alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 200.454 Memberships, subscriptions, and professional activity costs. ( a ) Costs of the non-Federal entity's membership in business, technical, and professional organizations are allowable.
( b ) Costs of the non-Federal entity's subscriptions to business, professional, and technical periodicals are allowable.
( c ) Costs of membership in any civic or community organization are allowable with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity.
( d ) Costs of membership in any country club or social or dining club or organization are unallowable.
( e ) Costs of membership in organizations whose primary purpose is lobbying are unallowable. See also § 200.450.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 85 FR 49569, Aug. 13, 2020]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6272** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. HASSAN GENELL HINES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00323

- BO

- 1; 5:11

- cv - 00337

- BO )

Submitted : April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Hassan Genell Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hassan Genell Hines seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order s denying his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion and denying reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge i ssues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- E l v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hines has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE POPE &
TALBOT, INC. CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          36,419
<SECURITIES>                                     8,231
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,920
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     68,860
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,571
<PP&E>                                         466,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                 260,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 418,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,110
<BONDS>                                        108,174
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,972
<OTHER-SE>                                     170,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   418,167
<SALES>                                        333,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               333,615
<CGS>                                          314,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  314,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       190
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,110
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
ODP Information Bulletin

No. 57 June 17, 2002

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads

All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact

FROM: Andrew T. Mitchell

Acting Director

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2002 Approved Equipment List Equipment Cost Estimates

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) is pleased to provide

the attached list of equipment cost estimates as a planning tool to assist states in completing their

applications for funding under the FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Program. These estimates

were developed through surveys of vendors for equipment in each of the following categories: 

• Personal Protective Equipment

• Explosive Device Mitigation and Remediation

• WMD Technical Rescue Equipment

• Interoperable Communications Equipment

• Detection Equipment

• Decontamination Equipment

• Physical Security Enhancement Equipment

• General Support Equipment

• Medical Supplies and Pharmaceuticals

If you have any questions regarding the FY 2002 Approved Equipment List, the attached list of cost

estimates or the grant process in general, please contact your ODP Program Manager.
Yuneec Q500 Typhoon

1 | Page

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

o Flight Time

Up to 25 Minutes

o Height

240mm (9.45 in)

o Width

420mm (16.54 in)

o Diagonal Length Without Rotor Blades

565mm (22.2 in)

o Propeller/Main Rotor Diameter

330mm (13.0 in)

o Weight Without Battery and Payload

1130g (40.0 oz)

o Battery

5400mAh 3S 11.1V LiPo (included)

o Charger

3S 11.1V LiPo DC Balancing Smart Charger with AC Adapter (included)

o Transmitter

10-channel 2.4GHz with 5.8GHz video downlink (included)

o 3 Flight Modes

Smart, Angle and Home Modes

o Maximum Flying Height

Default 400 Feet Above Ground Level (Adjustable via the Q500 GUI)

o Maximum Rotational Velocity

65°/s

o Maximum Bank Angle

35°

o Maximum Climb Rate in Smart and Angle mode

3m/s

o Maximum Descent Rate in Smart and Angle mode

2m/s

o Takeoff Weight With Battery and CGO2-GB

1700g (60.0 oz)

o Radio Control Frequency Band

2.4GHz
Yuneec Q500 Typhoon

2 | Page

x CGO2-GB Camera Gimbal System

o Focusing System

Aerial Optimized Fixed Focus

o Video Resolution

FULL HD 1080p - Adjustable 60, 50 or 48 FPS

o Photo Resolution

12 Megapixels

o Video Field of View

130°

o Control Angle Accuracy

±0.02°

o White Balance

Automatic Smart White Balance Feature

o Transmission Band

5.8GHz

o Input/Operating Voltage

7.0V to 14.0V DC

o Video Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions)

FCC Compliance: Up to 600m (1968.5 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 

ft) with ST10 Warning: You Must Follow Local Laws and Maintain Visual Line 

of Sight of Aircraft at All Times.

o Current Consumption/Operating Current

500mA (average) to 600mA (peak) @ 12.0V (7.2W max)

o Storage Temperature

-20°C-60°C

o Working Temperature

0°C-50°C

o Storage (memory)

microSD Class 10 ~ 4 to 128GB

o Height

115mm (4.5 in)

o Weight

185g (6.5 oz)

o Depth

135mm (1.4 in)

o Width

74mm (2.9 in)
Yuneec Q500 Typhoon

3 | Page

x ST10 Personal Ground Station

o Operating System

AndroidTM

o Number of Channels

10

o Control Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions)

FCC Compliance: Up to 800m (2624.67 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 400m (1312.34 

ft) Warning: You Must Follow Local Laws and Maintain Visual Line of Sight of 

Aircraft at All Times.

o Robust Radio Control Modulation

Yuneec Protocol

o Video link Frequency Band

5.8GHz

o Video Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions)

FCC Compliance: Up to 600m (1968.5 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 

ft) Warning: You Must Follow Local Laws and Maintain Visual Line of Sight of 

Aircraft at All Times.

o Flight Systems Telemetry Data On Screen Display (OSD)

Yes

o LED Backlit LCD Screen

Capacitive Multi-Touch 4.5”

o Tactile (Vibrating) and Audible Feedback

Yes

o Built-In LiPo Battery Voltage / Capacity

3.6V/5200mAh 18.72Wh

o Charger

Auto-Charge Mode via Micro-B USB Cable with AC to 5V DC USB Power 

Supply (Included)
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.38


                  THIRD AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL LOAN AGREEMENT

       THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") dated as of May 15, 2003, is entered into
by and among NORTHLAND CABLE PROPERTIES SEVEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("NCP-7"),
and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. as Agent ("Agent") and the Banks defined in that
certain Commercial Loan Agreement dated December 1, 1997.

RECITALS

      A. The parties hereto have entered into that Commercial Loan Agreement
dated December 1, 1997 as subsequently amended (the "Agreement"). Capitalized
terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given in
this Agreement.

      B. The parties hereto now desire to amend certain terms and conditions
contained in the Credit Agreement.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Section 1.01. Section 7.7(b) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:

Minimum Subscribers. NCP-7 shall maintain at least 21,900 subscribers.

Section 1.02. Effectiveness. This Amendment is effective as of March 31, 2003.

Section 1.03. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of
which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which taken
together shall constitute one and the same Amendment.

Section 1.04. Ratification. Except as expressly modified by the foregoing, the
terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement are hereby ratified and reaffirmed
by the parties hereto and shall continue in full force and effect.

      ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT, OR TO
FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER WASHINGTON
LAW.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective officers or agents thereunto duly authorized as of
the date first written above.

BORROWER:

NORTHLAND CABLE PROPERTIES SEVEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited
Partnership

By:  Northland Communications Corporation, Managing General Partner

By:  /s/ Gary S. Jones
----------------------
Title: President


<PAGE>


BANKS:

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

By:  /s/ JANET SLEEPER
     -----------------
Title:  Vice President

BANK ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

By: /s/ HENRY W. HOWE
Title: AVP

BANK OF MONTREAL, CHICAGO BRANCH

By: /s/ HEATHER TURF
    ----------------
Title:  Vice President



                     CONSENT OF NORTHLAND COMMUNICATIONS

The undersigned acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Third Amendment to that
certain Commercial Loan Agreement dated December 1, 1997, between Northland
Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and Bank of America, N.A.,
attached hereto, and consents to its contents.

Dated:  May 15, 2003

NORTHLAND COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation

By:  /s/ GARY S. JONES
     -----------------
Title:  President


AGENT:

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

By: /s/ KEN PURO
    -----------------
Title:  Vice President
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7331

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RYAN MELVIN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 4:16

- cr - 00056

- RAJ

- LRL

- 1 )

Submitted : December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ryan Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7331 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Ryan Melvin appeals the distric t court’s order s denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and denying reconsideration. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for
abuse of discretion

. See United States v. Kibbl e , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. The court denied Melvin’s motion after discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion ) . We
therefore affirm the distric t court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7331 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
#### § 2.19 Methods of analysis.

Where the method of analysis is not prescribed in a regulation, it is the policy of the Food and Drug Administration in its enforcement programs to utilize the methods of analysis of the AOAC INTERNATIONAL (AOAC) as published in the latest edition (13th Ed., 1980) of their publication “Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,” and the supplements thereto (“Changes in Methods” as published in the March issues of the “Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists”), which are incorporated by reference, when available and applicable. Copies are available from the AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* In the absence of an AOAC method, the Commissioner will furnish a copy of the particular method, or a reference to the published method, that the Food and Drug Administration will use in its enforcement program. Other methods may be used for quality control, specifications, contracts, surveys, and similar nonregulatory functions, but it is expected that they will be calibrated in terms of the method which the Food and Drug Administration uses in its enforcement program. Use of an AOAC method does not relieve the practioner of the responsibility to demonstrate that he can perform the method properly through the use of positive and negative controls and recovery and reproducibility studies.

[42 FR 15559, Mar. 22, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 946, Jan. 8, 1982; 54 FR 9034, Mar. 3, 1989; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005]
June 10, 2015 

 

 

Mr. Brian Hensley 

5574 Salem Square Drive 

Palm Harbor, FL 34685 

Dear Mr. Hensley: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 19, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1791), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 957 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 957

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 27, 2006.
    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. REPAIR OF MACE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    (a) Delivery for Repair.--The Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
Representatives is authorized and directed, on behalf of the House of 
Representatives, to deliver the mace of the House of Representatives, following 
an adjournment of the House pursuant to concurrent resolution, to the Secretary 
of the Smithsonian Institution only for the purpose of having necessary repairs 
made to the mace and under such circumstances as will assure that the mace is 
properly safeguarded.
    (b) Return.--The mace shall be returned to the House of Representatives 
before noon on the day before the House next reconvenes pursuant to concurrent 
resolution or at any sooner time when so directed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-KSB into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements No. 333-4386 and 333-2190.



                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Seattle, Washington
June 17, 1999
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 5, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20953

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC LEE EVANS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-29-ALL

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

Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Lee Evans appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 

Evans argues that, in light of United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court erred in sentencing him

under a mandatory guidelines system and in sentencing him based

upon facts that were not admitted by him or found by a jury.
No. 04-20953

-2-

The two-level adjustment to Evans’s sentence pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) violated his Sixth Amendment right to a

trial by jury, and the Government has not carried its burden of

demonstrating that the error was harmless. See United States v.

Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376-77 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

Evans’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR

RESENTENCING. Because it is necessary to vacate Evans’s sentence

based upon the Sixth Amendment Booker error, we do not address

Evans’s argument that his sentencing pursuant to a mandatory

guidelines scheme constitutes reversible error. See Akpan, 407

F.3d at 377 n.62. 

 VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
§ 146.137 Frozen orange juice. ( a ) Frozen orange juice is orange juice as defined in § 146.135, except that it is frozen.
( b ) The name of the food is “Frozen orange juice”. Such name may be preceded on the label by the varietal name of the oranges used, and if the oranges grew in a single State, the name of such State may be included in the name, as for example, “California Valencia frozen orange juice”.