alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 10 52

__ __ __ __ __ _

* Fri en ds of Wein er Sc ho ol Dis tri ct , *
* Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , *

* Dep artm en t o f Agr ic ul tu re, * In vo lu nt ary/Thi rd -Party Plai nt iff ; * W ei ne r Sch oo l Di st ric t, * In vo lu nt ary/Thi rd -Party Plai nt iff , *
* Pl ai nt iff s, *

*
v. * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e St at e o f Ark an sa s; Arka ns as * East ern Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. Dep artm en t o f Em erg en cy * Man ag em en t; Davi d M ax well , in hi s * [UNPUBLISHED] of fic ia l capa ci ty; Arkans as Sta te Bo ard * of Edu cat io n; Nacca m an W il li am s, Dr., * in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; BenMays, Dr., * in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; She rry Bu rro w, * in he r of fic ia l capa ci ty; Ji m

Co op er, i n * hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Bren daGul le t, i n * he r of fic ia l capa ci ty; Sam

ue l Ledbe tt er, * in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Ali ce Will ia m s * Mah on y , in he r of

fic ia l capa ci ty; * Toyce Newto n, i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty; * Vick ie Sav ie rs , in he r of

fic ia l capa ci ty; * Ark an sa s Dep art m en t o f Edu cat io n; * Harri sb ur g S ch oo l Di st ric t; *
*Mi ke Beeb e, Gov ern or , in hi s *

of fic ia l capa ci ty, *
* Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees
. *
*

__ __ __ __ __ _ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 11 Fi le d: Decem

be r 15 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu itJu dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Fri en ds of W ei ne r Sch oo l Dis tri ct , a no n- pr of it ci ti zen s gr oup, ap pe al s fro m an
or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co urt d i sm is si ng th ei r Co m m erce Cl au se act io n th at al le ge d 1 vi ol at io ns of fed eral an d st at e la w by App el le es in co nn ect io n wit h th e ad m in is tra ti ve
co ns ol id at io n of th e W ei ne r Sch oo l Dis tri ct wit h th e Harri sb ur g Sch oo l Dis tri ct in Po in se tt Co un ty, Ark an sa s. Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e LeMay v. U.S. Po st al Serv ic e, 45 0 F.3 d 79 7, 79 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), we co nc lu de th at di sm is sa l was pr op er fo r th e reas on s st at ed by th e Dis tri ct Co ur t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. See 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. -2

-
#### In re GRADE CROSSING COM’RS OF CITY OF BUFFALO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 27, 1915.)

In the matter of the application of the Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain the compensation to be paid to the owners of and parties interested in lands claimed to be injured by change of grade of Ferry street, etc., and claimed to be owned by Peter Hof et al. (Proceeding No. 98).

PER CURIAM.

Motion granted, allowing claimant Otis Elevator Company to add to the record on appeal certain resolutions of the common council of the city of Buffalo as.to Ferry street, French street, and Box avenue, and certificates of recording of same by the city clerk of Buffalo. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1119.
I i

TNT

H 

id?

DJ.siR/cT côi,qr of WUAS7?VTI-S

77/E P2/DDL b Df TR/ 7 ci ,2 ,9MMñ

$auT#fiSiV. DI v/siIV

LJ LL3 A 2L

M2/14 I iV1O,

er, /d,t a/-7o2

W, i/ CO /1," Lc, a eli /

C Vi/ /?c/JO fl 4/0 /LCV7"1

,,/a

i',&f,9 A h/'c1T c/er/(

+ + i- ii..'; /' ;. R1 c,

SAer4f 1ri/ ZYhnslip"i, I '- v. ,,-1-

A )5 .Pd &o7i4-y r*4J

Sl,craW 4rd //s cJ j s,J

r #,A4e c4 Sr'Ice. *e- CitrL 6p..cj je1eI1e

ejse. Cn-iJ y rp+ ,e

)-,c' J le& c r1!e4c.OL +A4 J ecI 4-

bauya Cot'néY/2f/io J)

/j7 MoTzth Coil1 .z'Y&'#

fiati Y/1 4i 3 T' 7

Dc ,p)ec?. iy QI ic+ 1t4e Z

-h 3e+ eJcnce. heqe4 5 . 72'c-.. k' ,yc cd Merry

I/4 2 7ç2' Z

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 3
I

4q

ccli

cc

i 111 ei'eY CeYJf/ tAd on '%e 27hY,f

DFcEP7BIR, Zoa 7' j I'd serve a c'çY the

an //ôii Tro H,'ny 4y LI, 5 P2ci,i).

foszi2ye frep6z,€/, iW,P1qer/Y all (eleti

as /,/,',fr's;

- civtl i9cTh#/I /;--y- '3

)/oI? 7'c/

-

f1/a2aia ñ4::, r,2e/Genera/

jI^ 1Ji?o s-trtet

ThIrd floor

P2ontjo fl YYJ

Ware/en1 J '4n CL/1'7Pi/ -

Ba//dcK oytt'cé/,ncz/ FacilitY

Jo . 'oX SIc'7

Ufli'n sric,/9L 3o87-S/o7

of/?cf i7/cIE1fX

wv/TED s797Fs D/s77?/cTa*qT

/o1d3oX 7/1

.P2cNThopIE1fY1 //i,,9iM jfic'l -'' 7//

ñL J/3O

/e i,oA I, flf ) 42, ç'9 ?

9z9iC /JUIJOC/i'

3a/j'eA' a'

.s-/D 7 -

L/12,n2 38/-.s/7

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 2 of 3
A4 LJS

- lr

L

S / o 7

27 t,EC 2007 p 4 

L

,.

o1/ o18 cJ1A/ 151,i1couA1

,pqoX 2,1/

oro iJ 3 1/ -

44ThJ1 iiII

iIIt

11tih1J

C)

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 3 of 3
§ 71.106 Changes to quality assurance program. ( a ) Each quality assurance program approval holder shall submit, in accordance with § 71.1(a), a description of a proposed change to its NRC-approved quality assurance program that will reduce commitments in the program description as approved by the NRC. The quality assurance program approval holder shall not implement the change before receiving NRC approval. ( 1 ) The description of a proposed change to the NRC-approved quality assurance program must identify the change, the reason for the change, and the basis for concluding that the revised program incorporating the change continues to satisfy the applicable requirements of subpart H of this part.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) Each quality assurance program approval holder may change a previously approved quality assurance program without prior NRC approval, if the change does not reduce the commitments in the quality assurance program previously approved by the NRC. Changes to the quality assurance program that do not reduce the commitments shall be submitted to the NRC every 24 months, in accordance with § 71.1(a). In addition to quality assurance program changes involving administrative improvements and clarifications, spelling corrections, and non-substantive changes to punctuation or editorial items, the following changes are not considered reductions in commitment: ( 1 ) The use of a quality assurance standard approved by the NRC that is more recent than the quality assurance standard in the certificate holder's or applicant's current quality assurance program at the time of the change;
( 2 ) The use of generic organizational position titles that clearly denote the position function, supplemented as necessary by descriptive text, rather than specific titles, provided that there is no substantive change to either the functions of the position or reporting responsibilities;
( 3 ) The use of generic organizational charts to indicate functional relationships, authorities, and responsibilities, or alternatively, the use of descriptive text, provided that there is no substantive change to the functional relationships, authorities, or responsibilities;
( 4 ) The elimination of quality assurance program information that duplicates language in quality assurance regulatory guides and quality assurance standards to which the quality assurance program approval holder has committed to on record; and
( 5 ) Organizational revisions that ensure that persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions continue to have the requisite authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to safety considerations.
( c ) Each quality assurance program approval holder shall maintain records of quality assurance program changes.
[80 FR 34014, June 12, 2015]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 65 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      February 2, 2005.
    Resolved, That the following Members be, and are hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Mr. Hastings of Washington, 
Chairman, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Smith of Texas, Ms. Hart and Mr. Cole.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Editorial Note on Part 61
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 61.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The regulations in this part establish, for land disposal of radioactive waste, the procedures, criteria, and terms and conditions upon which the Commission issues licenses for the disposal of radioactive wastes containing byproduct, source and special nuclear material received from other persons. Disposal of waste by an individual licensee is set forth in part 20 of this chapter. Applicability of the requirements in this part to Commission licenses for waste disposal facilities in effect on the effective date of this rule will be determined on a case-by-case basis and implemented through terms and conditions of the license or by orders issued by the Commission.
( b ) Except as provided in part 150 of this chapter, which addresses assumption of certain regulatory authority by Agreement States, and § 61.6 “Exemptions,” the regulations in this part apply to all persons in the United States. The regulations in this part do not apply to— ( 1 ) Disposal of high-level waste as provided for in part 60 or 63 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Disposal of uranium or thorium tailings or wastes (byproduct material as defined in § 40.4 (a-1) as provided for in part 40 of this chapter in quantities greater than 10,000 kilograms and containing more than 5 millicuries of radium-226; or
( 3 ) Disposal of licensed material as provided for in part 20 of this chapter.
( c ) This part also gives notice to all persons who knowingly provide to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's or applicant's activities subject to this part, that they may be individually subject to NRC enforcement action for violation of § 61.9b.
[47 FR 57463, Dec. 27, 1982, as amended at 56 FR 40690, Aug. 15, 1991; 63 FR 1898, Jan. 13, 1998; 66 FR 55791, Nov. 2, 2001]
#### § 75.3 Exemptions.

The NRC may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of this part that it determines are authorized by law and consistent with the safeguards agreements, are not inimical to the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.

[83 FR 19609, May 4 2018]
IV 

House Calendar No. 78 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 396 

[Report No. 109–202] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations 

for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for 

4 the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending Sep5 tember 30, 2006, and for other purposes. All points of 
2 

HRES 396 RH 

1 order against the conference report and against its consid2 eration are waived. The conference report shall be consid3 ered as read. 

House Calendar No. 78 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 396 

[Report No. 109–202] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference reother purposes. fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the port to accompany the bill (H.R. 2985) making 

JULY 27, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Third Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38121) and determined on October 4, 2010 that it would conduct an expedited review (75 FR 63200, October 14, 2010).

                    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on December 16, 2010. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4207 (December 2010), entitled                     *Petroleum Wax Candles from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Third Review).*

Issued: December 17, 2010.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2010-32212 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
To: Docket No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0562

From: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel

Date: August 21, 2015

Re: Communication with LRAPA Regarding Slas h Burning in Areas Not Covered by the Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Plan

On July 21, 2015, John Morrissey, of LRAPA, an d I had a conversation about how slash burning was regulated under the SIP-approved version of LRAP A title 47 (LRAPA effective dates: 1/1/1993 and 8/14/1984) for areas that were not covered by the Oregon Department of Forestry Smoke Management Plan (SMP). According to Mr. Morrissey, there is very lit tle forested land in Lane Co unty that is not in areas covered by the SMP. In the early 1990s, a Lane County source in one of these areas wanted to burn slash

and LRAPA believed that it was an unregulated form of open burning un der LRAPA’s then-current rules. Ultimately, the source did not conduct the burn. According to Mr . Morrissey, LRAPA passed regulations in 1995 to ensure that slash burning in areas of Lane County not covered by the SMP would be regulated, and it is this change in th e regulation of slash burning, with s ome additional minor changes since that time, that are now before the EPA for approval. Si nce that time, Mr. Morrissey recalls only one permit, about 15 years ago, has been issued for slash burn ing under these r egulatory provisions. Mr. Morrissey

does not recall that LRAPA has received any other requests for slash burning in these areas not covered by the SMP.

During the conversation, I asked Mr. Morrissey if he co uld provide a map or a descr iption of the areas that are not covered by the SMP. On July 27, 2015, Mr. Morri ssey, sent an email to me with a file of the SMP boundary in Lane County that he received from Western Lane District Forester Mr. Link (Grant) Smith, of the Oregon Department of Forestry. The file delinea ted the two areas over wh ich the Oregon Department of Forestry has jurisdiction regard ing smoke management in the two dist ricts in Lane County, the Western

Lane District and the Sout h Cascade District (eastern Lane County) . I viewed the file using Google Earth

Pro and saved screenshots of the im ages in a document, “L RAPA SMP Areas”, which is included in the docket for this action along with the July 27, 2015 email. The maps su pport Mr. Morrisey’s statement that there is very limited forested land in Lane County that is not covere d by the SMP and would therefore be covered by the LRAPA fore st slash burning rules.
223 So.2d 409

#### Dorothy COTHERN, wife of/and Billy R. Cothern v. Peter J. LaROCCA, d/b/a Jim’s Place, Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Companies, the Employers’ Group of Insurance Companies and Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Lavigne, d/b/a Travel Inn Motel.

No. 49902.

June 13, 1969.

In re: Dorothy Cothern, wife of/and Billy R. Cothern applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 221 So.2d 836.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# United States Departmentofthe Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

April29, 2014 Mr. Lew Weinstock U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Room C304-02 Air Resources Division P.O. Box25287 Denver, Colorado 80225

Re: Certification ofNational Park Service, Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Program Datafor 2013 DearMr. Weinstock, The National Park Service, Air Resources Division, hereby certifies the NPS Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Program (GPMP) pollutantdata (ozone, sulfurdioxide, and carbon monoxide) for the year 2013 that currently reside on the EPA AQS. The ambient concentration data and associated quality assurance datahave been completely submittedto AQS for the year 2013. These data have undergone stringent validation procedures and are believed to be a consistent and accurate representation of ambient air quality conditions within the monitored NPS units. All quality assurance findings havebeen taken into account in determiningthe data's validity. Attached are:A summarytable ofNPSunits thatthe NPS intends to certifY for 2013. AMP600 Data Certification Report for 2013 data. Please refer to the attached summary table that lists which sites the NPS intends to certifY. There are sites operated by the NPS that we do not wish to certifY because ofthe method used or because the site does not belong solely to the NPS. These sites are not included in the table. Please note that ozone data from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park sites were certified earlierthis year. The National Park Service, Air Resources Division has also submitteddata certification packets in years past for 2008,2009,2010 and 2011. We are still waitingon certification ofthesedataand wouldrequest that you also certify these data in AQS at this time. AMP600 Data Certification Reports have been prepared for these years as well and are attached. Please contact me (kristi_morris@nps.gov; 303-987-6941) ifyou have anyquestions. Sincerely,



# ~~

Kristi Morris KM:jw Program Manager Cc: John Vimont Barkley Sive
Exhibit 31.2

                              CERTIFICATION PURSANT
                     TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14

I, Yona Liebowitz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Clean Systems
Technology Group, Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated: April 12, 2005



By: /S/ YONA LIEBOWITZ
-----------------------
Yona Liebowitz
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Steven Lawrence RILEY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 99-2426. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2000. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 98-00288-CR-T-26E); Richard A. Lazzara, Judge. Before TJOFLAT, COX and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: We sua sponte grant rehearing in this appeal . Our opinion is published at 211 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir.2000). After we filed our opinion in this appeal, but befo re the mandate issued, the Supreme Court decided Castillo v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 120 S.Ct. 2090, 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000), which casts doubt on the correctness of our ruling rejecting Riley's challenge to the enhanced penalty the district court imposed on him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We accordingly vacate the portion of our prior opinion addressing the § 924(c) sentencing issue and direct the clerk to schedule the a ppeal for oral argument on that issue before a regular oral-argument panel. REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION VACATED IN PART; ORAL ARGUMENT GRANTED IN PART.