alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1301.44 Burden of proof. ( a ) At any hearing on an application to manufacture any controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, the applicant shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such registration pursuant to section 303(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 823(a)) are satisfied. Any other person participating in the hearing pursuant to § 1301.35(b) shall have the burden of proving any propositions of fact or law asserted by such person in the hearing.
( b ) At any hearing on the granting or denial of an applicant to be registered to conduct a narcotic treatment program or as a compounder, the applicant shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for each registration pursuant to section 303(g) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)) are satisfied.
( c ) At any hearing on the granting or denial of an application to be registered to import or export any controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, the applicant shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such registration pursuant to sections 1008(a) and (d) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 958 (a) and (d)) are satisfied. Any other person participating in the hearing pursuant to § 1301.34 shall have the burden of proving any propositions of fact or law asserted by him/her in the hearings.
( d ) At any other hearing for the denial of a registration, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such registration pursuant to section 303 or section 1008(c) and (d) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 823 or 958(c) and (d)) are not satisfied.
( e ) At any hearing for the revocation or suspension of a registration, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation or suspension pursuant to section 304(a) or section 1008(d) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 824(a) or 958(d)) are satisfied.
[62 FR 13956, Mar. 24, 1997]
#### § 3373.225 Whom in the NEH does a recipient other than an individual notify about a criminal drug conviction?

A recipient other than an individual that is required under 2 CFR 182.225(a) to notify Federal agencies about an employee's conviction for a criminal drug offense must notify the Director, Office of Grant Management, NEH.
Summary of Interagency working comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 and EO 13563 

review. Subject to further policy review. 

1

Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 12866 and EO 13563 review of the 

draft final rule establishing GHG emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy 

duty trucks. They are for your consideration and subject to further policy review. 

1) Interagency commenter requests the following insert for Section 6-2 of the RIA (Please insert 

after 1st ¶): 

The agencies also analyzed each alternative relative to an alternate baseline—EIA’s AEO forecast 

projection of future new truck performance absent regulation. This baseline provides another 

measure of the impacts of the standards and the alternatives. The agencies were not able to fully 

analyze the net benefits of the rule under this baseline because we do not have access to the 

underlying cost assumptions of EIA’s model. However, Table 6-20a presents estimated CO2 and oil 

reductions for the rule and the alternatives, relative to EIA projections of what would occur without 

the new regulation. 

Table 6-20a: Annual CO2 and Oil Reductions Relative to the AEO 2011 Projections 

  

DOWNSTREAM

CO2 REDUCTIONS

(MMT)

OIL REDUCTIONS

(BILLION

GALLONS)

   2030 2050 2030 2050

Alt. 2 Less Stringent‐‐ Total 15 ‐12 1.5 ‐1.3

Tractors 13 ‐14 1.3 ‐1.3

HD Pickup Trucks ‐2 ‐5 ‐0.1 ‐0.5

Vocational Vehicles 4 5 0.3 0.5

              

Alt. 3 Preferred‐‐ Total 22 ‐2 2.1 ‐0.3

Tractors 16 ‐10 1.5 ‐0.9

HD Pickup Trucks ‐1 ‐3 0 ‐0.4

Vocational Vehicles 6 9 0.6 0.9

              

Alt. 4 More Stringent‐ Total 35 17 3.5 1.7

Tractors 24 1 2.3 0.2

HD Pickup Trucks 1 ‐1 0.1 ‐0.1

Vocational Vehicles 10 16 1 1.6

              

Alt. 5 Max Technology‐ 

Total 60 56 5.9 5.5

Tractors 32 12 3.1 1.2

HD Pickup Trucks 6 8 0.7 0.8

Vocational Vehicles 22 35 2.1 3.4
Summary of Interagency working comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 and EO 13563 

review. Subject to further policy review. 

2

2) Section I.G. “O. G. Future HD GHG and Fuel Consumption Rulemakings”. Interagency 

commenters note that this section does not address additional flexibility in future rulemakings. 

Will agencies add language to this section to indicate there will be additional flexibility in 

averaging, banking, and trading?
|  | Ground Water & Drinking WaterRecent Additions | Contact Us | Print 										Version 										Search: 										EPA Home >					 Water > 					Ground Water & Drinking Water >					National                     Primary Drinking Water Regulations - Inorganic Chemicals |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| NATIONAL PRIMARY        DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
**Contaminant Specific Fact Sheets****Inorganic Chemicals - Consumer Version**
EPA 811-F-95-002-C            October 1995
To see the most current health effects information for each of these         contaminants, please visit          www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html.
AsbestosLeadBariumCopperCadmiumAntimonyChromiumBerylliumMercuryCyanideNitrates/NitritesNickelSeleniumThallium |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                |  | Safewater Home | 	  About Our Office | 	  Publications | 	  Calendar | 	  Links | 	  Office of Water | 	  En Español |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                           |
|                                                                |
| EPA Home | 			Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us

  |
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33061]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Application and Renewal Fees Imposed on Surety Companies and 
Reinsuring Companies Increase in Fees Imposed

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Application and Renewal Fees Imposed on Surety Companies and 
Reinsuring Companies Increase in Fees Imposed.

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

SUMMARY: Effective December 31, 2010, The Department of the Treasury, 
Financial Management Service, is increasing the fees it imposes on and 
collects from surety companies and reinsuring companies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fees imposed and collected, as referred 
to in 31 CFR 223.22, cover the costs incurred by the Government for 
services performed relative to qualifying corporate sureties to write 
Federal business. These fees are determined in accordance with the 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, as amended. The change 
in fees is the result of a thorough analysis of costs associated with 
the Surety Bond Branch.
    The new fee rate schedule is as follows:
    (1) Examination of a company's application for a Certificate of 
Authority as an acceptable surety or as an acceptable reinsuring 
company on Federal bonds--$9,300.
    (2) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 
renewal of its Certificate of Authority--$5,450.
    (3) Examination of a company's application for recognition as an 
Admitted Reinsurer (except on excess risks running to the United 
States)--$3,275.
    (4) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 
renewal of its authority as an Admitted Reinsurer--$2,325.
    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to the Surety 
Bond Branch, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service, Department of the Treasury, 3700 East West Highway, 
Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782, Telephone (202) 874-6850.

    Dated: December 27, 2010.
Linda S. Kimberling,
Assistant Commissioner for Management (CFO), Financial Management 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-33061 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION

I, Brenda G. Gujral, President, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inland Monthly Income Fund, L.P.;

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report.

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

> - designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
- evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
- disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> - all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
- any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.140 Under this subpart, what requirements apply regarding records? ( a ) You must establish and keep records required under this subpart in accordance with the requirements of subpart O of this part.
( b ) You must establish and keep documentation of the date and method of cleaning and sanitizing of equipment subject to this subpart used in: ( 1 ) Growing operations for sprouts; and
( 2 ) Covered harvesting, packing, or holding activities.
#### § 1307.01 Definitions.

Any term contained in this part shall have the definition set forth in section 102 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or part 1300 of this chapter.

[62 FR 13966, Mar. 24, 1997]
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.

July 30, 2013

d0722 

# Order

Clerk July 30, 2013

146634

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146634

COA: 311583

St. Clair CC: 02

- 000488

- FC

ERIC ANDREW GARDNER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, be cause the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### § 113.10 Personnel.

The operators of processing systems, retorts, aseptic processing and packaging systems and product formulating systems (including systems wherein water activity is used in conjunction with thermal processing) and container closure inspectors shall be under the operating supervision of a person who has attended a school approved by the Commissioner for giving instruction appropriate to the preservation technology involved and who has been identified by that school as having satisfactorily completed the prescribed course of instruction. This person shall supervise only in those areas for which a school approved by the Commissioner identifies the person as having satisfactorily completed training.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 991 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 991

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 28, 2006.
Whereas on Monday, August 28, 2006, the Columbus Northern Little League baseball 
        team from Columbus, Georgia, defeated the Japanese Little League team by 
        a score of 2-1 to win the 2006 Little League World Series Championship 
        at South Williamsport, Pennsylvania;
Whereas, although Columbus Northern had taken 1 loss in the series, they did not 
        give up, and although the Championship game was delayed a day by rain, 
        the Columbus Northern team still kept pressing hard to come from behind 
        to win the Championship game;
Whereas a team from the State of Georgia had not won the world title in more 
        than 20 years;
Whereas the 2006 Columbus Northern Little League World Championship team 
        consists of players Kyle Carter, Brady Hamilton, Matthew Hollis, Matthew 
        Kuhlenberg, Josh Lester, Ryan Lang, Mason Meyers, J.T. Phillips, Kyle 
        Rovig, Patrick Stallings, and Cody Walker;
Whereas the 2006 Columbus Northern Little League World Championship team is led 
        by Coach Richard Carter, Manager Randy Morris, Team Mother Lynne 
        Phillips, and President Curt Thompson;
Whereas the championship victory of the Columbus Northern Little League Baseball 
        Team sets an example of sportsmanship, dedication, and a ``never give 
        up'' spirit for men and women all across the country; and
Whereas the achievement of the Columbus Northern Little League Baseball Team is 
        the cause of enormous pride for the Nation, the State of Georgia, and 
        the city of Columbus: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives congratulates the Columbus 
Northern Little League Baseball Team from Columbus, Georgia, on its victory in 
the 2006 Little League World Series Championship games.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Editorial Note on Part 177
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 177 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 177.1340 Ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer resins. Ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer resins may be safely used as articles or components of articles intended for use in contact with food, in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) For the purpose of this section, the ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer resins consist of basic copolymers produced by the copolymerization of ethylene and methyl acrylate such that the copolymers contain no more than 25 weight percent of polymer units derived from methyl acrylate.
( b ) The finished food-contact article, when extracted with the solvent or solvents characterizing the type of food and under the conditions of time and temperature characterizing the conditions of its intended use as determined from tables 1 and 2 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter, yields net chloroform-soluble extractives (corrected for zinc extractives as zinc oleate) in each extracting solvent not to exceed 0.5 milligram per square inch of food-contact surface when tested by the methods described in § 176.170(d) of this chapter. If the finished food-contact article is itself the subject of a regulation in parts 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 and § 179.45 of this chapter, it shall also comply with any specifications and limitations prescribed for it by that regulation. Note:
In testing the finished food-contact article, use a separate test sample for each required extracting solvent.
( c ) The provisions of this section are not applicable to ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer resins used in food-packaging adhesives complying with § 175.105 of this chapter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sam Jiggetts, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 17,1967, affirmed. No opinion. Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 11, 1967, dismissed. An order denying a motion for reargument is not appealable. Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 24, 1967, affirmed. Contrary to the People’s argument, an order denying a motion for resentence pursuant to section 1943 of the former Penal Law is appealable *(People*v. *Machado,*17 N Y 2d 440; *People*v. *Jones,*25 A D 2d 675). Accordingly, we have determined this appeal on the merits. Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo117556 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
§ 133.174 Pasteurized process cheese food with fruits, vegetables, or meats. ( a ) Pasteurized process cheese food with fruits, vegetables, or meats, or mixtures of these is the food which conforms to the definition and standard of identity, and is subject to the requirements for label statement of ingredients, prescribed for pasteurized process cheese food by § 133.173, except that: ( 1 ) Its milk fat content is not less than 22 percent.
( 2 ) It contains one or any mixture of two or more of the following: Any properly prepared cooked, canned, or dried fruit; any properly prepared cooked, canned, or dried vegetable; any properly prepared cooked or canned meat.
( 3 ) When the added fruits, vegetables, or meats contain fat, the method prescribed for the determination of fat by § 133.5(b) is not applicable.
( b ) The name of a pasteurized process cheese food with fruits, vegetables, or meats is “Pasteurized process cheese food with ______”, the blank being filled in with the common or usual name or names of the fruits, vegetables, or meats used, in order of predominance by weight.
( c ) If the only vegetable ingredient is pimento, and no meat or fruit ingredient is used, the weight of the solids of such pimentos is not less than 0.2 percent of the weight of the finished food. The name of this food is “Pimento pasteurized process cheese food” or “Pasteurized process pimento cheese food”.
[42 FR 14366, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 10095, Mar. 19, 1984; 58 FR 2894, Jan. 6, 1993]
§ 1301.23 Exemption of certain military and other personnel. ( a ) The requirement of registration is waived for any official of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, Public Health Service, or Bureau of Prisons who is authorized to prescribe, dispense, or administer, but not to procure or purchase, controlled substances in the course of his/her official duties. Such officials shall follow procedures set forth in part 1306 of this chapter regarding prescriptions, but shall state the branch of service or agency (*e.g.,* “U.S. Army” or “Public Health Service”) and the service identification number of the issuing official in lieu of the registration number required on prescription forms. The service identification number for a Public Health Service employee is his/her Social Security identification number.
( b ) The requirement of registration is waived for any official or agency of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, or Public Health Service who or which is authorized to import or export controlled substances in the course of his/her official duties.
( c ) If any official exempted by this section also engages as a private individual in any activity or group of activities for which registration is required, such official shall obtain a registration for such private activities.
[62 FR 13951, Mar. 24, 1997, as amended at 86 FR 51822, Sept. 17, 2021]
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Hutton Investors Futures Fund L.P. II (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                        |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership. |

/s/David J. Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

Date: November 14,2005

----