alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 760.8 Determination fees. ( a ) *General.* Notwithstanding any Federal or State law other than the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001-4129), any credit union, or a servicer acting on behalf of the credit union, may charge a reasonable fee for determining whether the building or mobile home securing the loan is located or will be located in a special flood hazard area. A determination fee may also include, but is not limited to, a fee for life-of-loan monitoring.
( b ) *Borrower fee.* The determination fee authorized by paragraph (a) of this section may be charged to the borrower if the determination: ( 1 ) Is made in connection with a making, increasing, extending, or renewing of the loan that is initiated by the borrower;
( 2 ) Reflects the Administrator of FEMA's revision or updating of floodplain areas or flood-risk zones;
( 3 ) Reflects the Administrator of FEMA's publication of a notice or compendium that: ( i ) Affects the area in which the building or mobile home securing the loan is located; or
( ii ) By determination of the Administrator of FEMA, may reasonably require a determination whether the building or mobile home securing the loan is located in a special flood hazard area; or
( 4 ) Results in the purchase of flood insurance coverage by the credit union or its servicer on behalf of the borrower under § 760.7.
( c ) *Purchaser or transferee fee.* The determination fee authorized by paragraph (a) of this section may be charged to the purchaser or transferee of a loan in the case of the sale or transfer of the loan.
§ 1240.108 Reconsideration. ( a ) With respect to each completed application, in those cases where the Board does not recommend an award, the applicant may, within such period as the Board may set but in no event less than 30 days from notification, request reconsideration of the Board's decision.
( b ) If reconsideration has been requested within the prescribed time, the applicant will, within 30 days from the date of the request for reconsideration, or within any other time as the Board may set, file its statement setting forth the issues, points, authorities, arguments, and any additional material on which it relies.
( c ) Upon filing of the reconsideration statement by the applicant, the case will be assigned for reconsideration by the Board upon the contents of the application, the record, and the reconsideration statement submitted by the applicant.
( d ) If after reconsideration, the Board again does not propose to recommend the granting of an award, the applicant, after such notification by the Board, may request an oral hearing within the time set by the Board.
( e ) An oral hearing without reconsideration may be granted upon determination of the Chairperson that good cause exists to do so.
[67 FR 31120, May 9, 2002, as amended at 77 FR 27367, May 10, 2012]
# Official Journal C 60A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.060.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 60A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5425 February 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.060.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 60A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5425 February 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2011/C 060A/01 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |
| 2011/C 060A/02 | Call for expression of interest for Contract Agents for temporary assignments (London) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2011/C 060A/01

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

2011/C 060A/02

Call for expression of interest for Contract Agents for temporary assignments (London)

3

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
20 21 22

Old Daves Creek

29 28 27

32 33 34

Tin Can Hill

Travel Management Area

Alternative C

R15E

0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 0.45

Miles

Map 133

Wyoming

T

2

N

Location Map

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Map scale 1:24,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Ü Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

90

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Legend

Recommend Routes

Open with Additional Management: 2..5 Miles

Roads / Trails

Streams

Bureau of Land Management

Private 

Administrative Use Only: .5 Miles

Public Lands Survey System

Tin Can Hill Travel Management Area
§ 1310.11 Regulations of the Office of Management and Budget. ( a ) The regulations in this part supplement the regulations of the Office of Management and Budget in part 1300 of this chapter in accordance with section 102(c)(2)(B) of the Act.
( b ) This part and part 1300 of this chapter jointly govern the application procedures and the requirements for issuance of Federal credit instruments under section 101(a)(1) of the Act.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Juliet M. Reising, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Verso Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

      1.    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
            ended June 30, 2004 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78m or 78o(d)); and

      2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

Dated: August 6, 2004

                                              /s/Juliet M. Reising
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Juliet M. Reising,
                                              Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer

                                       39
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACQUELINE WARNER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CMG MORTGAGE, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 17505

D.C. No. 4:15

- cv - 01835

- YGR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jacqueline Warner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law claims

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We r eview de novo a dismissal for

failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. Harkonen

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17505

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 800 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Warner’s TILA claims as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Warner unsucc essfully raised those same claims

before the U nited S tates Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

See Siegel v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp ., 143 F.3d 525, 528

- 29 (9th Cir.
1998) (holding borrower’s action against lender was barred by th e res judicata

effect of a related bankruptcy proceeding); U nited States v. Coast Wineries , 131
F.2d 643, 648 (9th Cir. 1942) (“[A] n order disallowing a claim in bankruptcy is
binding and conclusive on all parties or their privies, and being in the nature of a
final judgment, furnishes a basi s for a plea of res judicata.”). Contrary to Warner’s
contention, the decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc

. , 135 S. Ct.
790 (2015) , does not affect t he res judicata bar

.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Warner’s motion

for reconsideration because Warner failed to establish any basis for such relief.

See Sch. Dist. No.1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under

Fed eral Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) ).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 15

- 17505

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raise d for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F. 3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.
Warner’s motions filed on April 8, 2016 and May 4, 2016 are denied.

AFFIRMED.
§ 1275.107 Adjudication. ( a ) The NASA Adjudication Official must review and evaluate the investigation report and the evidentiary record required to be transmitted pursuant to § 1275.102(d) and (e). The NASA Adjudication Official may initiate further investigations, which may include affording the Respondent another opportunity for comment, before issuing a decision regarding the case. The NASA Adjudication Official may also return the investigation report to the OIG with a request for further fact-finding or analysis.
( b ) Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the NASA Adjudication Official shall issue a decision setting forth the Agency's findings as to whether research misconduct has occurred and recommending appropriate administrative actions that may be undertaken by NASA in response to research misconduct determined to have occurred. The NASA Adjudication Official shall render a decision within 30 days after receiving the investigation report and evidentiary record, or after completion of any further proceedings. The NASA Adjudication Official may extend this period of time for good cause.
( c ) The decision shall be sent to the Respondent, to the Respondent's institution, and, if appropriate, to the Complainant. If the decision confirms the alleged research misconduct, it must include instructions on how to pursue an appeal to the NASA Appeals Official. The decision shall also be transmitted to the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist and the OIG.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LOUIS VINCENT BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:07-cr-00422-PMD-1; 2:10-cv-70163-PMD)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis Vincent Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Louis Vincent Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion requesting that counsel be appointed to him 

for the purpose of examining whether this court’s decision in 

United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, 243–45 (4th Cir. 2011) 

(en banc), directs that one of his prior state convictions no 

longer qualifies as a felony and therefore entitles him to a 

reduction of sentence.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Indeed, as we have recently explained, our holding in 

Simmons is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 

review. United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554, 559-60 (4th Cir. 

2012). Nor, in any event, does a habeas petitioner have any 

constitutional right to be represented by counsel in his 

collateral attack. Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238, 250 (4th Cir. 

2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

I, Juliet M. Reising, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Verso Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
         June 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78m or 78o(d)); and

2.       The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 13, 2002
                                              /s/ JULIET M. REISING
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              JULIET M. REISING
                                              Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
§ 1212.300 Requesting amendment. Individuals may request that NASA amend their records maintained in a NASA system of records under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2). This request shall be in writing, addressed to the appropriate system manager, and shall contain the following: ( a ) A notation on the envelope and on the letter that it is a “Request for Amendment of Individual Record under the Privacy Act;”
( b ) The name of the system of records;
( c ) Any information necessary to retrieve the record, as specified in the system notice for the system of records (See § 1212.201(c)(2));
( d ) A description of that information in the record which is alleged to be inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete; and,
( e ) Any documentary evidence or material available to support the request.
[57 FR 4928, Feb. 11, 1992, as amended at 77 FR 60621, Oct. 4, 2012]
January 11, 2011

Ms. Susan Angela Roberts 108 Taylifers

Sumners Estate Harlow, United Kingdom, CM19 5RG

Dear Ms. Roberts:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your December 27, 2011, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA2011-1451), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside the United States, if applicable.

For assistance submitting an exemption request involving use of the CARES restraint, please

visit http://www.kidsflysafe.com/how-to-use-cares/cares-for-special-needs-kids . The website includes specific instructions on completing and submitting a petition on this matter. Please include your docket number (FAA-2011-1451) in the comments box when submitting your updated petition.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Cindy B. Nordlie Acting Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,346,356
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,051,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,897
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,473,136
<PP&E>                                       3,019,616
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,278,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,214,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,215,064
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,999,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,214,440
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,069,148
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,280,690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (212,194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (212,194)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (212,194)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.80)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**I, Martin D. Kidder, Chief Financial Officer of Verso Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), do herebycertify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007(the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and  2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:May 15, 2007                                            /s/ Martin D. Kidder   Martin D. Kidder,   Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 11
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 61 FR 18052, April 24, 1996.

§ 11.31 How does FAA process direct final rules? ( a ) A direct final rule will take effect on a specified date unless FAA receives an adverse comment within the comment period—generally 60 days after the direct final rule is published in the Federal Register. An adverse comment explains why a rule would be inappropriate, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. It may challenge the rule's underlying premise or approach. Under the direct final rule process, we do not consider the following types of comments to be adverse: ( 1 ) A comment recommending another rule change, in addition to the change in the direct final rule at issue. We consider the comment adverse, however, if the commenter states why the direct final rule would be ineffective without the change.
( 2 ) A frivolous or insubstantial comment.
( b ) If FAA has not received an adverse comment, we will publish a confirmation document in the Federal Register, generally within 15 days after the comment period closes. The confirmation document tells the public the effective date of the rule.
( c ) If we receive an adverse comment, we will advise the public by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of the direct final rule. This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. If we withdraw a direct final rule because of an adverse comment, we may incorporate the commenter's recommendation into another direct final rule or may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
[Docket No. FAA-1999-6622, 65 FR 50863, Aug. 21, 2000, as amended at 84 FR 71717, Dec. 27, 2019]