alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 428 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 428

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     September 8, 2005.
Whereas Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States with 
        devastating effect on August 29, 2005;
Whereas the United States has a long history of humanitarian response to other 
        countries that have experienced disasters of similar magnitude;
Whereas soon after the scope of the destruction became evident, assistance was 
        offered by foreign individuals, organizations, and governments; and
Whereas numerous messages of condolence and support for the people of the United 
        States have been sent to the President and Congress and to government 
        authorities in the affected area: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its sincere gratitude 
to the foreign individuals, organizations, and governments that have offered 
material assistance and other forms of support to those who have been affected 
by Hurricane Katrina.
    Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit enrolled 
copies of this resolution to the Secretary of State with a request that the 
Secretary transmit the copies to the foreign governments described in this 
resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 434.100 Purpose.

The provisions of this part provide minimum standards for energy efficiency for the design of new Federal commercial and multi-family high rise residential buildings, for which design for construction began before January 3, 2007. The performance standards are designed to achieve the maximum practicable improvements in energy efficiency and increases in the use of non-depletable sources of energy. This rule is based upon the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 and addenda b, c, d, e, f, g, and i. (This document is available from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA.) It is not incorporated by reference in this document, but is mentioned for informational purposes only.

[71 FR 70283, Dec. 4, 2006]
§ 590.105 Computation of time. ( a ) In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these regulations, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. The period of time begins to run the next day after the day of the act or event. The last day of the period so computed is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal Federal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day that is neither a Saturday, Sunday, nor a legal Federal holiday, unless otherwise provided by this part or by the terms of an FE order. Documents received after the regular business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. are deemed filed on the next regular business day.
( b ) When a document is required to be filed with FE within a prescribed time, an extension of time to file may be granted for good cause shown.
( c ) An order is issued and effective when date stamped by the Office of Fuels Programs, FE, after the order has been signed unless another effective date is specified in the order.
2007-1798.

#### State v. Henson.

Erie App. No. E-06-021, 2007-Ohio-3567. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6991
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARRICK L. WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-02-146) Submitted: March 4, 2005 Decided: April 7, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Garrick L. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Garrick L. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); seeUnited States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). We previously remanded this appeal to the district court to determine whether Wilson could demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause to excuse his untimely notice of appeal. After giving Wilson an opportunity to provide information supporting a finding of good cause or excusable neglect, to which Wilson did not respond, the district court denied an extension of the time to file a notice of appeal. The district court entered its order denying the motion for reduction of sentence on April 15, 2004; the notice of appeal was filed on May 25, 2004. Because Wilson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Wilson’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument- 3 - because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CR. NO. 1:06mj70-DRB

 *

OSCAR MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ *

Defendants. *

MOTION TO CONTINUE 

COMES, James R. Cooper, Jr. who moves that this Court continue the trial of Mr.

Martinez from the October 24 trial term and states in support thereof as follows: th

1. Mr. Cooper and his wife Lesley have previously made long standing plans to take a

vacation to Italy beginning October 14 and returning to the States October 30, 2006.

2. Mr. Cooper has pre-paid their airline tickets. 

3. Mr. Cooper has pre-paid their accommodations in Italy. 

4. Mr. Cooper desires to continue his long standing marriage. 

5. The defendant will waive his right of Speedy Trial. It is our understanding that the next

available trial term would be January 8, 2007. Mr. Cooper has no conflicts during that

week.

6. Mr. Cooper has spoken to the United States Attorney who is prosecuting this case. She

does not oppose this Motion. 

7. A continuance would not impede the orderly process of justice. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 __________________________

s/James R. Cooper, Jr. (COO021)

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 16 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 2
COOPER & COOPER

Attorney for Defendant

312 Scott Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 262-4887

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 30th day of August , 2006, I have served a copy of the

foregoing Motion to Continue upon Ms A. Clark Morris , Asst. U.S. Attorney, P.O. Box 197,

Montgomery, Alabama 36101 and by electronic case filing, by placing a copy of same in the

United States Mail properly addressed and postage prepaid.

_______________________

cc:

Mr. Oscar Martinez-Ramirez

Montgomery City Jail

P. O. Drawer 159

Montgomery, Al 36105

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 16 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 2
§ 25.11 Specific exemptions. The NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this part, that are— ( a ) Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; or
( b ) Coincidental with one or more of the following: ( 1 ) An application of the regulation in the particular circumstances conflicts with other NRC rules or requirements;
( 2 ) An application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule;
( 3 ) When compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that significantly exceed those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that significantly exceed those incurred by others similarly situated;
( 4 ) When the exemption would result in benefit to the common defense and security that compensates for any decrease in the security that may result from the grant of the exemption;
( 5 ) When the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation;
( 6 ) When there is any other material circumstance present that was not considered when the regulation was adopted that would be in the public interest to grant an exemption. If this condition is relied on exclusively for satisfying paragraph (b) of this section, the exemption may not be granted until the Executive Director for Operations has consulted with the Commission.
[64 FR 15647, Apr. 1, 1999]
#### § 600.145 Cost and price analysis.

Some form of cost or price analysis shall be made and documented in the procurement files in connection with every procurement action. Price analysis may be accomplished in various ways, including the comparison of price quotations submitted, market prices and similar indicia, together with discounts. Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of each element of cost to determine reasonableness, allocability and allowability.
#### § 140.96 Appendix F—Indemnity locations.

(a) *Geographical boundaries of indemnity locations.* (1) In every indemnity agreement between the Commission and a licensee which affords indemnity protection for the preoperational storage of fuel at the site of a nuclear power reactor under construction, the geographical boundaries of the indemnity location will include the entire construction area of the nuclear power reactor, as determined by the Commission. Such area will not necessarily be coextensive with the indemnity location which will be established at the time an operating license or combined license under 10 CFR part 52 is issued for such additional nuclear power reactors.

(2) In every indemnity agreement between the Commission and a licensee which affords indemnity protection for an existing nuclear power reactor, the geographical boundaries of the indemnity location shall include the entire construction area of any additional nuclear power reactor as determined by the Commission, built as part of the same power station by the same licensee. Such area will not necessarily be coextensive with the indemnity location which will be established at the time an operating license or combined license is issued for such additional nuclear power reactors.

(3) This section is effective May 1, 1973, as to construction permits issued before March 2, 1973, and, as to construction permits and combined licenses issued on or after March 2, 1973, the provisions of this section will apply no later than such time as a construction permit or combined license is issued authorizing construction of any additional nuclear power reactor.

(b) [Reserved]

[72 FR 49565, Aug. 28, 2007]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 7, 2017

s0227 

# Order

Clerk March 7, 2017

153685

- 6

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153685

COA: 323279

Wayne CC: 13

- 008592

- FC

DAVID TROY ZARN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153686

COA: 323280

Wayne CC: 13

- 008758

- FC

DAVID TROY ZARN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

cases of People v Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos.

152946

- 8) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases

may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that

the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

 

 

**FORM 10-Q** **x Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

**For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009**

 

**Commission File Number 0-26589**

 

 

**THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.**

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)**MAINE****01-0404322**

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

 

**MAIN STREET,   DAMARISCOTTA,   MAINE          04543**

(Address of principal executive offices)                                 (Zip code)

 

**(207) 563-3195**

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

**Yes x    No[_]**

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

**Large accelerated filer [_]    Accelerated filer x    Non-accelerated filer [_]**

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

**Yes [_]    No x**

 

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock as of May 7, 2009

**Common Stock: 9,719,166  shares**

 

 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10769

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket 5:12-cr-00070-AKK-TMP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERASMO MOLINA,

a.k.a. Erasom Molina,

a.k.a. Memo,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(September 25, 2013)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James L. O’Kelley, appointed counsel for Erasmo Molina in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant 

Case: 13-10769 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Molina’s conviction and sentence 

are AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-10769 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 2 of 2
§ 600.124 Program income. ( a ) The standards set forth in this section shall be used to account for program income related to projects financed in whole or in part with DOE funds.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, program income earned during the project period shall be retained by the recipient and, in accordance with program regulations or the terms and conditions of the award, shall be used in one or more of the following ways. ( 1 ) Added to funds committed to the project and used to further eligible project objectives.
( 2 ) Used to finance the non-DOE share of the project.
( 3 ) Deducted from the total project allowable cost in determining the net allowable costs on which the share of costs is based.
( c ) When DOE authorizes the disposition of program income as described in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, program income in excess of any limits stipulated shall be used in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
( d ) In the event that the program regulations or the terms and conditions of the award do not specify how program income is to be used, paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall apply automatically to all projects or programs except research. For awards that support research, paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall apply automatically unless the award indicates another alternative in the terms and conditions, the recipient is subject to special award conditions, as indicated in § 600.114, or the recipient is a commercial organization.
( e ) Unless program regulations or the terms and conditions of the award provide otherwise, recipients shall have no obligation to the Federal Government regarding program income earned after the end of the project period.
( f ) Unless program regulations or the terms and conditions of the award provide otherwise, costs incident to the generation of program income may be deducted from gross income to determine program income, provided these costs have not been charged to the award.
( g ) Proceeds from the sale of property shall be handled in accordance with the requirements of the Property Standards (See §§ 600.130 through 600.137).
( h ) Unless program regulations or the terms and condition of the award provide otherwise, recipients shall have no obligation to the Federal Government with respect to program income earned from license fees and royalties for copyrighted material, patents, patent applications, trademarks, and inventions produced under an award. However, Patent and Trademark Amendments (35 U.S.C. Chapter 18) apply to inventions made under an experimental, developmental, or research award.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) CR NO. 2:06-cr-202-WKW

)

EUGENE CLECKLER and )

KIM CLECKLER, )

)

O R D E R

On December 27, 2006, defendant Eugene Cleckler filed a Motion in Limine

concerning certain evidentiary matters. (Doc. # 59.) 

It is hereby

ORDERED that on or before, January 3, 2007, the Government shall show cause why

the Motion in Limine should not be granted. 

DONE this 3rd day of January, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 71 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Judson Thornton et al., Respondents, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs (see *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578, 582). (Appeal from order and judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—arbitration.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
PGI 237.102-70 Prohibition on contracting

for firefighting or security-guard functions.

(c)(i) To ensure that the personnel limitations in DFARS 237.102-70(c)(1)(iv) are not exceeded, there

is an office of primary responsibility (OPR) within each department or agency that is responsible for

managing the total number of security-guard personnel on contract for the department or agency.

(ii) Before finalizing a contract action that affects the number of security-guard personnel on

contract, the contracting officer shall request, from the requiring activity, evidence of the OPR’s

approval for the contract action. This requirement also applies to renewal or exercise of options for

the same number of security-guard personnel, to ensure compliance with the statutory

limitations/reductions specified for each fiscal year.

(iii) If the evidence of approval is not provided by the requiring activity, the contracting officer shall

directly contact the applicable OPR for approval before finalizing the contract action. OPRs are as

follows:

(A) U.S. Army:

HQ Department of the Army

Office of the Provost Marshal General

2800 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310

Phone: 703-695-4210 or 703-614-2597.

(B) U.S. Navy:

Commander, Navy Installations

Command (CNIC) N3

2715 Mitscher Road, Suite 300

Anacostia Annex

Washington, DC 20373

Phone: 202-409-4053.

(C) U.S. Marine Corps:

HQ U.S. Marine Corps

Assistant Deputy Commandant, Plans, Policy, &

Operations (Security)
3000 Marine Corps Pentagon

Washington, DC 20350

Phone: 571-201-3633.

(D) U.S. Air Force:

HQ Air Force

Directorate of Security Forces

Programs & Resources Division (A7SX)

1340 AF Pentagon

Washington, DC 20330

Phone: 703-588-0027 or 703-588-0012.

(E) Pentagon Force Protection Agency:

Pentagon Force Protection Agency

9000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Phone: 703-693-3685.

Parent topic: PGI 237.102 Policy.
H. Res. 380

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

July 26, 2005.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 22) to reform the postal laws of the United 

States. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 

be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Government Reform now printed in the bill. The committee 

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 

as read. All points of order against the committee amend-
2

•HRES 380 EH 

ment in the nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 

order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 

Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 

may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 

be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 

be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 

points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3

•HRES 380 EH 

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest:

Clerk.