alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James A. BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6157.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 18, 2002.

James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James A. Butler appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for clarification. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no *649reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Butler’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Butler,*No. CR-91-44 (E.D.Va. Jan. 16, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.2


                    Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002
      --------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HQ Sustainable  Maritime  Industries,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Jean-Pierre Dallaire,  Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: November 14, 2005

/s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire
------------------------
Jean-Pierre Dallaire,
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### § 26.2663-1 Recapture tax under section 2032A.

See § 26.2642-4(a)(4) for rules relating to the recomputation of the applicable fraction and the imposition of additional GST tax, if additional estate tax is imposed under section 2032A.
63

calculated to be 0.8833 pounds VOM per hour and 3.87 tons VOM per year. The 

detailed calculations are provided below.

Drums crushed per year = 350,400 (40 drums /hour, 8,760 hours/year

VOM Emission Factor Calculation for Drum Crusher

Emission Factor = Summation of Pounds VOM from Column I below 

= 0.0221 pounds per drum

Maximum rate of crushing = 40 drums per hour

Maximum VOM emission rate = 0.0221 x 40 = 0.8833 pounds VOM per hour

Maximum annual VOM rate = 0.8833 x 179 / 2,000 = 0.0790 tons VOM per 

year

Potential-To-Emit (PTE)

Emissions – Volatile Organic Material (VOM)

VOM Emission Factor Calculation for Drum Crusher

Emission Factor = Summation of Pounds VOM from Column I 

= 0.0221 pounds per drum

Maximum rate of crushing = 40 drums per hour

Maximum VOM emission rate = 0.0221 x 40 = 0.8833 pounds VOM per hour

Maximum annual VOM rate = 0.8833 x 8,760 / 2,000 = 3.87 tons VOM per 

year

PTE VOM emissions from drum crushing operations = 3.87 ton VOM/yr
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

The regulations contained in this part have been recodified in 46 CFR part 287.

#### § 2.1-25 Assessment and collection of deficiencies.

Any additional tax, including the 1.1 percent amount imposed by section 511(i) of the Act, due on account of withdrawal from a construction reserve fund, or failure to comply with section 511 of the Act or the regulations in this part, is collectible as a deficiency. Interest upon such deficiency will run from the date the withdrawal or noncompliance occurs. The amount of any deficiency, including interest and additions to the tax, determined as a result of such withdrawal or noncompliance, may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection thereof may be begun without assessment, at any time and without regard to any period of limitations or any other provisions of law or rule of law, including the doctrine of res judicata.
7/21/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­0849

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­0849

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:36 AM

To: Info@AtlantaDroneConsultants.com

Dear Mr. Sloane:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA­2015­0849).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

· Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required

by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual

and remove closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by

the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/4/2015. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­4264.

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.

FAA Office of Rulemaking
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 179 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 179

To express the sense of Congress that Buddhist monks and civilians and 
Roman Catholic monks and priests unlawfully detained by the Government 
        of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam should be released.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 1996

 Mr. Stockman submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To express the sense of Congress that Buddhist monks and civilians and 
Roman Catholic monks and priests unlawfully detained by the Government 
        of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam should be released.

Whereas twenty-three monks and lay Buddhists have been arrested since the end of 
        October 1994 by the authorities of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;
Whereas Roman Catholic priests and monks of the order of the Mother Coredemptrix 
        were arrested in 1987 and sentenced to long prison terms in 1988 on 
        charges of ``undermining the policy of unity'' and ``disruption of 
        public security'';
Whereas these arrests demonstrate a continuing repression of Buddhists and 
        Catholics in Vietnam and a flagrant disregard of Vietnam's voiced 
        commitment to religious liberty;
Whereas at least some of those arrested are prisoner of conscience, detained 
        solely for exercising their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of 
        religion;
Whereas there are currently at least thirty-six Buddhists in detention in 
        Vietnam;
Whereas some of those in detention have been imprisoned since the late 1970's 
        and early 1980's; and
Whereas the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church is imprisoned, as are 
        advocates of political reform and pluralism: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Congress that the Government 
of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam should immediately release all 
Buddhist monks and civilians and all Roman Catholic monks and priests 
currently being unlawfully detained in the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 .
  1.
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Date: May 9, 2007
    
    /s/ James R. RidingsJAMES R. RIDINGSChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
## Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) **Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP)**

**Membership Levels**



# Bronze Level Membership **To progress to bronze status:**  Applicant i nitiates membership by completi ng a n application and PESP Strategy

/ Progress Reporting Form (SPRF) with specific Integrated Pest Managment (IPM) measures
. **EPA:** Reviews the SPRF to ensure the pro spective member is promoting IPM before granting an applicant bronze status

.

**To progress to silver membership:**  Mem ber s ubmits a completed SPRF

. **EPA:** Reviews the SPRF and conducts screening results before granting silver status. The first SPRF will establish the organization’s baseline data.



# Silver Level Membership

**To progress to gold**  **membership :**  Members s ubmits a completed SPRF that articulates progress
on measures. **EPA:** Reviews the SPRF and performs compliance screening before granting gold status in the program. The second annual SPRF and subsequent annual SPRF reports are reviewed to determine sustained performance. The Agency also reviews members’ third party certifications to when made available to validate sustained excellence.



# Gold Level Membership
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFunding and Strategic Alignment Guidance for Infusing Small Business Innovation Research Technology into NASA Programs Associated with the Aeronautics Research Mission DirectorateThis report is intended to help NASA program and project managers incorporate Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) technologies that have gone through Phase II of the SBIR program into NASA Aeronautics and Mission Directorate (ARMD) programs. Other Government and commercial program managers can also find this information useful.Document ID20150019485Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNguyen, Hung D.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Steele, Gynelle C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 20, 2015Publication DateSeptember 1, 2015Subject CategoryAdministration And ManagementAeronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN21558NASA/TM-2015-218860E-19127Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 471296.01.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordssafety systemairspace operationsflight demonstrationsunmanned aerial integrationcommercial supersonicAvailable DownloadsNameType20150019485.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 31.3406(b)(2)-5 Reportable patronage dividend payment. ( a ) *Patronage dividends subject to backup withholding.* A payment of a kind, and to a payee, that is required to be reported under section 6044 (relating to returns regarding patronage dividends) is a reportable payment for purposes of section 3406. See § 31.6051-4 for the requirement to furnish a statement to the payee if tax is withheld under section 3406.
( b ) *Amount subject to backup withholding* — ( 1 ) *Failure to provide taxpayer identification number or notification of incorrect taxpayer identification number.* For purposes of sections 3406(a)(1) (A) and (B), the amount of a payment described in paragraph (a) of this section that is subject to withholding under section 3406 is the amount subject to reporting under section 6044, but only to the extent the payment is made in money. For purposes of this paragraph (b), *money* includes cash or a qualified check (as defined in section 1388(c)(4)).
( 2 ) *Notified payee underreporting or payee certification failure.* For purposes of sections 3406(a)(1) (C) and (D), the amount of a payment described in paragraph (a) of this section that is subject to withholding under section 3406 is the amount subject to withholding under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, but only if 50 percent or more of that reportable amount is paid in money. Thus, a payor is required to withhold according to this paragraph (b)(2) on a payment if— ( i ) There has been a notified payee underreporting described in section 3406(a)(1)(C) and § 31.3406(c)-1 or there has been a payee certification failure described in section 3406(a)(1)(D) and § 31.3406(d)-2;
( ii ) The payor makes a reportable payment subject to reporting under section 6044 to the payee; and
( iii ) Fifty percent or more of the payment is in cash or by qualified check.
[T.D. 8637, 60 FR 66117, Dec. 21, 1995]
#### Cosimo Venneri, Appellant, v Vincent Gallo, Defendant, and Philip Farinacci, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 555]

In an action to recover on promissory notes, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 10, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Philip Farinacci to vacate his default in answering the complaint and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Philip Farinacci moved to vacate his default in answering the complaint and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of his motion, Farinacci presented unrebutted evidence that the address at which service was made upon him pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) was not his “actual place of business” *(see Katz v Emmett,*226 AD2d 588, 589 [1996]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, inter alia, that Farinacci should be estopped from arguing that fact *(see Tahmisyan v City of New York,*295 AD2d 600, 601 [2002]). Thus, Farinacci’s motion was properly granted. Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 32 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 32

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Sikh nation should be 
allowed to exercise the right of self-determination in their homeland, 
                           Punjab, Khalistan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 1995

Mr. Pete Geren of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
     which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Sikh nation should be 
allowed to exercise the right of self-determination in their homeland, 
                           Punjab, Khalistan.

Whereas the Sikh nation declared independence on October 7, 1987;
Whereas freedom is universally recognized as the birthright of all nations;
Whereas self-determination is enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations 
        Charter;
Whereas the Sikhs ruled Punjab from 1765 until it was annexed by the British in 
        1849;
Whereas an independent Sikh homeland is economically, militarily, and 
        politically viable;
Whereas Khalistan will serve as a buffer state between India and Pakistan;
Whereas Sikhs are committed to the principles of freedom, justice, and 
        democracy; and
Whereas an independent Sikh nation will help spread democracy and economic 
        prosperity throughout all of South Asia: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Sikhs of Khalistan have 
the right to self-determination in their homeland, Punjab, Khalistan.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                    This  schedule   contains  summary   financial   information
                    extracted from the Balance  Sheet,  Statements of Operations
                    and  Statements  of  Cash  Flows,  and is  qualified  in its
                    entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000856143
<NAME>                        BCAM International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.000
<CASH>                                            32,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  54,000
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   227,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            809,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         261,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      (843,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     227,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    439,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 4,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (443,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (443,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   997,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     554,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.02)



</TABLE>
#### Barton v. Johnson, etc.

*Thomas C. Cochran, Jr.,*for exceptant.

*Roger B. Johnson,*contra.

April 30, 1953.

Rowley, P. J.,

This matter is before the court upon defendant’s exceptions to the prothonotary’s allowance of witness fee and mileage to plaintiff’s witness, Frank Katz.

The witness Katz was an employe of plaintiff. He attended the suit, testified and was cross-examined. It is stipulated by opposing counsel that the usually traveled shortest route from Alexandria, Va., residence of witness, to Mercer and return is 600 miles.

Exceptant rests his complaint upon the fact that the witness was not subpoenaed. He cites the Act of July 21, 1941, P. L. 425, 28 PS §416.1, which defines a witness as follows:

*364“The word ‘witness’ as used in this Act means a witness subpoenaed to testify before (a) any court of record, or (b) any department, board, commission or legislative body of the state government or any municipality, or (c) any officer or committee of, or appointed by, any such court, department, board, commission or legislative body.”

In Walter v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 151 Pa. Superior Ct. 80, the court declined to rule the question whether one who appears without subpoena but testifies is entitled to a witness fee to be taxed against the losing party.

In Fife v. The Great A. & P. Tea Company, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 110, one question was whether a witness who testified but was not subpoenaed was entitled to have his fees taxed against the losing party. The court declined to decide the point but observed: “The items taxed are not without color of law.”

We believe the instant question is simple of solution. The trial court has supervision of the taxation of costs. This affords the party liable for costs an opportunity to show that witnesses taxed did not attend or did not testify or were not material. We have no hesitation in holding that witnesses who attend, without subpoena, and testify are presumably material witnesses. The losing party may question that they were material and necessary and in that case the court, in a clear case, may decide that they were not material to the cause of the party who subpoenaed them. Subject to this qualification, a witness who appears and testifies earns the right to have his fee taxed as part of the costs.

Service of a subpoena by a party to a suit affords no assurance to the opposite party that the witness subpoenaed is material. If the witness attends but does not testify the opposite party may challenge the necessity of his attendance whether subpoenaed or not, *365Consequently, the losing party is not prejudiced by failure of the prevailing party to cause a subpoena to be served upon the latter’s witnesses.

For the reasons hereinbefore set forth, we enter the following

*Order*

And now, April 30, 1953, this matter came on for argument upon defendant’s exceptions to the costs as taxed by the prothonotary, and same was argued, whereupon after due consideration, it is ordered,, adjudged and decreed that the exceptions be dismissed and that the costs as taxed by the prothonotary be approved.