alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 43.2 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part:

*Board* means the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

*Decision* means any decision, order, opinion, or other written work product intended for entry into the record of a Board proceeding.

*Deputy Director* means the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or an individual serving as Acting Deputy Director.

*Director* means the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or an individual serving as Acting Director or performing the functions and duties of the Director.

*Commissioner for Patents* and *Commissioner for Trademarks* mean the positions defined in 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2), or an individual acting in the capacity of one of those positions.

*Issuance* means the entry of a decision into the record of a Board proceeding.

*Management Judge* means the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, the Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge, a Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, a Senior Lead Administrative Patent Judge, a Lead Administrative Patent Judge, including individuals who serve in these positions in an acting capacity, or any other Administrative Patent Judge who, as part of their duties, serves as the rating official of one or more Administrative Patent Judges.

*Office* means the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

*Panel* means the members of the Board assigned to a particular proceeding, or an aspect thereof.

*Proceeding* means an appeal or contested case under part 41 of this chapter, or a proceeding under part 42 of this chapter.
#### § 66.113 Publications.

Publication, distribution, and disposition of all manuscripts and other materials resulting from an Award shall be subject to the conditions that all such materials shall bear appropriate acknowledgement of Department of Health and Human Services support and that the awardee shall furnish copies of these manuscripts or other materials as the Secretary may reasonably request.
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 Defense

###### General Services Administration

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Part 52

### CFR Correction

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 to 99), revised as of October 1, 2008, on page 123, in section 52.219-9, in the clause, move paragraph (d)(2)(vi), which precedes paragraph (d)(2)(v), to follow paragraph (d)(2)(v); remove the second paragraph (d)(2)(vi); and reinstate paragraph (d)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

52.219-9

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted to service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-23053 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31211

FREDDIE SMITH; LORI SMITH

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

MICHAEL J FIFTHIAN; KEITH SCHONHERR; JORDAN ARNOLD, JR;

VERNON L CANNON; LADD TRUCKING INC; CAROLINA CASUALTY

INSURANCE CO

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:03-CV-2076

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Exhibit 23.1


                  INDEPENDENT  ACCOUNTANTS'  REPORT


Celestial Seasonings, Inc.:

We  have  reviewed  the accompanying consolidated  balance  sheet  of
Celestial  Seasonings, Inc. and subsidiaries  (the "Company")  as  of
March 31, 1999 and the related consolidated statements of income  and
cash flows for the three-month and six-month periods ended March  31,
1999 and 1998.  These financial statements are the responsibility  of
the Company's management.

We  conducted our review in accordance with standards established  by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review  of
interim   financial  information  consists  principally  of  applying
analytical  procedures to financial data and of making  inquiries  of
persons  responsible  for financial and accounting  matters.   It  is
substantially  less  in scope than an audit conducted  in  accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based  on  our review, we are not aware of any material modifications
that  should  be  made to such consolidated financial statements  for
them   to   be  in  conformity  with  generally  accepted  accounting
principles.

We  have  previously  audited, in accordance with generally  accepted
auditing standards, the consolidated balance sheet of the Company  as
of  September  30, 1998, and the related consolidated  statements  of
income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then  ended
(not presented herein); and in our report dated November 10, 1998, we
expressed  an  unqualified  opinion on those  consolidated  financial
statements.   In  our  opinion,  the information  set  forth  in  the
accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of September 30,  1998  is
fairly  stated,  in  all  material  respects,  in  relation  to   the
consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.





Deloitte & Touche LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 14, 1999
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 15

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


We are aware that our report dated July 12, 1999 on our review of interim
financial information of Life Technologies, Inc. (the Company) as of and for the
three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 1999 and 1998, included in the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended, is
incorporated by reference in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-28607, Registration No. 333-03773, Registration No. 33-
59741, Registration No. 33-21807 and Registration No. 33-956, and the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3, Registration No. 33-29536. Pursuant to Rule
436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a
part of the Registration Statements prepared or certified by us within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



                                    /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




McLean, Virginia
July 30, 1999
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 8000** 

SEAN DERON WELLS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. MICHAEL M. STEVENSON, III, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg
. Cameron McGowan Cur r ie, Senior District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 01652

- CMC )

Submitted : April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Sean Deron Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scranto m , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South C arolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sean Deron Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the den ial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. 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 constit utional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El 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 dispositiv e procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Wells has not made the requisite showing. A ccordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and arg ument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## #ireg g Sharpe r .•-••rDApTfjICM T H P 

# ma f tij t muitt h Bta M imwm m m mmmit u Mi^^is^i m. '•'^'^^OPERAIION

S 30 7 Cnimo n J^oiifi f ©{(ic f jSinlDin g ° Sllnsliiiiston , Q C 2051 S < > 202-2^^^^

^ A in

- ^'^ coMMtrTEES ; HOU5SAnvl^^5^^ATlON,DuooE^,JuDKlARY.A^^)JOl^nco^i^1fnEeo^JTHi=l.lanARyo^cotA3Klis'-'-' ' '
. * ^ SUBCnMt/.rrrtnS : ELECTI0.".' S (HOU-J O AUmlnisnation ) COURT S & COMPmnO M POUC V Uiid.cisry l an d IMMIGRATIO N CITIZENSHIP
. R=a;GEnS , nORDE R SllCUmr v& INTERNATIONA L LA W IJiidiLiaiv l Augus t 25,201 0 Honorabl e RaymondLaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jersey Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Docket

DOT-OST-2010-012 4 i Dea r Secretar y LaHood : | t I a mwritin g i

n suppor t o f th e Small Communit

y Ai r Servic e Grant

applicatio n bein g submitte d b y th e Jackso n Municipa

l Airpor t Authority
. ' Th e Jackso n Municipa

l Airport , locate di n Jackson , Mississippi , provide s essential ai r servic e fo r government

officials , regiona

l businesses , an deducationa l institution s i

n the Jackso n are aand acros s th e state . Th e Authorit y wil l us e thi s fimding fo

r marketin g purpose s andt o better infor m th e loca l communit

y o f th e service s offeredby th e airpor t andth e airline s tha

t currentl y provid e servic e to th e region
. Affordabl e acces s t o ai r trave l i s aver

y powerfia l too l fo r economi c development

andals o ensure s small businesse s an dth e genera l publi c i n Mississipp i hav e acces s to multipl e market s to maximiz e their earnin g potential
. j I I offe r m y suppor t fo r th e Smal l Communit

y Ai r Servic e Grant

applicatio n submitte db

y th e Jackso n Municipa

l Airpor t Authority
. Th e Authorit

y work s extremel y har

dt o market th e airpor t service s andmeet

th e need s o f

th e community , an

dI hop e you wi l stron g consideration
. Again , thank yo u fo r your consideration
. Sincerely , giv e thei r proposa l you r

Greg g Membe r o f ( igres s

DISTRIC T OFFICE S PtAB L ?50 7 A Oi o BnAt.'BO H ROA U P I Aiu
. M S 392Df l MERIDIA N 82 3 WK O AvFr-iJ

E t>tfRiriiiN , M S 3930 1 001.C33.B68 1 STARKVILL E 1 R.'S f ARC H BouLr^nnn , Sun E 20 6 STAnKviiu
. M S 3975 9 662324000 7 BnooktiAvtr j 23 0 SOUT H WHrrwoHi n SmEC T BnocKiiAVEN
. M S 33S0 1 601.023340 0 fRIt i rV O O N RECVClC n PA« H
#### § 456.605 Number and location of teams.

There must be a sufficient number of teams so located within the State that onsite inspections can be made at appropriate intervals in each facility caring for beneficiaries.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHMIR AL-MIN MUHAMMAD,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-6428

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHMIR AL-MIN MUHAMMAD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00386-JAB-1; 1:06-cv-00357-JAB)

Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 22, 2007
- 2 -

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shmir Al-Min Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Shmir Al-Min Muhammad seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and a

subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. The

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Muhammad has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Muhammad’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.

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
AAM-13-108-E

December 13, 2012

 Exemption No. 10671

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-1275

Mr. Michael Crossland

General Manager

Helicopter Services, Inc.

19931 Stuebner Airline Road

Spring, TX 77379

Dear Mr. Crossland:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated November 28, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Helicopter Service, Inc. (HSI), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow HSI, which 

is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to HSI.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Helicopter Services, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part

120 to the extent necessary to allow HSI, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of HSI are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while 

conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

HSI part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D.

Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
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

     In connection with the quarterly report of National Home Health Care Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven Fialkow, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.

Date: June 14, 2004.


                                            /s/ Steven Fialkow
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Steven Fialkow
                                            Principal Executive Officer
The State



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Te xas** 

Friday, March 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00177

- CR

Alejandro Leal PENA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 12

- 090168

- CRA Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### ORDE R

In this appeal, the appellate record is complete

, the briefs have been filed, and the cause
is set for submission on briefs on March 4, 2015. On March 5, 2015, Appellant Alejandro Leal

P eñ a moved to abate this appeal and either appoint him new appellate counsel or allow him to proceed pro se so that he can ensure all meritorious appellate issues are presented.

Although “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment guarantees criminal appellants the right to counsel on a first appeal as of right,” Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 84

– 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (citing Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 355 (1963)), neither the Sixth Amendment nor the Due Process Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to self

representation on appeal. Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. , 528 U.S. 152, 160, 163 (2000) (“The Sixth Amendment does not in clude any right to appeal.”). Similarly, the Texas Constitution does not provide a criminal defendant with a constitutional right to self

representation on appeal. Cormier v. State

, 85 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, order) (refusing to allow appellant to proceed pro se on appeal because it would not
be in his best interest).

Therefore, Appellant’s motion to abate this appeal for appointment of new appellate
counsel or to allow him to proceed pro se is DENIED. See Martinez , 528 U.S. at 160 (no right
to self

- representation on appeal); Ex parte Taylor , 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (no right to hybrid representation).After this court disposes of A ppellant’s appeal and A ppellant’s other appellate remedies are exhausted, A ppellant may seek further relief from a final felony conviction imposing a penalty other than death by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 (West Sup p. 2014); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) . The application “ must be filed with the clerk of the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained ” and “t he writ must be made returnable to the
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at Austin, Texas. ” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### James Jackson, Respondent, *v.*The New Amsterdam Gas Co., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered-in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court, second district, borough of Manhattan.,

Joseph J. Myers, for appellant*

Henry Daily, Jr., for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

There is a direct conflict of testimony on the questions of fact arising in this case, and the trial court decided in favor of the plaintiff.

The record does not disclose that injustice has been done, nor . does it show- either bias, prejudice, or partiality, or that- it is against the weight of evidence. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.