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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [LLIDT000000.L11200000.DD0000.241A.00] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will attend a tour as indicated below. 

# DATES:

September 16, 2009. The Twin Falls District RAC meeting will begin at 9 a.m. (MST) and end no later than 4 p.m. at the Ameritel Inn in Twin Falls, Idaho, located at 539 Poleline Road. The public comment period for the RAC meeting will take place 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, (208) 736-2352. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During this meeting, the Twin Falls District RAC members will discuss joint Resource Advisory Council meetings, the fire/fuels team report, and energy projects within the Twin Falls District. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements. More information is available at                     *http://www.blm.gov/​id/​st/​en/​res/​resource_​advisory.3.html.*

RAC meetings are open to the public. For further information about the meeting, please contact Heather Tiel-Nelson, Public Affairs Specialist for the Twin Falls District, BLM at (208) 736-2352 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Jenifer Arnold, 

District Manager (Acting).

[FR Doc. E9-19176 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
# L_2019140DE.01015301.xml

| 28.5.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 140/153 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 140/153

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2019/85 des Rates vom 21. Januar 2019 zur Durchführung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 36/2012 über restriktive Maßnahmen angesichts der Lage in Syrien

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 18I vom 21. Januar 2019
  )

Seite 7, Zeile 271, Spalte 1 „Name“

Anstatt:

„Khaled al-Zubaidi

(alias (Mohammed)

Khaled/Khalid (Bassam)

(al-) Zubaidi/Zubed
  Image 1
  )“

muss es heißen:

„Khaled al-Zubaidi

(alias (Mohammed)

Khaled/Khalid (Bassam)

(al-) Zubaidi/Zubedi
  Image 2
  )“.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Shegog, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 764]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise an issue on direct appeal that would have resulted in reversal, specifically, that trial counsel took an adverse position to defendant’s pro se CPL 330.30 motion. Upon our review of the trial court proceedings, we conclude that the issue may have merit. Therefore, the order of November 15, 1989 is vacated and this Court will consider the appeal de novo *(see People v Vasquez,*70 NY2d 1 [1987], *rearg denied*70 NY2d 748 [1987]; *1159
      *People v LeFrois,*151 AD2d 1046 [1989]). Defendant is directed to file and serve his records and briefs with this Court on or before January 9, 2006. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
• r\: . . D ·, I I ('", @ ~W~N~~_nt~,~MM=S~----------~~----------~--~--~-----

, ·_:,_b_O 1 SPI/lR ~4_1 tJor A ~ocrl£)~-------c--------;--------

. _AMC'Itz.'llo_ ~x:ct$ Re~b(,'c,_[_Ns_o~~ J-.3 .1.o::r_:_9_bD.Q. _____ -D-----=-, e=->' 1C=ilE ....... · \t'f.l~~e~o\1-~\~N~,~---· --'----- ----------~-----------------'-------.-~n~,.."'~~~N~L~\'P~~ --~ tOUR' "''' t"'f'l-

. To_:_Aiool A~('/dfA/Ccv.!?-.+cl(:~tb..----,--. ________ --cAP-R 0) 2n'5 

___ :r~5>_:.CeJ\,\;\'L ~ _·of?_(R,'M•'t-~ a-.l Alf-~,.\ls Ab®l-Acosta~~wsl®ft.lj"~,.____ ____ __ 

~·~f-tleJ1~ted1QI.tJ,_·~-· ---------,---------~---­

- ~~-&~-1~3~_---~~--------------~------ . 

. . Aw:.i,'~ T~~~-r.<t_._t-~ti:-=::..__ ______________ ----J;~~bl' . e<-. . lM--·----;-, _---

.. ·_ Se-:\,JI(. -~<&/114 -o3 · ooua!'orrcRmtiN~l-~?P~ · 

TR~tA.I· ~t'd- c~sg_~_o_:_io_s.G_etl s-' APR 0 9 2015 ' 

--~ _______ __:__ ____ ~---.~-~"""-mt-'=---~-

• Pea~ ~~<-+ ~1.~~ --------------~----------'-------___...,------'-~--

-

_·_-:r;_ l,.QJle..c": gr_ge_ee/ved_~a. /&~NS~ ~ T'1¥_:_!Lgwkf_ck-/.eJ_~c6~2t9 J.0:1.5 ab~t. /he · -

s&-&s_af_ IAe_a/:;~JLLW/l.l 'L&-£h~kruJ~.s.,_ld&hlllYIIJPielt-j-LfAJB15_M_te~e 5_e~. {me NeVe/l J(ffe-/~ 

<;,-._eetp.j-rf-/k's~®R.-I:LCfJNlatJ/~Ne>lf_-/h_~lJLl~.ile# Ode/e {;_;e!_/b.e_a_We_c~s.e_L/Ltt/!7_6&:.. -!;n &_. 

_bak~_CJ2&f-1t15_o-:-fgutG_&s~fJ_hZ!tr-s~lh~:_;}yg#!kf_t'Mt/.S_-Jh.e_al.l/_ly_~b_f:e _:z-&eel ~d' lkM IJL! 

_CrLIAfl 4, - - · · -

. · I{' ~iMuauld-:JPv._plfNe_~ruJ_me KCOf:f~o£/!us_eu.tAtJ.{ w&;/b; C?f)vlo)!/. ~~~~' '/letJ · 

_{!gd_e_fL_kted.t1oR-cl~_4 _;z~J.-~~:f!erz lhf':_~hoVe_CoiAse/LJn,_iAJn;f!_~LJ.--r. 7h~~~~~ ~ -j'?M~~ _tudVe'tlvee. {;_!?. . 

· -!J1-u1z_tz'Me-_(jj&cl~heAJee ,!:V_/6/s~&P!I*/C, . 

--~----~------------------~------------~~fief:~-~----~-- -.~~-

/. ·. "
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 156 (Friday, August 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19491]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review; 
Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration published a document in the 
Federal Register of August 10, 2009, concerning Reporting and 
Recordkeeping Requirements. The document contained an incorrect title.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curtis Rich, 202-205-7030.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 10, 2009, FR document E9-19013, 
Volume 74, Number 152, page 39991, under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
``Title'' should read:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Information for Small Business Size Determination.

    Dated: August 10, 2009.
Curtis B. Rich,
Acting, Chief Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-19491 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

#### § 10.74 Transcript.

In cases where the hearing is stenographically reported by a Government contract reporter, copies of the transcript may be obtained from the reporter at rates not to exceed the maximum rates fixed by contract between the Government and the reporter. Where the hearing is stenographically reported by a regular employee of the Internal Revenue Service, a copy will be supplied to the respondent either without charge or upon the payment of a reasonable fee. Copies of exhibits introduced at the hearing or at the taking of depositions will be supplied to the parties upon the payment of a reasonable fee (Sec. 501, Public Law 82-137)(65 Stat. 290)(31 U.S.C. 483a).
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 102

To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt pesticide rinse water

degradation systems from subtitle C permit requirements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt pesticide

rinse water degradation systems from subtitle C permit

requirements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM SUBTITLE C PERMIT RE4 QUIREMENT FOR PESTICIDE RINSE WATER

5 DEGRADATION SYSTEMS.

6 Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42

7 U.S.C. 6925) is amended by adding at the end the follow8 ing new subsection:

9 ‘‘(k) PESTICIDE RINSE WATER DEGRADATION SYS10 TEMS.—(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section,
2

HR 102 IH

1 any person owning or operating a pesticide rinse water

2 degradation system that meets the criteria set forth in

3 paragraph (2) is not subject to the requirement to obtain

4 a permit under this section for the treatment or disposal

5 of pesticide rinse water in such system.

6 ‘‘(2) To qualify for the exemption under paragraph

7 (1), a pesticide rinse water degradation system must meet

8 the following criteria:

9 ‘‘(A) The system uses evaporation and biologi10 cal degradation to treat or dispose of pesticide rinse

11 water.

12 ‘‘(B) The system contains an above-ground

13 tank or double-walled tank that can be inspected for

14 leaks and that is a tank within the meaning of such

15 term as used in this subtitle or the regulations pro16 mulgated under this subtitle.

17 ‘‘(C) The system includes a secondary contain18 ment system capable of collecting and containing

19 any leaks from the tank.

20 ‘‘(D) There is no discharge of fluid from the

21 system.

22 ‘‘(E) The system, including the secondary con23 tainment system, is protected from rainfall.

24 ‘‘(F) When the system is dismantled or any ma25 trix or media used in the tank is replaced, if the ma-
3

HR 102 IH

1 trix or media contains any hazardous waste, the ma2 trix or media is treated, stored, or disposed of in ac3 cordance with this subtitle and regulations promul4 gated under this subtitle.

5 ‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘pes6 ticide rinse water degradation system’ means a system for

7 treating or disposing of water used to rinse pesticide appli8 cation equipment.

9 ‘‘(4) This subsection shall apply with respect to pes10 ticide rinse water degradation systems in operation as of

11 January 1, 1987.’’.

Æ
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Supportingrailroad roadway worker communications with a wireless handheld computer, finalreport**
 
Volumes: One | Two
 
SuDoc Number:TD 3.15:04/13/V.1-2
Item Number:0701-C-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000866768
 
December 27, 2017
#### Corey Coleman GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard Chris WHITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-15908.

D.C. No. CV-01-01105-SI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*916Submitted June 10, 2002 *.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Corey Coleman Gray, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), his request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Tierney v. Kupers,*128 F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Gray leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his action because Gray had previously filed three or more actions that were frivolous or failed to state a claim for relief, and he did not allege that he was in imminent danger of serious physical harm in the instant action. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *Tierney,*128 F.3d at 1311-12.

We decline to consider Gray’s remaining contentions and we deny Gray’s pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### § 1024.530 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Buckner, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 619]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J), rendered December 4, 2003, convicting him of murder in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a jury charge on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). The defendant presented no psychiatric evidence, claimed that he was innocent, and submitted no evidence indicating that he was suffering from emotional distress *(see People v*Smith, 1 NY3d 610, 612 [2004]; *People v Roche,*98 NY2d 70, 76 [2002]; *People v White,*79 NY2d 900 [1992]; *People v Harris,*109 AD2d 351, 362 [1985]). Even when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence merely established that the defendant was angry or upset, but not that he had lost self-control *(see People v Walker,*64 NY2d 741, 743 [1984]; *People v McDonald,*199 AD2d 420 [1993]). Thus, any finding by the jury that the defendant suffered from extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killings would have been pure speculation *(see People v Roche, supra*at 76). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
To:

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: email from Dr Annesi-Maesano - Data (units) Clarification

From: Isabella Annesi-Maesano [mailto:annesimaesano@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:19 AM

To: Rooney, Andrew (NIH/NIEHS) [E]

Subject: You are right!

Dear Andrew,

You were perfectly right. The unit should have been microgr per liter. Thank you for alerting me.

All my best regards

Isabella

-- 

Dr Isabella Annesi-Maesano 

Directeur de Recherche INSERM 

Head: EPid Allergic Resp Dis Department ( www.epar.fr )

ADDRESS : EPAR UMR-S 707 INSERM & UPMC Paris6, Medical School Saint-Antoine 

Bureaux 803-4-6, 8ème étage 27, rue Chaligny 75571 Paris CEDEX 12 Tel: + 33 1 44738449 

Fax: +33 1 44738454 

Additional e-mail address: annesimaesano@gmail.com

...............................

Units correct? in:

Annesi-Maesano I; Pollitt R; King G; Bousquet J; Hellier G; Sahuquillo J; Huel G (2003).

 In utero exposure to lead and cord blood total IgE Is there a connection? Allergy, 58: 589-594.

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

Andrew A. Rooney, Ph.D.

Senior Health Scientist

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences / National Toxicology Program

NTP - Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction

P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-04

RTP, NC 27709

____________________________

Phone: (919) 316-4704

Fax: (919) 541-3647

email: Andrew.Rooney@nih.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SIX MONTH YEAR TO DATE SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC. 1999 10-Q FOR THE SECOND
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         454,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  216,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    603,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,458,000
<PP&E>                                       2,336,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,794,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,610,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          817,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,710,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,610,000
<SALES>                                        635,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               714,000
<CGS>                                          265,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,038,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,021,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,021,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,021,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)



</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 28, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00015

- CR

William Bryan Finley, Ill, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTI CES PEMBERTON AND RO SE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON ; DISSENTING OPINION B Y CHIEF JUSTICE JONE S

This is an appeal from the judgment of c onviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

convi ction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is

made.
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; Berkeley Point Capital LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; and C-III Asset Management LLC.

Date:March 30, 2020

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

CGCMT 2016-C3 Certifications
#### Arnold I. KRAMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. O.C. JENKINS, Warden, and United States Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 86-1849.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 30, 1986.

Decided Sept. 11, 1986.

*709See also, 108 F.R.D. 429.

Julius L. Echeles, Sharon C. Kramer, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellant.

Anton R. Yalukas, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for respondents-appellees.

Before WOOD, CUDAHY and POSNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We write in brief amplification of our order of July 7 (which the petitioner has asked us to reconsider) denying bail pending our review of the district court’s order denying a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Our order was based on *Cherek v. United States,*767 F.2d 335 (7th Cir.1985), where we held that, although a federal district judge has the power to admit to bail petitioners for postconviction collateral relief (such as habeas corpus for state prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or the habeas corpus substitute for federal prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 2255), the power is “to be exercised very sparingly____ A defendant whose conviction has been affirmed on appeal (or who waived his right of appeal ...) is unlikely to have been convicted unjustly; hence the case for bail pending resolution of his postconviction proceeding is even weaker than the case for bail pending appeal. And the interest in the finality of criminal proceedings is poorly served by deferring execution of sentence till long after the defendant has been convicted.” *Id.*at 337.

Kramer points out that he is not attacking his conviction or sentence, but merely arguing that the applicable parole statute and regulations entitle him to an immediate parole, although the district court disagreed. And it is true that granting bail pending decision of the appeal from the district court’s decision would interrupt rather than postpone the commencement of Kramer’s imprisonment. But we have decided nevertheless that the case is within the orbit of *Cherek.*Only in exceptional circumstances will we admit to bail a prisoner who is appealing from the denial of his challenge to the Parole Commission’s refusal to grant an immediate parole. To grant bail in such cases would be tantamount to the judicial grant of a temporary parole. We may assume that in truly exceptional circumstances, where the Commission was acting in a patently lawless fashion, judicial power exists to protect the prisoner; but this is not such a case. The motion to reconsider our previous order is therefore

Denied.