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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58209-58210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and 
Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting notice of RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and 
Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
fourth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and 
Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 16-18, 2012 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 226. The agenda will 
include the following:

 Welcome and Administrative Remarks
 Introductions
 Agenda Overview
 Review previous action items
 Solicit proposals for further changes to DO-214
 Initiate discussion on TSO-C99A (Oxygen Mask Communication)
 Continue discussion on the following:
     Risks of usage of adaptive technology during test
     Proposed committee letter to invite additional headsets, 
MIC's and CVR manufacturers
     Addition of noise test requirement to the vibration test 
variable nature of Oxygen Mask
     Microphone and Hand Microphone performance in the 
marketplace
     Review of proposal to remove CVR Area Microphone 
requirements from standard in lieu of ED-112

[[Page 58210]]

     Discussion on ANR white paper
     Sensitivity versus output power as they correlate with its 
specified ratings
 Continue review of DO-214 and draft updates/changes
 Draft language for noise test requirement to combine with the 
vibration test
 Other Business
 Establish agenda for next meeting
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2012.
David Sicard,
Manager, Business Operations Group, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-22992 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
4.2203 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-27, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered

Application, in all solicitations and contracts, unless an exception is granted in accordance with

OMB Memorandum M-23-13.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.22 Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application.
#### § 781.71 [Reserved]
Case 2:06-cv-00791-MEF-SRW Document 7 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131451 & (39) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 131451 

 COA: 258575 

Oakland CC: 2004-196178-FH;

JAN-JAMES BUCHANAN, 2004-196899-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          87,082
<SECURITIES>                                       400
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,954
<PP&E>                                       3,011,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 739,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,382,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,237,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,382,568
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,332
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 28, 2014

d0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

148123

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148123

COA: 317630

Shiawassee CC: 13

- 004372

- AR

YONG XING DENG,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, be cause we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 71.57 [Reserved]
§ 1138.800 Purpose of SUB Article VIII. SUB Article VIII of the general terms and conditions: ( a ) Specifies provisions that a recipient must include in its subaward terms and conditions concerning submission and maintenance of subrecipient information; records retention and access; remedies and termination; disputes, hearings, and appeals; collection of amounts due; closeout; and post-closeout adjustments and continuing responsibilities.
( b ) It thereby implements OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.113 and 200.333 through 200.345, as those sections apply to subawards.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0243 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ZECHARIAH JUSTIN DANIEL SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 3 2023

01/03/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0243
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

MERRILL CLARK GARDNER, a.k.a. Clark Gardner,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 30183

D.C. No. 1:15

- cr

- 00073

- SPW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Merrill Clark Gardner appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 183

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 30183

Gardner contends that the district court erred by applying a four

- level

aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We review the district

court’ s factual findings for clear error and its applica tion of the Guidelines to the

facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca

- Ruiz , 852 F.3d 1167,

1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion when

it concluded , based on the undisputed facts in the presenten ce report and the

testimony of Special Agent Robert Grayson, that Gardner acted as a leader or

organizer of the conspiracy within the meaning of section 3B1.1(a)

. See United

States v. Rivera , 527 F.3d 891, 908

- 09 (9th Cir. 2008) (enhancement supported

whe re evidence established that defendant exercised control over others and

“exercised decision making authority in the procurement and distribution of

narcotic s ” ); see also United States v. Garcia , 497 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2007)

( enhancement “does not req uire control over all of the five or more participants”)

.

AFFIRMED.
#### GROSSARTH, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Peter Grossarth against James W. Smith.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 35.2

[First Republic Bank Logo]

Feb 28, 2015

Servicer Compliance Statement

For SEMT 2013-4 (see Schedule A)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of First Republic Bank (the Servicer), does hereby certify that:



| | (i) | a review of the Servicers activities during the reporting period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 and of its performance under the Agreement (as defined on Schedule A attached hereto) from
the above referenced trust during such period has been made under such officers supervision, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such reporting period.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First Republic BankBy:

/s/ Lionel AntunesName:

Lionel AntunesTitle:

Vice President of Residential LendingDate:

Feb. 28, 2015




---

<for SEMT 2013-4>

SCHEDULE A



| | 1. | Flow Mortgage Loan Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010, between Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation and First Republic Bank, as modified by the Reconstitution Agreement dated
March 21, 2013 (the Agreement).
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 1134.305 Real property: reports, notifications, requests, and accounting. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must specify the real property reporting requirements described in § 1134.300(a)(1) and provide references to the related requirements described in § 1134.300(b)(1).
( b ) *Award terms and conditions.* To implement the requirement described in paragraph (a) of this section, the wording of Section A of REP Article III of a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. ( 1 ) *General.* Unless a DoD Component determines that there will be no acquisition or improvement of real property under awards using its general terms and conditions, those general terms and conditions must include the wording appendix C to this part provides for Section A of REP Article III, to which the DoD Component: ( i ) Must add wording in lieu of the reserved paragraph A.1.a to specify how often a recipient must submit periodic status reports and how long it is required to do so (which should be the duration of the Federal interest in the real property). The wording of paragraph A.1.a must be consistent with OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.329, which provides different options for reporting frequency depending on the duration of the Federal interest in the real property.
( ii ) Must add wording in lieu of the reserved paragraph A.1.b to specify the due date for each periodic status report in terms of the number of calendar days after the end of the period covered by the report (*e.g.,* a report on the status of the property as of September 30 might be due 30 calendar days after that date).
( iii ) May provide wording in lieu of the reserved paragraph A.1.c if there are other instructions—*e.g.,* a form, format, or information elements that a recipient must use (which must be cleared by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as implemented by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320) or a particular office to which reports must be submitted, especially if reporting will continue beyond closeout of the award under which the real property was acquired or improved.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component may reserve Section A of REP Article III if it determines that there will be no acquisition or improvement of real property under awards using its general terms and conditions.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALBERT ROBINSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3685 ) DAVID KEITH OAKS, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Frederick P. Mercurio, Judge. Albert Robinson, pro se. David K. Oaks of David K. Oaks, P.A., Punta Gorda, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, BADALAMENTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### § 1200.30 What policies and procedures must I follow?

The Department of Transportation policies and procedures that you must follow are the policies and procedures specified in each applicable section of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as that section is supplemented by the section in this part with the same section number. The contracts that are covered transactions, for example, are specified by section 220 of the OMB guidance (i.e., 2 CFR 180.220), as supplemented by section 220 in this part (i.e., § 1200.220). For any section of OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR 180 that has no corresponding section in this part, Department of Transportation policies and procedures are those in the OMB guidance.
223 So.2d 408

#### Marshall HOPPER v. Ralph BILLS and Jenny Bills d/b/a Jenny and Shorty’s.

No. 49872.

June 13, 1969.

In re: Marshall Hopper, applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension. 220 So.2d 769.

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.
# L_2010328EN.01003601.xml

| 14.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 328/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 328/36

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 399 of 30 December 1989
  )

On page 25, Annex I, EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF PPE CLASSES NOT COVERED BY THIS DIRECTIVE, point 3, first indent:

for:

| ‘— | adverse atmospheric conditions (headgear, seasonal clothing, footwear, umbrellas, etc.),’, |
| --- | --- |

‘—

adverse atmospheric conditions (headgear, seasonal clothing, footwear, umbrellas, etc.),’,

read:

| ‘— | atmospheric conditions (headgear, seasonal clothing, footwear, umbrellas, etc.),’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

atmospheric conditions (headgear, seasonal clothing, footwear, umbrellas, etc.),’.

---
226 So.2d 923

#### Jack M. CHANEY and Mary Taylor Chaney v. Frank C. CARROL and The Travelers Indemnity Company.

No. 50041.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: Jack M. Chaney and Mary Taylor Chaney applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 224 So.2d 57.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.190 Operator requirements.

Operation of equipment and controls that have been identified as important to safety in the Safety Analysis Report and in the license must be limited to trained and certified personnel or be under the direct visual supervision of an individual with training and certification in the operation. Supervisory personnel who personally direct the operation of equipment and controls that are important to safety must also be certified in such operations.
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.106 Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS. ( a ) For each ISFSI or MRS site, a controlled area must be established.
( b ) Any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the controlled area may not receive from any design basis accident the more limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), or the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The lens dose equivalent may not exceed 0.15 Sv (15 rem) and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or any extremity may not exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The minimum distance from the spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste handling and storage facilities to the nearest boundary of the controlled area must be at least 100 meters.
( c ) The controlled area may be traversed by a highway, railroad or waterway, so long as appropriate and effective arrangements are made to control traffic and to protect public health and safety.
[53 FR 31658, Aug. 19, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 54562, Oct. 13, 1998; 66 FR 51842, Oct. 11, 2001]
§ 835.101 Radiation protection programs. ( a ) A DOE activity shall be conducted in compliance with a documented radiation protection program (RPP) as approved by the DOE.
( b ) The DOE may direct or make modifications to a RPP.
( c ) The content of each RPP shall be commensurate with the nature of the activities performed and shall include formal plans and measures for applying the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) process to occupational exposure.
( d ) The RPP shall specify the existing and/or anticipated operational tasks that are intended to be within the scope of the RPP. Except as provided in § 835.101(h), any task outside the scope of a RPP shall not be initiated until an update of the RPP is approved by DOE.
( e ) The content of the RPP shall address, but shall not necessarily be limited to, each requirement in this part.
( f ) The RPP shall include plans, schedules, and other measures for achieving compliance with regulations of this part. Unless otherwise specified in this part, compliance with the amendments to this part published on June 8, 2007 shall be achieved no later than July 9, 2010.
( g ) An update of the RPP shall be submitted to DOE: ( 1 ) Whenever a change or an addition to the RPP is made;
( 2 ) Prior to the initiation of a task not within the scope of the RPP; or
( 3 ) Within 180 days of the effective date of any modifications to this part.
( h ) Changes, additions, or updates to the RPP may become effective without prior Department approval only if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the RPP and the RPP, as changed, continues to meet the requirements of this part. Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of the RPP shall not be implemented without submittal to and approval by the Department.
( i ) An initial RPP or an update shall be considered approved 180 days after its submission unless rejected by DOE at an earlier date.
[58 FR 65485, Dec. 14, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 59682, Nov. 4, 1998; 72 FR 31925, June 8, 2007]
EX-35.7

(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of February 1, 2013, by and among RBS Commercial Funding Inc.,
as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,
Certificate Administrator, Tax Administrator and Custodian, Midland Loan
Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special
Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor and U.S.
Bank National Association, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS 2013-C11 (the "Agreement").
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the
meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive
Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from
   January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of
   its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my
   supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
the 7th day of March 2014.



/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far