alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 17.1008 Balance billing prohibited.

Payment by VA under 38 U.S.C. 1725 on behalf of a veteran to a provider of emergency treatment and any non-emergency treatment that is authorized under § 17.1005(c) of this part shall, unless rejected and refunded by the provider within 30 days of receipt, extinguish all liability on the part of the veteran for that emergency treatment and any non-emergency treatment that is authorized under § 17.1005(c) of this part. Neither the absence of a contract or agreement between VA and the provider nor any provision of a contract, agreement, or assignment to the contrary shall operate to modify, limit, or negate this requirement.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1725)

[66 FR 36470, July 12, 2001, as amended at 76 FR 79072, Dec. 21, 2011]
CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY Public Hearing ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR THREE TYPES OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS Docket Number CE-RM-87-102 January 13, 1989 Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS TIME Michael McCabe

SCHEDULED SPEAKERS Chief , Test & Evaluation Program Conservation & Renewable Energy

REPRESENTING 8:30- 8:40

1. Laeirchio Hardt Whirlpool Corporation/Embraco 8:40- 9:00 2. Frederick Hallett White Consolidated Industries 9:05- 9:25 3. Mark Drexler World Resources Institute 9:30- 9:50 4. Douglas Norland (C Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 9: 55-10: 15 5. Kevin Fay Alliance For Responsible CFC Policy 10:20-10:40 6. William Brashares

WV ' r Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers 10:45-11:05 7. James LaBrecque Central Maine Power Company 11:10-11:30 8. Arthur Thompson Southern California Gas Company 11:35-11:55 ****** L U N C H ****** 12:00- 1:00 9. J. Hollingsworth Alabama Power Company 1:05- 1:25 10. David Biegler Lone Star Gas Company 1:30- 1:50 11. Joe Mattingly Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association 1:55- 2:15 12. Cleo Screws Energy Equipment & Consultants , Inc. 2:20- 2:40 CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY Public Hearing ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR THREE TYPES OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

OPENING REMARKS Michael McCabe SCHEDULED SPEAKERS Docket Number CE-RM-87-102 January 13, 1989 Washington, D.C.

Chief, Test 

### &Evaluation Program Conservation 

### &Renewable Energy REPRESENTING 1. Laeirchio Hardt Whirlpool Corporation/Embraco 2. Frederick Hallett White Consolidated Industries 3. Mark Drexler World Resources Institute 4. Douglas Norland Association of Home Appliance LEr**~l** Manufacturers / 5. Kevin Fay Alliance For Responsible CFC Policy 6. William Brashares Association of Home Appliance (tvw Manufacturers 7. James LaBrecque Central Maine Power Company 8. Arthur Thompson Southern California Gas Company ****** 

### L U N C H ****** 9. J. Hollingsworth Alabama Power Company 1 0 • David B ie g1 e r 11. Joe Mattingly 12. Cleo Screws Lone Star Gas Company Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association Energy Equipment 

### &Consultants, Inc. TIME 8:30- 8:40

8:40- 9:00 9:05- 9:25 9:30- 9:50 9:55-10:15 10:20-10:40 10:45-11:.05 11:10-11:30 11:35-11:55 12:00- 1:00

1:05- 1:25 1:30- 1:50 1:55- 2:15 2:20- 2:40January 13, 1989

Public Hearing Page 2

SCHEDULED SPEAKERS 13. Larry L. Capps EPRESENTING Public Service Company of IME 2:45- :05 14. Paul Greiner North Carolina, Inc. American Electric Power Service Corp. 3:10- 3:30 15. Mark Darby Entex 3:35- 3:55 16. K. Cuccinelli American Gas Association 4:00- 4:20 17. A.J. Van den Berg Edison Electric Institute 4:25- 4:45 18. R. Van Brocklin Pacific Power and Light Company 4:50- 5:10 January 13, 1989 Public Hearing Page 2 SCHEDULED SPEAKERS 13. Larry L. Capps 14. Paul Greiner 15. Mark Darby 16. K. Cuccinelli 17. A.J. Van den Berg 18. R. Van Brocklin REPRESENTING TIME Public Service Company of 2:45- 3:05 North Carolina, Inc. American Electric Power Service Corp. 3:10- 3:30 Entex 3:35- 3:55 American Gas Association 4:00- 4:20 Edison Electric Institute 4:25- 4:45 Pacific Power and Light Company 4:50- 5:10
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANKLIN ROBBS, a/k/a Frankie Boo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00188-FDW-21; 3:16-cv00538-FDW)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin Robbs, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Kent, Asheville, North Carolina, Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, Daniel Steven Ryan, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Robbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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 constitutional 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 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 Robbs 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 legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,310
<SECURITIES>                                     3,153
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                       409
<INVENTORY>                                     14,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,647
<PP&E>                                          17,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,160
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,442)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,859
<SALES>                                         35,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,237
<CGS>                                           17,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    952
<INCOME-TAX>                                       418
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       534
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### § 15.102 Application.

This regulation (§§ 15.101-15.170) applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency, except for programs or activities conducted outside the United States that do not involve individuals with handicaps in the United States.
§ 21.6058 Consequences of evaluation. ( a ) *Eligible veteran may choose to participate.* If VA finds, based on the evaluation, that achievement of a vocational goal by the veteran is reasonably feasible, the veteran shall be offered and may elect to pursue a vocational training program. If the veteran elects to pursue such a program, the program shall be designed in consultation with the veteran in order to meet the veteran's individual needs, and shall be set forth in an Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP) under the provisions of § 21.84 of this part or an Individualized Employment Assistance Plan (IEAP) under § 21.88 of this part. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(1))
( b ) *Veteran ineligible to participate.* A veteran for whom achievement of a vocational goal is not found reasonably feasible shall be notified of this finding and be informed of his or her appellate rights as described in § 21.416 of this part. The veteran shall be provided the assistance described in § 21.50(b)(9) of this part.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(1))
[53 FR 4397, Feb. 16, 1988, as amended at 84 FR 194, Jan. 18, 2019]
§ 20.602 Rule 602. When a hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals may be requested in a legacy appeal; procedure for requesting a change in method of hearing. ( a ) *How to request a hearing.* An appellant, or an appellant's representative, may request a hearing before the Board when submitting the substantive appeal (VA Form 9) or anytime thereafter, subject to the restrictions in Rule 1305 (§ 20.1305). Requests for such hearings before a substantive appeal has been filed will be rejected.
( b ) *Board's determination of method of hearing.* Following the receipt of a request for a hearing, the Board shall determine, for purposes of scheduling the hearing for the earliest practical date, whether a hearing before the Board will be held at its principal location or at a facility of the Department or other appropriate Federal facility located within the area served by a regional office of the Department. The Board shall also determine whether the hearing will occur by means of an electronic hearing or by the appellant personally appearing before a Board member or panel. An electronic hearing will be in lieu of a hearing held by personally appearing before a Member or panel of Members of the Board and shall be conducted in the same manner as, and considered the equivalent of, such a hearing.
( c ) *Notification of method of hearing.* The Board will notify the appellant and his or her representative of the method of a hearing before the Board.
( d ) *How to request a change in method of hearing.* Upon notification of the method of the hearing requested pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, an appellant may make one request for a different method of the requested hearing. If the appellant makes such a request, the Board shall grant the request and notify the appellant of the change in method of the hearing.
( e ) *Notification of scheduling of hearing.* The Board will notify the appellant and his or her representative of the scheduled time and location for the requested hearing not less than 30 days prior to the hearing date. This time limitation does not apply to hearings which have been rescheduled due to a postponement requested by an appellant, or on his or her behalf, or due to the prior failure of an appellant to appear at a scheduled hearing before the Board with good cause. The right to notice at least 30 days in advance will be deemed to have been waived if an appellant accepts an earlier hearing date due to the cancellation of another previously scheduled hearing.
(Authority: Sec. 102, Pub. L. 114-315; 130 Stat. 1536)
[84 FR 186, Jan. 18, 2019]
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
In connection with the Quarterly Report of McRae Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, D. Gary McRae, Presidentand CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
/s/ D. Gary McRae
§ 21.8070 Basic duration of a vocational training program. ( a ) *Basic duration of a vocational training program.* The duration of a vocational training program, as paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of § 21.8020 provide, may not exceed 24 months of full-time training, services, and assistance or the part-time equivalent, except as § 21.8072 allows. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(d), 1814)
( b ) *Responsibility for estimating the duration of a vocational training program.* While preparing the individualized written plan of vocational rehabilitation, the CP or VRC will estimate the time the child needs to complete a vocational training program. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( c ) *Duration and scope of training must meet general requirements for entry into the selected occupation.* The child will receive training, services, and assistance, as § 21.8120 describes, for a period that VA determines the child needs to reach the level employers generally recognize as necessary for entry into employment in a suitable occupational objective. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( d ) *Approval of training beyond the entry level.* To qualify for employment in a particular occupation, the child may need training that exceeds the amount a person generally needs for employment in that occupation. VA will provide the necessary additional training under one or more of the following conditions: ( 1 ) Training requirements for employment in the child's vocational goal in the area where the child lives or will seek employment exceed those job seekers generally need for that type of employment;
( 2 ) The child is preparing for a type of employment in which he or she will be at a definite disadvantage in competing with nondisabled persons and the additional training will offset the competitive disadvantage;
( 3 ) The choice of a feasible occupation is limited, and additional training will enhance the child's employability in one of the feasible occupations; or
( 4 ) The number of employment opportunities within a feasible occupation is restricted. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
( e ) *Estimating the duration of the training period.* In estimating the length of the training period the eligible child needs, the CP or VRC must determine that: ( 1 ) The proposed vocational training would not normally require a person without a disability more than 24 months of full-time pursuit, or the part-time equivalent, for successful completion; and
( 2 ) The program of training and other services the child needs, based upon VA's evaluation, will not exceed 24 months or the part-time equivalent. In calculating the proposed program's length, the CP or VRC will follow the procedures in § 21.8074(a). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(d), 1814)
( f ) *Required selection of an appropriate vocational goal.* If the total period the child would require for completion of an initial vocational training program in paragraph (e) of this section is more than 24 months, or the part-time equivalent, the CP or VRC must work with the child to select another suitable initial vocational goal.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(d)(2), 1814)
^RECEIVED N

03-14-00530-CR

GRAHAM JAY SONNENBERG IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

VS. THIRD DISTRICT

STATE OF TEXAS SITTING IN AUSTIN, TEXAS

MOTION FOR PRO SE ACCESS TO THE APPELLATE RECORD

This motion is brought by Graham Sonnenberg, Appellant in the above

styled and numbered cause. I have received from my court appointed counsel on

appeal, Mr. Don Morehart, his Motion to Withdraw and his Anders Brief.

I do desire to review the appellate records from the trial court so that I may

consider filing and pro se Appellant's Brief. I am indigent and I am not able to

pay for a copy ofthe Appellate Records in this case.

THEREFORE, I hereby request that the Clerk ofthe Court of Appeals

provide me with a full and correct copy ofthe Appellate Records, or that the Court

ofAppeals Order the trial court to provide me full and correct copy ofthe

Appellate Records in this case.

I am mailing this requestwithin ten days ofreceiving notice ofmy right to

request a copy ofthe Appellate Records in this matter. I am maiJing this request to

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk or the Third Court ofAppeals, Post Office Box 12547,

Austin, Texas 78711.

Respectfully Submitted,

MAY 2 6 Z015

THIRD COURJ OF APPEALS/

LI OFAPPE/

Appellant:

tdcj#^/9^^92.

Mailing Address
m

f..i.

4

3>j ^

Tv.

^

<*>

0^

^T?P"

w

n;

*<**

^»

>

-<

>

w'-

1-i

n r

o ?T'

H ***

Aw fr

"3 «•

s >-

H

H £
EXHIBIT 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 DATE: March 9, 2009
    /s/ Wade F. B. ThompsonWade F. B. ThompsonChairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer (principal executive officer)
§ 18.549 Alternate funds disbursal procedure. ( a ) When VA withholds funds from a recipient under these regulations, the Secretary may disburse the withheld funds directly to an alternate recipient: Any public or non-profit private organization or agency, or State or political subdivision of the State.
( b ) The Secretary will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate; ( 1 ) The ability to comply with these regulations; and
( 2 ) The ability to achieve the goals of the Federal statute authorizing the Federal financial assistance.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-1607)
[50 FR 34133, Aug. 23, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 51372, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### § 17.262 Authority to approve applications discretionary.

Notwithstanding any recommendation by the Subcommittee on Academic Affairs of the Special Medical Advisory Group, or any recommendation by the Under Secretary for Health or designee, the final determination on any application for a grant rests solely with the Secretary.

[42 FR 54805, Oct. 11, 1977. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21966, 21969, May 13, 1996]
#### Charles Rohner, Respondent, *v.*Philip Lenisch, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan.

P. & D. Mitchell, for appellant.

Schmuck & Graham, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We have examined the record in this case, and are of the opinion that the evidence before us taken on the new trial does not differ materially from that which was before this court on the previous appeal, in which the law was clearly laid down, which should govern the disposition of the action. Rohner v. Lenisch, 29 Misc. Rep. 315. It was the law of the case, and should have been followed by the court below. It seems, however, to have been disregarded. The judgment must accordingly be reversed. See also Curtiss v. Mott, 90 Hun, 439. As the plaintiff on the new trial, which was ordered on the former appeal, has had a full opportunity to strengthen his case by additional evidence, and has failed to do so, we are satisfied that it would be futile to order a new trial, and that the complaint should, therefore, be dismissed.

Present: Beekmam, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gormmm, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2010 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Thor Industries, Inc.
 DATE: July 1, 2010
    /s/ Christian G. FarmanChristian G. FarmanSenior Vice President, Treasurer

and Chief Financial Officer
NUMBERS 13-14-00146-CR & 13-14-00148-CR & 13-14-00150-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

VICENTE FABIAN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 117th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Vicente Fabian, attempts to appeal convictions for burglary of a 

habitation, theft, and aggravated assault. The trial court has certified in these cases that

“the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On June 16, 2014, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s 

certifications and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certifications.

No response to this Court's order was received and the cases were abated and 

remanded to the trial court on August 19, 2014. A hearing on abatement of the appeals 

was held by the trial court and on August 29, 2014, counsel filed a letter brief with this 

Court. Accordingly, the appeals are REINSTATED. Counsel’s response does not 

establish that the certifications currently on file with this Court are incorrect or that 

appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed 

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, these appeals 

are DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

6th day of November, 2014.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2077 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 20805 State Route 125 in Blue Creek, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘George B. Lewis Post Office Building’’. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HR 2077 RFS

1 SECTION 1. GEORGE B. LEWIS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 20805 State Route 125 in Blue 

4 Creek, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘George B. Lewis Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George B. Lewis Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS