alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Spectrum Aeromed is requesting an exemption from the dy namic requirements of § 25.562 as required for berths per § 25.785(b). Spectrum Aeromed owns several supplemental ty

pe certificates that allow the installation of medical s ys tems (including litters or berths) on vario us aircraft certified under parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. The dy namic criteria in parts 23, 27, and 29 specificall y exclude litters but the dy namic criteria in part 25 does not specificall y exclude litters.
Spectrum Aeromed states that the estimated cost of demonstrating compliance of medical sy stem installations with dy namic test requirements is quite high considering the limited number of units for which the cost could be amortized. Since none have been sh own to comply with the dy

namic test criteria, medical sy stems cannot currentl y be used on airplanes whose ty

pe certificate basis includes the dy namic requirements. In this case, a person who needs to travel for essential medical care can either charter an airplane at 5 to 10 times the cost of a commercial ticket, or if the cost is prohibitive, fail to receive the needed treatment (the consequences of which may be fatal). Another alternative would be flying on an aircraft whose certification basis does not require d yn amic testing. This would offer no increase in safet y and may not be available. Spectrum Aeromed notes that the FAA has granted similar exemptions for litter installations on other Boeing Model 777, Airbus Model A330, Airbus Model A340, Cessn a Model 750, Gulfstream Model G

- V, and Cessna Model 560XL airplanes.
Spectrum Aeromed states that granting the petition would be in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. The exemption would relieve an economic burden on a segment of the traveling public already dealing with adversit y. 2. The level of safet y that would be provided is an acceptable level of safety, given the limited usage and exposure of the medical sy stem. 3. Compliance with the dy namic test requirements would be difficu lt at best, and very expensive, while returning a marginal safet y benefit. In addition, § 25.562 is written specifically

for seats and would not be easy to appl y to a litter.

Spectrum Aeromed requested that the publication of this petition for public comment be waived because this subject has been previously discussed in the public forum.
Subpart 1824.1—Protection of Individual Privacy    **Parent topic:** PART 1824—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION1824.102 General.       (1)  			For NASA rules and regulations implementing the Privacy Act, see Privacy—NASA Regulations, (14 CFR 1212). The Act applies to any contractor maintaining a system of records to accomplish a NASA mission.          (2) Systems of records to which the Privacy Act does not apply include—                    (i)  			Records maintained by a contractor on individuals employed by the contractor on its own behalf for the purpose of providing supplies and services to the Federal Government; and          (ii) Records that—                    (A)  			Are maintained under contracts with educational institutions to provide training;          (B) Are generated on students working under the contract relative to their attendance (admission forms, grade reports, etc.);          (C) Are similar to those maintained on other students; and          (D) Are commingled with their records on other students.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7850

LAWRENCE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICKIE HARRISON; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-1940-9) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lawrence Davis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
2837.503 Agency-head responsibilities.

The HCA or designee or designee is the agency head for purposes of FAR 37.503.

Parent topic: Subpart 2837.5 - Management Oversight of Service Contracts
# SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL

- PART 2801 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM 
- PART 2802 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 
- PART 2803 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
- PART 2804 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 

- PART 2801 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM        - Subpart 2801.1 - Purpose, Authority, Issuance     - 2801.101   Purpose.
    - 2801.105   Issuance.
    - 2801.105-2   Arrangement of regulation.
    - 2801.106   OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  - Subpart 2801.3 - Agency Acquisition Regulations     - 2801.304   Agency control and compliance procedures.
  - Subpart 2801.4 - Deviations From the FAR and JAR     - 2801.403   Individual deviations.
    - 2801.404   Class deviations.
    - 2801.404-70   Requests for class deviations.
  - Subpart 2801.6 - Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities     - 2801.601   General.
    - 2801.604   Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).
- PART 2802 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS          - Subpart 2802.1 - Definitions     - 2802.101   Definitions.
- PART 2803 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST          - Subpart 2803.1 - Safeguards     - 2803.101   Standards of conduct.
    - 2803.101-3   Agency regulations.
    - 2803.104   Procurement integrity.
    - 2803.104-7   Violations or possible violations.
  - Subpart 2803.2 - Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel     - 2803.203   Reporting suspected violations of the Gratuities clause.
    - 2803.204   Treatment of violations.
  - Subpart 2803.3 - Reports of Suspected Antitrust Violations     - 2803.301   General.
  - Subpart 2803.4 - Contingent Fees     - 2803.405   Misrepresentations or violations of the Covenant Against Contingent Fees.
  - Subpart 2803.8 - Limitations on the Payment of Funds to Influence Federal Transactions     - 2803.806   Processing suspected violations.
  - Subpart 2803.9 - Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees     - 2803.901   Definitions.
    - 2803.905   Procedures for investigating complaints.
    - 2803.906   Remedies.
    - 2803.908   Enhancement of contractor employee whistleblower protections.
    - 2803.908-9   Contract clauses.
    - 2803.908-70   Whistleblower Protection in General Non-Disclosure Agreement.
    - 2803.908-71   Whistleblower Protection in Intelligence-Related Non-Disclosure Agreement.
  - Subpart 2803.10 - Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct     - 2803.1004   Contract clauses.
- PART 2804 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS        - Subpart 2804.4 - Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry     - 2804.402   General.
    - 2804.402-70   Contractor personnel security program.
  - Subpart 2804.9 - Taxpayer Identification Number Information     - 2804.901   Definitions.
    - 2804.903   Reporting contract information to IRS.
    - 2804.903-70   Reporting contract information.
    - 2804.903-71   Special reporting exceptions.
§ 1042.140 Dissemination of policy. ( a ) *Notification of policy.* ( 1 ) Each recipient shall implement specific and continuing steps to notify applicants for admission and employment, students and parents of elementary and secondary school students, employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission and employment, and all unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient, that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the educational programs or activities that it operates, and that it is required by Title IX and these Title IX regulations not to discriminate in such a manner. Such notification shall contain such information, and be made in such manner, as the designated agency official finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by Title IX and these Title IX regulations, but shall state at least that the requirement not to discriminate in education programs or activities extends to employment therein, and to admission thereto unless §§ 1042.300 through 1042.310 do not apply to the recipient, and that inquiries concerning the application of Title IX and these Title IX regulations to such recipient may be referred to the employee designated pursuant to § 1042.135, or to the designated agency official.
( 2 ) Each recipient shall make the initial notification required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 90 days of February 20, 2001 or of the date these Title IX regulations first apply to such recipient, whichever comes later, which notification shall include publication in: ( i ) Newspapers and magazines operated by such recipient or by student, alumnae, or alumni groups for or in connection with such recipient; and
( ii ) Memoranda or other written communications distributed to every student and employee of such recipient.
( b ) *Publications.* ( 1 ) Each recipient shall prominently include a statement of the policy described in paragraph (a) of this section in each announcement, bulletin, catalog, or application form that it makes available to any person of a type, described in paragraph (a) of this section, or which is otherwise used in connection with the recruitment of students or employees.
( 2 ) A recipient shall not use or distribute a publication of the type described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that suggests, by text or illustration, that such recipient treats applicants, students, or employees differently on the basis of sex except as such treatment is permitted by these Title IX regulations.
( c ) *Distribution.* Each recipient shall distribute without discrimination on the basis of sex each publication described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and shall apprise each of its admission and employment recruitment representatives of the policy of nondiscrimination described in paragraph (a) of this section, and shall require such representatives to adhere to such policy.
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 2 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 3 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 4 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 5 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 6 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 7 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 8 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 9 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 10 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 11 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 12 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 13 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 14 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 15 of 16
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 16 of 16
§ 205.152 Modification or rescission. ( a ) A ruling may be modified or rescinded by: ( 1 ) Publication of the modification or rescission in the Federal Register; or
( 2 ) A rulemaking proceeding in accordance with subpart L of this part.
( b ) Unless and until a ruling is modified or rescinded as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no person shall be subject to the sanctions or penalties stated in subpart P of this part for actions taken in reliance upon the ruling, notwithstanding that the ruling shall thereafter be declared by judicial or other competent authority to be invalid. Upon such declaration, no person shall be entitled to rely upon the ruling.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 461 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of December, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Richard Chin, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2016 of Kindred Biosciences, Inc.; and





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: April 26, 2017By:/s/ Richard ChinName:     Richard Chin, MDTitle:        Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40948 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID LAVERNE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-20-1

- - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Laverne Jones appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Jones contends that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level upward for Jones’s role in the offense; that the cocaine base in his case was not crack cocaine; and that the district court erred by attributing to him 5.61 kilograms of crack cocaine.No. 95-40948 - 2 - The presentence report and the testimony at sentencing support the district court’s finding that Jones was a leader or organizer of criminal activity involving five or more people or was otherwise extensive; the upward adjustment was not clearly

erroneous. United States v. Boutte , 13 F.3d 855, 860 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 71 (1994); United States v. Barreto , 871 F.2d 511, 512 (5th Cir. 1989). Jones did not contend in the district court that the cocaine base in which he trafficked was not crack; his contention is a factual question that could have been resolved by the district court had he raised that contention there. Jones cannot demonstrate plain error. See United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995). The indictment alleged that Jones conspired with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine; his contention that the indictment limited the amount of crack on which his sentence could be based is unavailing. In his objections to thepresentence report, Jones implicitly agreed with the cocaine-tocrack conversion ratio applied by the district court and with the conversion of the amount of powder cocaine formerly in empty wrapping material to crack cocaine for sentencing. Jones may not now complain of the conversion ratio or the conversion of the powder cocaine in the wrapping material. See Tel-Phonic Servs., Inc. v. TBS Int’l Inc. , 975 F.2d 1134, 1137 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s attribution of 5.28 kilograms of crack cocaine based on the six kilograms of cocaine found to have been in the empty wrapping material was supported by the presentence reportNo. 95-40948 - 3 - and the testimony at sentencing; the district court’s factual finding was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Maseratti , 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1096 & 1552; 115 S. Ct. 292 (1994). AFFIRMED.
#### § 20.1402 Radiological criteria for unrestricted use.

A site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a TEDE to an average member of the critical group that does not exceed 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) per year, including that from groundwater sources of drinking water, and that the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Determination of the levels which are ALARA must take into account consideration of any detriments, such as deaths from transportation accidents, expected to potentially result from decontamination and waste disposal.
#### In the Matter of Nicholas Schreiber, Respondent-Appellant, v K-Sea Transportation Corp. et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted September 4, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 30 AD3d 101.

Motion by American Association for Justice for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN BONNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv715-MHT

) 

NORINCO a/k/a CHINA NORTH )

INDUSTRIES CORP., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

At the request of counsel for the parties, it is

ORDERED that an on-the-record status conference is set

for August 25, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. Defense counsel are

to arrange for the conference to be conducted by

telephone. 

DONE, this the 22nd day of August, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 101 Filed 08/22/2008 Page 1 of 1
§ 13.34 Evidence. ( a ) The ALJ shall determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ shall not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, e.g., to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ shall exclude irrelevant and immaterial evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement shall be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( h ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by all parties, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ pursuant to § 13.24.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00155

- CV

IN RE WOODBINE PRODU CTION CORP., LOIN EN ERGY CORP.,

ACTIVA RESOURCES, LL C, FIVE STATES ENERGY C APITAL

FUND I, LLC, LARRY T . LONG, THE LONG TRU STS, AND

LONG PROPERTIES TRUS T

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on May 3, 2019, is denied. The

Court’s stay, issued on May 17, 2019, is lifted.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Neill , and

Justice Scoggins 1

Petition denied

Stay lifted

Opinion delivered and filed Ju ly 10 , 2019

[OT06]

1 The Honorable Al Scoggins, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the

Chief Justi ce of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003

.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 27, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 27, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0600. JOSHUA AULD v. MINERVA ROSARIO.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On November 13, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than November 25, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).