alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.7103 Travel expenses. ( a ) *Travel for veterans and servicemembers.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, VA shall determine and pay the necessary cost of travel to and from the place of counseling for individuals who are required to receive counseling if— ( i ) VA determines that the individual is unable to defray the cost based upon his or her annual declaration and certification; or
( ii ) The individual has a compensable service-connected disability.
( 2 ) VA shall not pay for the travel expenses for a veteran who is not residing in a State. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 111)
( b ) *Travel for attendants.* ( 1 ) VA will authorize payment of travel expenses for an attendant while the individual is traveling when— ( i ) The individual, because of a severe disability requires the services of an attendant when traveling, and
( ii ) VA is paying the necessary cost of the individual's travel on the basis of the criteria stated in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) VA will not pay the attendant a fee for travel expenses if he or she is a relative as defined in § 21.374 of this part. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 111)
( c ) *Payment of travel expenses prohibited for most veterans.* VA shall not pay for any costs of travel to and from the place of counseling for anyone who requests counseling under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 30. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 111)


Cross Reference:
21.374, Authorization for travel of attendants. [55 FR 28385, July 11, 1990]
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 
  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
  As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold Mines,
  Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
  I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Principal
  Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
  to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                    
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
        of the Company.

/s/ Garry L. Anselmo 
  Garry L. Anselmo 
  President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal 
  Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer 
  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

July 13, 2007

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.2100 Scope of Applicability.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this subpart apply only to claims governed by part 3 of this title.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2563 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, Iowa, 

as the ‘‘Major Scott Nisely Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2563 EH

1 SECTION 1. MAJOR SCOTT NISELY POST OFFICE. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 309 East Linn Street in 

4 Marshalltown, Iowa, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Major Scott Nisely Post Office’’. 

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 ‘‘Major Scott Nisely 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2563 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ‘‘Major Scott Nisely al Service located at 309 East Linn Street in
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
                       
<S>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   June-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<CASH>                           9,467
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   26,284
<ALLOWANCES>                       428
<INVENTORY>                     26,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                65,044
<PP&E>                          50,900
<DEPRECIATION>                  25,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  92,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           18,434
<BONDS>                              0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                           592
<OTHER-SE>                      66,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    92,448
<SALES>                         87,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   67,297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                12,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  7,334
<INCOME-TAX>                     2,461
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              4,873
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                     4,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .54
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.204 Evidence of dependents and age. ( a ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, VA will accept, for the purpose of determining entitlement to benefits under laws administered by VA, the statement of a claimant as proof of marriage, dissolution of a marriage, birth of a child, or death of a dependent, provided that the statement contains: the date (month and year) and place of the event; the full name and relationship of the other person to the claimant; and, where the claimant's dependent child does not reside with the claimant, the name and address of the person who has custody of the child. In addition, a claimant must provide the social security number of any dependent on whose behalf he or she is seeking benefits (see § 3.216).
( 2 ) VA shall require the types of evidence indicated in §§ 3.205 through 3.211 where: the claimant does not reside within a state; the claimant's statement on its face raises a question of its validity; the claimant's statement conflicts with other evidence of record; or, there is a reasonable indication, in the claimant's statement or otherwise, of fraud or misrepresentation of the relationship in question. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5124)
( b ) *Marriage or birth.* The classes of evidence to be furnished for the purpose of establishing marriage, dissolution of marriage, age, relationship, or death, if required under the provisions of paragraph (a)(2), are indicated in §§ 3.205 through 3.211 in the order of preference. Failure to furnish the higher class, however, does not preclude the acceptance of a lower class if the evidence furnished is sufficient to prove the point involved.
( c ) *Acceptability of photocopies.* Photocopies of documents necessary to establish birth, death, marriage or relationship under the provisions of §§ 3.205 through 3.215 of this part are acceptable as evidence if the Department of Veterans Affairs is satisfied that the copies are genuine and free from alteration. Otherwise, VA may request a copy of the document certified over the signature and official seal of the person having custody of such record.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0624) [26 FR 1572, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 40 FR 53581, Nov. 19, 1975; 45 FR 72655, Nov. 3, 1980; 59 FR 46338, Sept. 8, 1994; 61 FR 56626, Nov. 4, 1996; 66 FR 56614, Nov. 9, 2001]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                               5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-QSB  FOR  THE  QUARTER  ENDED SEPTEMBER  30, 2000  AND  IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Mar-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                    Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                                77,486
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      77,486
<PP&E>                                                 3,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (3,319)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        77,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              17,888
<OTHER-SE>                                            59,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          77,739
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,876
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      11,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (9,822)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (9,822)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (9,822)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.01)



</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4231 Warranty requirements. ( a ) When a new manufactured home purchased with financing guaranteed under 38 U.S.C. 3712 is delivered to the veteran-borrower he or she will be supplied a written warranty by the manufacturer in the form and content prescribed by the Secretary. Such warranty shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, all other rights and privileges which such purchaser or owner may have under any other law or instrument, and the warranty instrument will so provide. No evidence of guaranty shall be issued by the Secretary unless a copy of such warranty duly receipted by the purchaser is submitted with the loan papers.
( b ) Any manufactured housing unit properly displaying a certification of conformity to all applicable Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5415 shall be acceptable as security for a VA guaranteed loan. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3712)
( c ) When a used manufactured home is purchased from a manufactured home dealer with financing guaranteed under 38 U.S.C. 3712 the veteran-borrower must be supplied with a written warranty by the manufactured home dealer in the form and content prescribed by the Secretary. Such warranty shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, all other rights and privileges which such purchaser or owner may have under any other law or instrument, and the warranty instrument will so provide. No evidence of guaranty shall be issued by the Secretary unless a copy of such warranty duly receipted by the purchaser is submitted with the loan papers.
[48 FR 40229, Sept. 6, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 38259, July 26, 1995]
§ 17.248 Costs of placing residents and new residency programs. Once VA determines in which covered facilities residents will be placed in accordance with §§ 17.246 through 17.247, payment or reimbursement is authorized for the following costs: ( a ) *Resident stipends and benefits.* For residents placed in covered facilities, VA may pay only the proportionate cost of resident stipends and benefits that are associated with residents participating in educational activities directly related to the PPGMER, in accordance with any contract, agreement, or other arrangement VA has legal authority to form.
( b ) *Costs associated with new residency programs.* ( 1 ) If a covered facility establishes a new residency program in which a resident is placed, VA will reimburse the following costs in accordance with any contract, agreement, or other arrangement VA has legal authority to form. ( i ) Curriculum development costs, to include but not be limited to costs associated with needs analysis, didactic activities, materials, equipment, consultant fees, and instructional design.
( ii ) Recruitment and retention of faculty costs, to include but not be limited to costs associated with advertising available faculty positions, and monetary incentives to fill such positions such as relocation costs and educational loan repayment.
( iii ) Accreditation costs, to include but not be limited to the administrative fees incurred by a covered facility in association with applying for only initial accreditation of the program by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
( iv ) Faculty salary costs, to include only the proportionate cost of faculty performing duties directly related to the PPGMER.
( v ) Resident education expense costs, to include but not be limited to costs associated with the required purchase of medical equipment and required training, national resident match program participation fees, and residency program management software fees.
( 2 ) VA considers new residency programs as only those residency programs that have initial ACGME accreditation or have continued ACGME accreditation without outcomes, and have not graduated an inaugural class, at the time VA has determined those covered facilities where residents will be placed under § 17.247(c).
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Judith Smith f/k/a Judith Goodrum v. David Eugene Goodrum Sr.

Appellate case number: 01-11-00784-CV

Trial court case number: 9246409

Trial court: 312th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 27, 2012

Party filing motion: Appellant

We dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution on July 26, 2012 after Appellant did not

respond to our notice that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of prosecution for failing to file 

her brief. Appellant has now filed a motion for rehearing. She asks this Court to set aside the 

dismissal and reinstate the appeal on the Court’s active docket. In the motion, Appellant 

explains that her counsel did not file the brief as a result of a medical issue he was experiencing. 

The Supreme Court of Texas has made clear that courts of appeal should strive to determine 

cases on the merits rather than on a procedural technicality that is easily corrected. See Lehmann 

v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 & n.91 (Tex. 2001) (“In the past we have tried to ensure 

that the right to appeal is not lost by an overly technical application of the law.”); Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997) (“[W]e have instructed the courts of appeals to 

construe the Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appeal is 

not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of a rule.”); see 

also In re K.C.B., 251 S.W.3d 514, 517 (Tex. 2008) (“[J]ustice is not served when a case like 

this, ripe for determination on the merits, is decided on “a procedural technicality” that can easily 

be corrected. . . .”). 

To this end, we grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing. We vacate and withdraw our opinion 

and judgment dated July 26, 2012. The appeal is reinstated on this Court’s active docket.

The Clerk of this Court received Appellant’s brief on August 31, 2012. The Clerk of this Court 

shall consider Appellant’s brief to have been filed on August 31, 2012. 
Appellee’s brief is due to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before December 3, 2012. 

It is so ordered.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Sharp, and Huddle

Date: October 29, 2012
Windhager North America LLC

83 Alexander Road – Unit#3

Billerica MA 01821

August 13, 2014

NYSERDA

17 Columbia Circle

Albany, NY 12203

Topic: Pellet boiler technology approval application 

Dear Mrs. E. Burkhard and Mr. R. Moore,

We kindly ask you to consider the following pellet boilers as being qualified pellet boiler technology for the Renewable Heat 

NY program.

These pellet boilers are manufactured by Windhager Zentralheizung GmbH in Seekirchen-am-Wallersee, one of the leading 

Austrian pellet boiler manufacturers.

Emission testing results for Windhager BioWIN, BioWIN-XL and FireWIN

Boiler Size Boiler Size Efficiency Based PM 2.5 CO at 7% O2

Model BTU/hr kW on HHV (%) lb/MMBtu ppm

>85 <0.08 <270

BioWIN 100 34,000 9.9 87 0.014 65

BioWIN 150 51,000 15 87 0.014 15

BioWIN 210 71,650 21 >85 <0.08 <270

BioWIN 260 88,500 25.9 87 0.01 69

BioWINXL 350 119,400 35 86 0.019 44

BioWINXL 450 153,000 45 >85 <0.08 <270

BioWINXL 600 205,000 60 85 0.019 48

FireWIN 90 30,700 9 88 0.023 90

FireWIN 120 41,000 12 88 0.03 94

For the BioWIN210 and the BioWIN450 there are no detailed test results available, only a brief test report.

Attachments to this letter:

- Summary of emission testing results

- Test details and conversion calculations

- TUV test reports (EN303-5)

Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Marc J. Caluwe

Managing Member
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 1334 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

- NE

- 49

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspect ion 10 .0 $ 850.00 $0 $ 850.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$8 5/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### N/A

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulator y action”?

YES * NO

* E xplanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transpo rtation?

YES * NO



### * E xplanation 

### :
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40972 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS LOZANO-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-216-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Carlos Lozano-Herrera (“Lozano”) pleaded guilty to one count of being found in the United States without having obtained permission to re-enter after deportation and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. Lozano argues, for the first time on appeal, that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Lozano’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).No. 04-40972 -2- Also for the first time on appeal, Lozano, relying on the possibility that Almendarez-Torres will be overruled, as well as

on Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), argues that the federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional because they permit the enhancement of a sentence based on prior convictions. Lozano’s argument fails because Almendarez-Torres has not been overruled and because the enhancement of a sentence based on prior convictions does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.