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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 397 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 397

  Congratulating the Navy basketball team for winning the 2005 Armed 
                    Forces Basketball Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2005

  Mrs. Davis of California (for herself and Mr. Forbes) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the Navy basketball team for winning the 2005 Armed 
                    Forces Basketball Championship.

Whereas on Sunday July 24, 2005, the Navy basketball team defeated Army by a 
        score of 85-71, clinching a final victory in the Armed Forces Basketball 
        Championship in Paige Field House at Camp Pendleton in Southern 
        California;
Whereas rookie basketball coach Sam Caldwell led Navy to its first Armed Forces 
        Basketball Championship victory since 1996;
Whereas Francis Ebong helped lead Navy to their final game's victory, scoring 14 
        points, grabbing 17 rebounds and racking up three assists;
Whereas Ryan Monroe, Micah Bonner, Jason Jefferson, and George O'Garro also 
        scored in the double digits;
Whereas the roster of the championship Navy basketball team also includes 
        Randall Holts, Ray-Jay Johnson, Leon Marbra, Taj Matthews, Karega 
        McCollum, Silas Shackelford, and Marion Thurmond;
Whereas the coaching staff for the championship Navy basketball team includes 
        head coach Sam Caldwell, and Assistant Coaches Jason Kuhl and David 
        Landriault;
Whereas Navy surged through the final minutes of the game on a 19-6 point run; 
        and
Whereas Navy surprised military basketball enthusiasts, defying their athletic 
        program's reputation by securing a decisive victory: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, that the House of Representatives congratulates--
            (1) the all-Navy basketball team on its extraordinary 
        victory in the Armed Forces Basketball Championship of 2005; 
        and
            (2) rookie basketball coach Sam Caldwell for leading Navy 
        to its first Armed Forces Basketball Championship victory since 
        1996.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ex parte SORIANO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 15, 1915.)

In the matter of the application of Joseph Soriano for a writ of habeas corpus.

No opinion. Order dismissing writ, and remanding the defendant, affirmed, without costs. See, also, 163 App. Div. 915, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1143.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

242) ll-K- (I) -55 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56 AM Sheet 242 of 325 
P.2 

'A\ Pl 

L7\ CD (ry 

II-K-(I)-55 

BACKGROUND PAPERS FOR DISCUSSION OF REMAINING COST 

ALGORITHMS, INDUSTRIAL BOILER NSPS. 

EEA, Inc. 

February 8, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-55
§ 36.21 Performance criteria for sealed sources. ( a ) *Requirements.* Sealed sources installed after July 1, 1993: ( 1 ) Must have a certificate of registration issued under 10 CFR 32.210;
( 2 ) Must be doubly encapsulated;
( 3 ) Must use radioactive material that is as nondispersible as practical and that is as insoluble as practical if the source is used in a wet-source-storage or wet-source-change irradiator;
( 4 ) Must be encapsulated in a material resistant to general corrosion and to localized corrosion, such as 316L stainless steel or other material with equivalent resistance if the sources are for use in irradiator pools; and
( 5 ) In prototype testing of the sealed source, must have been leak tested and found leak-free after each of the tests described in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
( b ) *Temperature.* The test source must be held at −40 °C for 20 minutes, 600 °C for 1 hour, and then be subjected to a thermal shock test with a temperature drop from 600 °C to 20 °C within 15 seconds.
( c ) *Pressure.* The test source must be twice subjected for at least 5 minutes to an external pressure (absolute) of 2 million newtons per square meter.
( d ) *Impact.* A 2-kilogram steel weight, 2.5 centimeters in diameter, must be dropped from a height of 1 meter onto the test source.
( e ) *Vibration.* The test source must be subjected 3 times for 10 minutes each to vibrations sweeping from 25 hertz to 500 hertz with a peak amplitude of 5 times the acceleration of gravity. In addition, each test source must be vibrated for 30 minutes at each resonant frequency found.
( f ) *Puncture.* A 50-gram weight and pin, 0.3-centimeter pin diameter, must be dropped from a height of 1 meter onto the test source.
( g ) *Bend.* If the length of the source is more than 15 times larger than the minimum cross-sectional dimension, the test source must be subjected to a force of 2000 newtons at its center equidistant from two support cylinders, the distance between which is 10 times the minimum cross-sectional dimension of the source.
(logo) pwc 

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association ("Midland" or the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 25, 2015

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICARDO WRIGHT, BERYL

JACKSON, TRACEY MARTIN,

CALVIN FLUKER, LISA

PITCHFORD, KIMBERLY LOVE,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. and

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. -

MONTGOMERY DIVISION,

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 2:06cv785-MHT

)

) JURY DEMAND

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE EXHIBIT 3 TO

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

COME NOW Plaintiffs, in the above-styled cause and request this Court’s

permission to substitute the attached Exhibit 3 for Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Compel filed on June 19, 2007. Plaintiffs had originally attached a “working copy”

of the exhibit instead of the signed copy. Substituting this Exhibit will cause no

prejudice to Defendants.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request

that this Honorable Court enter an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Substitute the

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 37 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

attached Exhibit 3 for the Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel filed on June 19,

2007.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Jon. C. Goldfarb

Jon C. Goldfarb (GOL015)

Ethan R. Dettling (DET001)

Melissa N. Tapp (TAP005)

Counsel for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19

th Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500

Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have filed a true and correct copy of the above and

foregoing document the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will

electronically notify the following counsel of record:

Tammy L. Baker, Esq.,

Jackson Lewis, LLP

2001 Park Place North, Suite 650

Birmingham, AL 35203

on this the 19

th

day of June , 2007.

s/Jon C. Goldfarb

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 37 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 37-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 37-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 50.51 Continuation of license. ( a ) Each license will be issued for a fixed period of time to be specified in the license but in no case to exceed 40 years from date of issuance. Where the operation of a facility is involved, the Commission will issue the license for the term requested by the applicant or for the estimated useful life of the facility if the Commission determines that the estimated useful life is less than the term requested. Where construction of a facility is involved, the Commission may specify in the construction permit the period for which the license will be issued if approved pursuant to § 50.56. Licenses may be renewed by the Commission upon the expiration of the period. Renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants is governed by 10 CFR part 54. Application for termination of license is to be made pursuant to § 50.82.
( b ) Each license for a facility that has permanently ceased operations, continues in effect beyond the expiration date to authorize ownership and possession of the production or utilization facility, until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated. During such period of continued effectiveness the licensee shall— ( 1 ) Take actions necessary to decommission and decontaminate the facility and continue to maintain the facility, including, where applicable, the storage, control and maintenance of the spent fuel, in a safe condition, and
( 2 ) Conduct activities in accordance with all other restrictions applicable to the facility in accordance with the NRC regulations and the provisions of the specific 10 CFR part 50 license for the facility.
[56 FR 64976, Dec. 13, 1991, as amended at 61 FR 39300, July 29, 1996]
H. Res. 370

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

July 22, 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. 3070) to reauthorize the human space flight, 

aeronautics, and science programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes. 

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 Science. 

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 Science now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
2

•HRES 370 EH 

substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against the committee amendment 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 
3

•HRES 370 EH 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 30.11 Specific exemptions. ( a ) The Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part and parts 31 through 36 and 39 of this chapter as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.
( b ) Any licensee's activities are exempt from the requirements of this part to the extent that its activities are licensed under the requirements of part 72 of this chapter.
( c ) The Department of Energy is exempt from the requirements of this part to the extent that its activities are subject to the requirements of part 60 or 63 of this chapter.
( d ) Except as specifically provided in part 61 of this chapter, any licensee is exempt from the requirements of this part to the extent that its activities are subject to the requirements of part 61 of this chapter.
[37 FR 5746, Mar. 21, 1972, as amended at 39 FR 26279, July 18, 1974; 40 FR 8784, Mar. 3, 1975; 43 FR 6921, Feb. 21, 1978; 45 FR 65530, Oct. 3, 1980; 46 FR 13979, Feb. 25, 1981; 47 FR 57480, Dec. 27, 1982; 52 FR 8241, Mar. 17, 1987; 58 FR 7736, Feb. 9, 1993; 66 FR 51838, Oct. 11, 2001; 66 FR 55790, Nov. 2, 2001]
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 03-4170



# 
J OSEPH I ZELL M OSLEY ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-02-376) Submitted: October 29, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Christopher J. Moran, LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J.MORAN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Joseph Izell Mosley appeals his conviction and sentence for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). We remand this case to the district court for a determination of excusable neglect. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 conditions federal appellate jurisdiction on the filing of a timely notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) states that a defendant in a criminal case must file an appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment or the notice of appeal by the government. It is well-settled that compliance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992); United States v. Schuchardt , 685 F.2d 901, 902 (4th Cir. 1982). In a criminal case, when a notice of appeal is filed withinthirty days after the expiration of the ten-day appeal period, the district court may grant an extension upon a showing of excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 351 (4th Cir. 1985). In such cases, we generally remand to the district court for the limited determination of whether there has been good cause or excusable neglect to excuse the late filing. Reyes , 759 F.2d at 353-54.The district court’s judgment of conviction was entered on December 18, 2002. The ten-day appeal period expired on January 3, 2003. Mosley filed the notice of appeal on January 30, 2003, within thirty days after the expiration of the ten-day appeal period. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for a limited excusable neglect determination. 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.
REMANDED 2 U NITED S TATES v. M OSLEY
March 12, 2015 

Carl Daly, Air Program Director 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR 

1595 Wynkoop St 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Daly 

I am taking this opportunity to clarify that Colorado's June 4, 2010 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP certification inadvertently 

did not include discussion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) to show that the Colorado SIP is sufficient to meet the 

requirements of this interstate transport infrastructure element. Colorado has provided evidence that its SIP is sufficient to 

meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) in the four subsequent infrastructure submissions it has submitted to EPA since 

submitting the 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure certification in June of 2010. 

These subsequent submissions include the 2008 lead certification, July 26, 2012; the 2008 ozone certification, December 

31, 2012; the 2010 nitrogen dioxide certification, March 7, 2013; and the 2010 sulfur dioxide certification, July 10, 2013. 

In each of these certifications, Colorado provided the following explanation with regard to CAA section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(ii): 

"Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(ii) - Interstate and International Transport 

The EPA guidance from October 14, 2011 , indicates that states have no obligation at this time under Sections 115, 126(b) 

and 126(c) of the CAA regarding interstate or international transport because there are no petitions or pending actions 

before EPA under these sections. Furthermore, the control measures in the SIP protect not only Colorado from NAAQS 

violations, but neighboring states and countries as well. 

However, the guidance indicates an obligation under Section 126(a) that directs each SIP to include provisions requiring 

new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the sources. Colorado's approved NSR 

program has a regulatory provision in place that requires notification of neighboring states of potential impacts from 

sources, specifically, Regulation No.3, Part D, Section IV, provides for notice to any state, tribal governing body, federal 

land manager or local agency that may be affected by emissions from a major source or major modification subject to the 

PSD program." 

CDPHE believes that this showing applies to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as it does to the lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS, and notes that the October 14, 2011 EPA guidance referenced in the discussion above was not available to 

Colorado at the time we submitted the 2006 PM2 5 certification. 

Director, Air Pollution Control Division 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive 5., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 1 Larry Walk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1113 Oral argument. ( a ) Twenty-five (25) days prior to the date set for oral argument, each party, including the NRC staff, shall submit to the presiding officer a detailed written summary of all the facts, data, and arguments which are known to the party at such time and on which the party proposes to rely at the oral argument either to support or to refute the existence of a genuine and substantial dispute of fact. Each party shall also submit all supporting facts and data in the form of sworn written testimony or other sworn written submission. Each party's written summary and supporting information shall be simultaneously served on all other parties to the proceeding.
( b ) Ten (10) days prior to the date set for oral argument, each party, including the NRC staff, may submit to the presiding officer a reply limited to addressing whether the written summaries, facts, data, and arguments filed under paragraph (a) of this section support or refute the existence of a genuine and substantial dispute of fact. Each party's reply shall be simultaneously served on all other parties to the proceeding.
( c ) Only facts and data in the form of sworn written testimony or other sworn written submission may be relied on by the parties during oral argument, and the presiding officer shall consider those facts and data only if they are submitted in that form.
[50 FR 41670, Oct. 15, 1985, as amended at 69 FR 2267, Jan. 14, 2004]