implementing that Executive Order (46 FR 1007, January 5, 1981), and the Department of State's “Unified Procedures Applicable to Major Federal Actions Relating to Nuclear Activities Subject to Executive Order 12114” (44 FR 65560, November 13, 1979).
1325.1001 Waiver of right to examination of records.       The designee authorized to execute a determination and findings in accordance with FAR 25.1001(a)(2)(iii) set forth in CAM 1301.70.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1325.10 - Additional Foreign Acquisition Regulations
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4958



# 

D ONALD D UANE C OLE ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-16)
Submitted: April 3, 2002 Decided: May 9, 2002
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, LisaA. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Donald Duane Cole appeals the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Cole’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Cole was informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Cole claims that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a twenty-four month sentence because it exceeded the recommended sentencing range of six to twelve months set out in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

("USSG") § 7B1.4(a) (2000). We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Based on our review of the record, we find the district court did notabuse its discretion in sentencing Cole to the statutory maximum sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. The sentencing rangescontained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines are "non-binding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings." Davis , 53 F.3d at 642; see also United States v. Holmes
, ___ F.3d ___, 2002 WL 441198, *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 22, 2002). As required by Anders , we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. C OLE
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE FRANCISCO CANAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73282

Agency No. A072-968-927

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Francisco Canas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Cui

FILED

JUN 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73282

v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review. 

The IJ did not abuse her discretion by not continuing proceedings where

Canas failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a

continuance for good cause shown). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Canas’ contention that the IJ did not notify

him of the consequences for failing to comply with the biometric requirements

because he failed to raise that issue before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions

not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
§ 13.46 Compromise or settlement. ( a ) Parties may make offers of compromise or settlement at any time.
( b ) The reviewing official has the exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to issue a complaint and before the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision.
( c ) The authority head has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision, except during the pendency of any review under § 13.42 or during the pendancy of any action to collect penalties and assessments under § 13.43.
( d ) The Attorney General has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part during the pendancy of any review under § 13.42 or of any action to recover penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( e ) The investigating officer may recommend settlement terms to the reviewing official, the authority head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate. The reviewing official may recommend settlement terms to the authority head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
( f ) Any compromise or settlement must be in writing.
§ 1004.6 Requests for classified records. ( a ) All requests for classified records will be subject to the provisions of this part with the special qualifications noted below.
( b ) All requests for records made in accordance with this part, except those requests for access to classified records which are made specifically pursuant to the mandatory review provisions of Executive Order 13526 and § 1045 or any successor thereto, may be automatically considered a FOIA Act request.
( c ) Concurrence of the Director of Classification is required on all responses involving the denial of classified information. The Director of Classification will be informed of the request by either the FOIA Officer or the Authorizing Official to whom the action is assigned, and will advise the office originating the records, or having responsibility for the records, and consult with such office or offices prior to making a determination under this section.
( d ) The written notice of a determination to deny records, or portions of records, which contain both classified material and other exempt material, will be concurred in by the Director of Classification who will be the Denying Official for the classified portion of such records in accordance with §§ 1004.5(c) and 1004.7(b)(2). If other DOE officials or appropriate officials of other agencies are responsible for denying any portion of the record, their names and titles or positions will be listed in the notice of denial in accordance with §§ 1004.5(c) and 1004.7(b)(2) and it will be clearly indicated what portion or portions they were responsible for denying.
( e ) Requests for DOE records containing classified information received from another agency, and requests for classified documents originating in another agency, will be coordinated with or referred to the other agency consistent with the provisions of § 1004.4(f). Coordination or referral of information or documents subject to this section will be effected by the Director of Classification (in consultation with the Authorizing Official) with the appropriate official of the other agency.
[53 FR 15661, May 3, 1988, as amended at 79 FR 22858, Apr. 25, 2014]
ATLANTIC OCEAN

MI-19-4
Evans, WH

le ATO, 008

EVANS

490000m.£,

‘apoo00m-E,

BATHYMETRIC MAP

230000m.£.

72°

730000" E,

EVANS
19-4 (OCS)

NOS NI

INDEX TO ADJOINING SHEETS

68°
36°

34°

BATHYMETRIC DATA INDEX

22

Bathymetric date from sources other than
NOS hydrographic surveys.

70°

72°

7:
35°)

-OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

1984
Produced at Washington, D.C.

34°

for
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION

EVALUATION OF BATHYMETRIC DATA

Bathymetry compiled by the National Ocean Service from

Random T

facklines and Bathymetric Surveys dated 1959 to 1974.

metric Data ranges in scale from 1:500,000 to

line spacing of 3.0'and a maximum.

1:1,000,000 with a minimum
line spacing of 22.0 nautical miles.
Data corrected for sound velocity

The Bathy

according to Matthews’ Tables, 1939,

f the bathymetric manuscript and

(NOS) from Bathymetric Data other than
its final published’ form. This information is not intended for

Bathymetry compiled by the National Ocean Service

NOS hydrographic surveys. This

is a facsimile reproduction of

Bathymetric Contour Interval: 50 meters to maximum depth.

does not necessarily represent

navigational purposes.

000 meter ticks (---) are shown inside the

10,

Universal Transverse Mercator Grid. Zone 19;

neatline.

Protraction Diagram data shown in subdued (screened) black wos compiled by the Minerals

Management Service (MMS).

for such purposes

THIS MAP IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT for Federal leasing purposes;
use the MMS Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagrams

Heavy line(s) indicate limits of these protraction diagrams.

),000

Scale 1:250,

20 Statute Miles

15

10

25

20

15

10

30 Kilometers

15 Nautical Miles

10
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 12 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 4
#### Butler *et al. v.*Stewart, tax-collector, *et al.*

June 17, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Ellis. Pulton superior court. January 30, 1913.

*Nathan Coplan,*for plaintiffs.

*Brantley, Jones & Brantley,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

TMs case is similar to that of *Latham*v. *Stewart,*ante, (78 S. E. 812), and is controlled by the decision therein rendered. The parties seeking the injunction in this case were engaged in peddling fruits, consisting of oranges, apples, and bananas.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Lumphim and Hill, JJ., dissenting.*
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 17 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 18 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 19 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 20 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 21 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 23 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 24 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 25 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 26 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 27 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 28 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 29 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 30 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 31 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 32 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 33 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 34 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 35 of 36
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 36 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CR NO. 2:06cr193-MEF-CSC

)

JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER )

ORDER

Now pending before the court is the August 31, 2006, Petition for Warrant/Summons

and Report for Defendant Under Pretrial Release Supervision (doc. # 23). Before the warrant

was executed, the defendant’s bond was revoked and he was taken into state custody.

Presently, this court has custody of the defendant pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad

prosequendum. According, it is

ORDERED that the petition for a warrant be and is hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice.

Done this 22nd day of February, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 50 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
EX-35.1
(logo) MIDLAND    (logo) PNC
       LOAN              REAL ESTATE
       SERVICES

OFFICER CERTIFICATE

WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2012-C10


March 1, 2013

Pursuant to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
(the "Agreement"), it is hereby certified that on behalf of PNC Bank, National
Association d/b/a Midland Loan Services as successor by merger to Midland Loan
Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"),

(i) a review of the Servicer's activities during the calendar year 2012 (the
"Reporting Period") and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
under the undersigned officer's supervision;
(ii) to the best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review,
the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all
material respects throughout the Reporting Period or, if there has been a
failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, each such
failure known to the undersigned officer and the nature and status thereof are
set forth below; and

Nature and Status of Failures: None.

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCATION
d/ba MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES


/s/ Steven W. Smith
Steven W. Smith
Executive Vice President

Member of The PNC Financial Services Group

10851 Mastin Boulevard  Overland Park, Kansas 66210
800-327-8083
www.pnc.com/midland
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1999

In Re: NICHOLAS R. CROWDER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: November 5, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas R. Crowder, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas R. Crowder has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994) seeking: (1) an order directing

the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland to submit to the district judge all pleadings

in the matter of Crowder v. Kelley, No. 99-CV-477 (D. Md.); (2) an

order directing the clerk of this court to submit all pleadings,

motions, and rehearing pleadings in several pending appeals; (3)

reconsideration of a July 7, 1999 order dismissing Crowder v.

Kelley, No. 99-1712 (4th Cir. July 7, 1999), under 4th Cir. R. 45

for failing to pay the filing fee; (4) reconsideration of a

July 23, 1999 order dismissing Crowder v. Kelley, No. 99-1758 (4th

Cir. July 23, 1999), under 4th Cir. R. 45 for failing to pay the

filing fee; (5) orders recalling the mandates in Crowder v. Goad,

No. 98-7486 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 1999), and Crowder v. Kelley, No.

98-6811 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 1998); or in the alternative, (6) orders

remanding several appeals to the district court.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances when there are no other means by which the relief

sought could be granted. See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th

Cir. 1987). Mandamus is not to be used as a substitute for appeal.

See In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief

sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act
3

requested by the petitioner, and that there is no other adequate

remedy available. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Crowder has not made such a showing.

Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. Because no member of

the court has requested a poll, we also deny Crowder’s motion for

en banc review, see Fed. R. App. P. 35(f), and we deny as moot his

emergency motion for reconsideration of an order deferring action

on his motion for en banc review. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### § 930.107 Fiscal period.

Pursuant to § 930.7, fiscal period shall mean the period beginning October 1 and ending September 30 of each year.

[73 FR 75929, Dec. 15, 2008]