alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 71.64 Special requirements for plutonium air shipments. ( a ) A package for the shipment of plutonium by air subject to § 71.88(a)(4), in addition to satisfying the requirements of §§ 71.41 through 71.63, as applicable, must be designed, constructed, and prepared for shipment so that under the tests specified in— ( 1 ) Section 71.74 (“Accident conditions for air transport of plutonium”)— ( i ) The containment vessel would not be ruptured in its post-tested condition, and the package must provide a sufficient degree of containment to restrict accumulated loss of plutonium contents to not more than an A2 quantity in a period of 1 week;
( ii ) The external radiation level would not exceed 10 mSv/h (1 rem/h) at a distance of 1 m (40 in) from the surface of the package in its post-tested condition in air; and
( iii ) A single package and an array of packages are demonstrated to be subcritical in accordance with this part, except that the damaged condition of the package must be considered to be that which results from the plutonium accident tests in § 71.74, rather than the hypothetical accident tests in § 71.73; and
( 2 ) Section 71.74(c), there would be no detectable leakage of water into the containment vessel of the package.
( b ) With respect to the package requirements of paragraph (a), there must be a demonstration or analytical assessment showing that— ( 1 ) The results of the physical testing for package qualification would not be adversely affected to a significant extent by— ( i ) The presence, during the tests, of the actual contents that will be transported in the package; and
( ii ) Ambient water temperatures ranging from 0.6 °C ( + 33 °F) to 38 °C ( + 100 °F) for those qualification tests involving water, and ambient atmospheric temperatures ranging from −40 °C (−40 °F) to + 54 °C ( + 130°F) for the other qualification tests.
( 2 ) The ability of the package to meet the acceptance standards prescribed for the accident condition sequential tests would not be adversely affected if one or more tests in the sequence were deleted.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 254 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 39
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 254

                          [Report No. 115-88]

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1628) to provide 
for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on 
                    the budget for fiscal year 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1628) to provide 
for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on 
                    the budget for fiscal year 2017.

    Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1628) 
to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2017, as amended, pursuant to 
House Resolution 228, the further amendment printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered 
as adopted.
                                                  House Calendar No. 39

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 254

                          [Report No. 115-88]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1628) to provide 
for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on 
                    the budget for fiscal year 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 6, 2017

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
SERVED: OCTOBER 15, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOSEPH TERRELL BROWN 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0690 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WP050026) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Joseph Terrell Brown, Respondent 

3370 Adriatic Avenue #2A 

Long Beach, CA 90810 

TEL: 562-338-4553 (cell) 

FAX: 562-208-3793 (home) 

ONE COPY 

Aneesah Cleveland, Respondent's Representative 

3370 Adriatic Avenue #2A 

Long Beach, CA 90810 

TEL: 562-338-4553 (cell) 

562-208-3793 (home) 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, APW-7.6 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, AdministratiVe Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0690 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
Publication 4025 - SP (7-2002)

S

Catalog Number 34293B

US

DERECHOS

CIVILES

ESTÁN

PROTEGIDOS

SUS

DERECHOS

CIVILES

ESTÁN

PROTEGIDOS

Bajo ninguna circunstancia el Servicio de

Impuestos Internos (IRS) permitirá la discriminación

por parte de sus empleados, concesionarios,

contratistas, o subcontratistas. NADIE será

excluido de participar en ningún programa o actividad financiado por el Servicio de Impuestos Internos

del Departamento del Tesoro, ni se le denegará sus

beneficios ni será objeto de discriminación por

razón de raza, el color de piel, sexo, el origen

nacional, incapacidad, represalia o la edad.

Cualquier persona que crea que ha sido discriminada

por motivo de raza, color de piel, sexo, origen

nacional, incapacidad, represalia o edad en

programas o actividades que reciban asistencia

financiera del Servicio de Impuestos Internos del

Departamento del Tesoro (por ejemplo, el Centro de

Consultas sobre los Impuestos para Contribuyentes

de Bajos Ingresos, el Programa de Asistencia

Tributaria para los Ancianos), podrá presentar una

queja por escrito a la siguiente dirección:

Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Program

Department of Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Metropolitan Square - Room 6071

Washington, D.C. 20220

Escrito por la Unida Derechos Civiles de IRS

La misión del Servicio de Impuestos Internos

es de proporcionar un servicio de alta calidad

a los contribuyentes estadounidenses,

ayudándoles a comprender y cumplir

con sus obligaciones tributarias

y aplicando a todos

la ley del impuesto

con integridad e

imparcialidad.

La misión del Servicio de Impuestos Internos

es de proporcionar un servicio de alta calidad

a los contribuyentes estadounidenses,

ayudándoles a comprender y cumplir

con sus obligaciones tributarias

y aplicando a todos

la ley del impuesto

con integridad e

imparcialidad.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 13, 2013, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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 period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

Executive Vice President Capital Markets and TreasurerDate:

March 30, 2017By:

/s/ Rich MorrinName:

Rich MorrinTitle:

Chief Operating OfficerDate:

March 30, 2017
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

Sahara Gaming Corporation
Las Vegas, Nevada

We have made a review, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting
and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial information of Sahara Gaming
Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended December 31, 1995 and 1994,
as indicated in our report dated February 13, 1996 because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1995 is
incorporated by reference In Registration Statement No. 33-44700 on Form S-8 and
in post-effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-7053 on Form
S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
February 13, 1996
PGI 253.209 CONTRACTOR

QUALIFICATIONS

NO CURRENT PGI TEXT

Parent topic: PGI Part 253 - FORMS
#### In the Matter of Conrad Hines, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 807]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Through an investigation, correction officials discovered that petitioner was participating in gang-related activities, which included exhorting and threatening another inmate. As a result, *1205he was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in unauthorized organizational activities. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report and internal memorandum, together with the testimony of the correction sergeant who authored these documents and that of the inmate who implicated petitioner as a gang member, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Lamage v Selsky,*304 AD2d 1004, 1005 [2003]; *Matter of Santiago v Goord,*287 AD2d 841, 841 [2001]). Inasmuch as the accusing inmate was not a confidential informant, the hearing officer was not required to undertake an independent in camera assessment of his credibility *(compare Matter of Thomassini v Goord,*13 AD3d 954 [2004], *appeals dismissed*5 NY3d 848 [2005]). Rather, the hearing officer could evaluate the inmate’s reliability based upon the testimony he gave at the hearing. Petitioner’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review given his failure to make appropriate objections at the hearing *(see Matter of Estrada v Goord,*26 AD3d 564 [2006]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 609 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 609

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      November 8, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2201) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 
to exempt certain micro-offerings from the registration requirements of such 
Act, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Financial Services; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and 
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
03/10/2010 14:59 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS [gl002/004 

ERIC A. SEITZ 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

A LAW CORPORATION 

ERIC A. SEITZ 1412 

LAWRENCE L KAWASAKI 5820 

DELLA A. BELATTl 7945 

RONALD N.W. KIM 8306 

820 Mililani Street 

Suite 714 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Telephone: (808) 533-7434 

Facsimile: (808) 545-3608 

Attorneys for Respondent 

U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RAYMOND H. FESSLER 

.;:.ri U " 1 • . :•^•^,l/^liUi•l 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10WP002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0020 

RESPONDENT FESSLER'S 

MEMORANDUM RE VENUE; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

RESPONDENT FESSLER'S MEMORANDUM RE VENUE 

Respondent Raymond H. Fessler is indigent and cannot afford to 

retain and pay counsel and/or to incur any expenses for travel to the site of a 
03/10/2010 14;59 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS l2|003/004 

hearing. Tax returns and other documentation of Mr. Fessler's assets, earnings, 

and income already have been produced, at their counsel's request, to the FAA and 

can be provided to the Administrative Law Judge as well. Additionally, because 

Mr. Fessler is responsible for the care of his recently deceased sister's two minor 

children, he is unable to be away from his home in Idaho for any prolonged period 

of time. 

Accordingly, in the interests of justice, Mr. Fessler requests that tlic 

hearing in this matter be conducted in Honolulu, Hawaii, where the relevant events 

occurred and where his counsel and certain of the witnesses are located and that 

the Respondent be permitted to appear and participate by long distance telephone, 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 9, 2010. 

ERIC A. SEITZ 

LAWRENCE I. KAWASAKI 

DELLA A. BELATTl 

RONALD N.W. KIM 

Attorneys for Respondent 
03/10/201 0 15:0 0 FAX 202493514 2 FAA •> DMS 0004/004 

fftO M <TL'E>MA R a 201 0 10:&-ry&T . 10:3*/'Mo . T'OOOOOO.^OV P ' 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that one copy of the within was duly 

served this date by facsimile and United States mail, first class postage prepaid, 

addressed to the following: 

CHRISTOPHER I. MERJRILL, ESQUIRE 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Adminisatration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2007 

Attorney for Complaintant 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii. March 9, 2010 

ERIC A. SEITZ
§ 745.117 Documentation of informed consent. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written informed consent form approved by the IRB and signed (including in an electronic format) by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. A written copy shall be given to the person signing the informed consent form.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the informed consent form may be either of the following: ( 1 ) A written informed consent form that meets the requirements of § 745.116. The investigator shall give either the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative adequate opportunity to read the informed consent form before it is signed; alternatively, this form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
( 2 ) A short form written informed consent form stating that the elements of informed consent required by § 745.116 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and that the key information required by § 745.116(a)(5)(i) was presented first to the subject, before other information, if any, was provided. The IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the subject or the legally authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral presentation. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the summary, and the person actually obtaining consent shall sign a copy of the summary. A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in addition to a copy of the short form.
( c ) ( 1 ) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed informed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds any of the following: ( i ) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the informed consent form and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject (or legally authorized representative) will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will govern;
( ii ) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context; or
( iii ) If the subjects or legally authorized representatives are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and provided there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained.
( 2 ) In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pasquale Grillo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County, imposed December 20, 1979, upon his conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a period of imprisonment of 60 days, to run concurrently with a period of probation of five years, with a direction that defendant make restitution. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting therefrom the 60-day prison term. As so modified, sentence affirmed, and case remitted to the County Court, Rock-*662land County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Hiram M.  Lazar,  as Chief  Financial  Officer of  Franklin  Capital
Corporation (the "COMPANY") certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the  accompanying  Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31,
2004 as filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "REPORT")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  May 14, 2004                                 /s/ Hiram M. Lazar
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Hiram M. Lazar
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Franklin  Capital  Corporation  and will be  retained  by Franklin
Capital  Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.830 Under what conditions do I get an additional opportunity to challenge the facts on which the proposed debarment is based? ( a ) You as a respondent will not have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the debarring official determines that— ( 1 ) Your debarment is based upon a conviction or civil judgment;
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition contains only general denials to information contained in the Notice of Proposed Debarment; or
( 3 ) The issues raised in your presentation in opposition to the proposed debarment are not factual in nature, or are not material to the debarring official's decision whether to debar.
( b ) You will have an additional opportunity to challenge the facts if the debarring official determines that— ( 1 ) The conditions in paragraph (a) of this section do not exist; and
( 2 ) Your presentation in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the proposed debarment.
( c ) If you have an opportunity to challenge disputed material facts under this section, the debarring official or designee must conduct additional proceedings to resolve those facts.