alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.602 Filing fees.

Each application which contains a request for early review of site suitability issues under the procedures of this subpart shall be accompanied by any fee required by § 50.30(e) and part 170 of this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,000
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              355,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           392,000
<PP&E>                                   6,355,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           2,184,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           4,563,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   14,920,000
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   425,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,000
<PREFERRED>                                 25,000
<OTHER-SE>                              17,147,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             4,563,000
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              817,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           748,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         824,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (1,565,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (1,565,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (1,565,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.07)
        



</TABLE>
# Subpart 1242.1—Contract Audit Services

**Parent topic:**PART 1242—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

## 1242.101 Contract audit responsibilities.

(b) It is DOT policy that private certified public accounting (CPA) firms may be used to provide audit services as described in FAR 42.101 to DOT contracting officers when procurement schedule demands cannot be met by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the agency with audit cognizance.   

## 1242.102 Assignment of contract audit services.

(b) In accordance with 1242.101, when the responsible audit agency declines a request for services, DOT contracting officers may utilize audit services from commercial CPA firms as authorized in 1242.101.   

## 1242.170 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.242–74, Contract Audit Support, in solicitation and contracts when other than firm-fixed-price contracts are contemplated.
DUPLICATE

Court Name: U S DISTRICT COURT - AL/H

Division: 2

Recei pt Number: 4602004870

Cashier ID: khanes

Transaction Date: 04/28/2008

Payer Name: JULIA TUTWILER PRISON

PLRA CIVIL FILING FEE

For: BERTHA ALLEN

Case! Part y : D-ALH-3-06-CV-000772-OO 1

Amount: $5.00

CHECK -

Check/Honey Order Num: 30203

Amt Tendered: $5.00

Total DuE: - $5.00 - --

Total Tendered: $5.00

Change At: $0.00

*

Case 3:06-cv-00772-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 04/28/2008 Page 1 of 1
placing him on the law library list was inadequate. Appellant failed to 

demonstrate an impediment external to the defense to excuse his 

procedural defect. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 

506 (2003). His lack of legal assistance did not constitute good cause to 

excuse the delay. See Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 

660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988). He also did not demonstrate that a 

three-week deprivation of access to a law library prevented him from filing 

a timely petition when he had an entire year to file it, nor did he provide 

specific facts to demonstrate that the prison's law library system 

interfered with his ability to file a timely petition. See Hargrove a State, 

100 Nev. 498, 502,686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). 

Appellant also asserted that the procedural bar did not apply 

to him because he was challenging the jurisdiction of the district court to 

impose a habitual criminal enhancement and jurisdictional claims may be 

raised at any time. Appellant's assertion was without merit, as 

appellant's claims challenged the validity of the judgment of conviction 

and sentence and did not implicate jurisdiction. See NRS 34.720(1); NRS 

34.724(1); see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010. Therefore, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying his post-conviction 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus as procedurally barred. Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Parraguirre 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

J. 

J. 

Picker:1i: 

J. 

Saitta 

2 

(01 1947A ea 
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Andrew Jefferson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
EXHIBIT 32.1












Certification of Periodic Financial Report








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Thomas M. Patton, the President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffery A. Baird, the Chief Financial Officer of CAS Medical Systems, Inc. (the “issuer”), do hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (the “report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.











/s/ Thomas M. Patton


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


Thomas M. Patton


President and Chief Executive Officer


CAS Medical Systems, Inc.





May 11, 2011














/s/ Jeffery A. Baird


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


Jeffery A. Baird


Chief Financial Officer


CAS Medical Systems, Inc.





May 11, 2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BERYL JACKSON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) 

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-785-MHT

)

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

For good cause, it is 

ORDERED that this case is set for an In-Chambers conference on 9 April 2008, at

10:00 a.m. in Suite 501-A, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex,

One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. It is

further

ORDERED that the parties and their counsel shall attend the conference.

DONE this 3rd day of April, 2008.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 79 Filed 04/03/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### FABER, Respondent, v. GREENE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Leander B. Faber, as receiver, etc., against Everett Greene.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1109.
# CIVIL AVIATION BUREAU

MINISTRY OF LAND, INFR ASTRUCTURE

, TRANSPORT AND TOURISM

2

- 1

- 3, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda

- ku Tokyo, 100

- 8918, JAPAN

TEL: +81

- 3

- 5253

- 870 7 , FAX: +81

- 3

- 5253

- 1656

September 6, 201 1

Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd

Business Strategy & International Affairs

Second International Section

Aviation Industry Division

Aviation Network Department

Civil Aviation Bureau

Ministry of Land Infrastructure Transport and Tourism

Approval cases of 3 rd countries charter operation by USA carriers

A ttached list shows the result of approval cases toward USA carriers ’ application for the 3 rd

countries charter operation since April 2011.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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:  March 16, 2009
    /s/ Robert K. MoskovitzName:
    Robert K. MoskovitzTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Ward, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding to vacate a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 24, 1964, convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his guilty plea, and imposing sentence, defendant appeals from an order of said court dated March 16, 1967 which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. A defendant who knowingly and voluntarily pleads guilty to a crime in open court and *987when represented, by counsel may not subsequently seek to vacate the judgment of conviction based on a claim that he was inherently coerced to enter the plea because prior thereto a confession had improperly been obtained from him (cf. *People*v. *Dash,*16 N Y 2d 493; *People*v. *Nicholson,*11 N Y 2d 1067; *People*v. *Rogers,*15 N Y 2d 690; *People*v. *Ross,*26 A D 2d 773). The determination of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by a divided, vote, in *United States ex rel. Dash*v. *Follette*(409 F. 2d 1016 [1969]), relied on by defendant’s counsel as the basis for his contention that a hearing should have ’been allowed in this *coram nobis*application, does not support his contention, for the primary reason that that determination was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States *sub nom. McMann*v. *Richardson*(397 U. S. 759). *A fortiori,*there is no basis for a reversal to allow a hearing in this case, because the record herein discloses that defendant knowingly and voluntarily, in open court and when represented by counsel, entered the guilty plea for the lesser crime; he admitted his guilt at that time; and he admitted that no promise or coercion had been made inducing him to enter the plea. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           8,648,372
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          5,358,500
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     52,401
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>              199,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,609,959
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          52,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                52,988
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        8,846,843
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>             150,570
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>             150,570
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>       (3,289,872)
<NET-ASSETS>                    5,556,971
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   8,205
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    297,624
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (289,419)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>        (358,860)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            (648,279)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>           (648,279)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              61,335
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   340,956
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            5,881,111
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  62
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (2)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                    60
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                       5.1
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                  0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                    0
<FN>
<F1>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is not 
allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not taxable.  
Only taxable gains or losses are allocated in accordance with the 
Partnership Agreement.
</FN>

</TABLE>
* 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 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20690 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE ALBERTO CANTU-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-737-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jorge Alberto Cantu-Sanchez was found guilty following a bench trial of being found unlawfully present in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that the indictment should be dismissed under United States v. Mendoza-Lopez , 481 U.S. 828 (1987), because the immigration judge who ordered him deported erred in failing to advise him that he possessed a right to apply for discretionary relief from deportation for which he was eligible to apply. HeNo. 03-20690 -2- concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Lopez-Ortiz , 313 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2002), and he raises the claim solely to preserve the issue for further review. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 79 FR 75740, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 40.32 General requirements for issuance of specific licenses. An application for a specific license will be approved if: ( a ) The application is for a purpose authorized by the Act; and
( b ) The applicant is qualified by reason of training and experience to use the source material for the purpose requested in such manner as to protect health and minimize danger to life or property; and
( c ) The applicant's proposed equipment, facilities and procedures are adequate to protect health and minimize danger to life or property; and
( d ) The issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and
( e ) In the case of an application for a license for a uranium enrichment facility, or for a license to possess and use source and byproduct material for uranium milling, production of uranium hexafluoride, or for the conduct of any other activity which the NRC determines will significantly affect the quality of the environment, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguardsor his/her designee, before commencement of construction, on the basis of information filed and evaluations made pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this chapter, has concluded, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed license, with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values. Commencement of construction prior to this conclusion is grounds for denial of a license to possess and use source and byproduct material in the plant or facility. Commencement of construction as defined in § 40.4 may include non-construction activities if the activity has a reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
( f ) The applicant satisfies any applicable special requirements contained in §§ 40.34, 40.52, and 40.54.
( g ) If the proposed activity involves use of source material in a uranium enrichment facility, the applicant has satisfied the applicable provisions of part 140 of this chapter.
[26 FR 284, Jan. 14, 1961, as amended at 36 FR 12731, July 7, 1971; 40 FR 8787, Mar. 3, 1975; 41 FR 53332, Dec. 6, 1976; 43 FR 6924, Feb. 17, 1978; 49 FR 9403, Mar. 12, 1984; 57 FR 18390, Apr. 30, 1992; 73 FR 5721, Jan. 31, 2008; 76 FR 56964, Sept. 15, 2011; 78 FR 32340, May 29, 2013]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3191 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3191

 To provide for the reliquidation of certain entries of certain small 
diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard line and pressure pipe from 
                                Romania.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the reliquidation of certain entries of certain small 
diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard line and pressure pipe from 
                                Romania.

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

SECTION 1. RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF CERTAIN SMALL DIAMETER 
              CARBON AND ALLOY SEAMLESS STANDARD LINE AND PRESSURE PIPE 
              FROM ROMANIA.

    (a) Reliquidation of Entries.--Notwithstanding sections 514 and 520 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514 and 1520) or any other 
provision of law, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection shall, 
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act--
            (1) reliquidate the entries of certain small diameter 
        carbon and alloy seamless standard line and pressure pipe from 
        Romania manufactured and exported by S.C. Silcotub S.A. listed 
        in subsection (b) without assessment of antidumping duties or 
        interest in accordance with the final results of the 
        antidumping duty administrative review of the Department of 
        Commerce (68 Fed. Reg. 12672 (March 17, 2003)); and
            (2) refund any antidumping duties with interest which were 
        previously paid on such entries.
    (b) Affected Entries.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) 
are as follows:

 
 
 
           Entry number          Date of entry         Port
 
               558-1171537-8...  01/20/2001..........  Houston
               558-2014403-2...  07/24/2000..........  Mobile
 

                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy BLAKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10212.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 31, 2007.

*516Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anne R. Traum, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Blake appeals from his sentence imposed following a remand pursuant to *United States v.*Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Blake contends that the district court erred when it entered an amended judgment with a condition of supervised release that conflicted with the court’s oral statement that it would reimpose Blake’s prior sentence. Because Blake failed to object to the district court’s modification of the drug testing provision without a full resentencing hearing, we review for plain error. We conclude that “any error or prejudice caused by the district court’s decision to impose this condition did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings,” *see United States v. Maciel-Vasquez,*458 F.3d 994, 996 (9th Cir.2006), and we note the Blake has another remedy available to him, namely modification of his conditions of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).

*517Blake also contends that while the district court set a maximum number of drug tests as a condition of supervised release, it improperly delegated discretion to the probation officer as to the actual number of tests to which he was subject. However, we conclude that any error would not rise to the level of plain error. *See United States v. Jeremiah,*493 F.3d 1042, 1046—17 (9th Cir.2007). In light of Blake’s history of substance abuse, we reject his contention that the drug testing condition was not properly tailored to him. *See Maciel-Vasquez,*458 F.3d at 996.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

LEAVY, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

Because the district court indicated that it would not have imposed a materially different sentence under an advisory Guidelines system, the district court had “no authority to re-sentence [Blake].” *See United States v. Combs,*470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006); *see also United States v. Perez,*475 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2007) (vacating and remanding where this Court remanded for the district court to resentence defendant, but the district court followed the procedure for a limited remand pursuant to Ameline). I conclude that the district court erred in entering an amended judgment altering the conditions of Blake’s supervised release, following its oral pronouncement that it would reimpose Blake’s sentence. *See Combs,*470 F.3d at 1297; *United States v. Napier,*463 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th Cir.2006). Therefore, I would vacate and remand.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Newsletter.**** 
SuDocNumber:I29.2:L 63/8/
ItemNumber: 0648, 0651-B-04
CGPSystem Number:000596885
 
2005
2006
2008-2009**