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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-221-002]

Take notice that on April 27, 2000, CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1A, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 14 with an effective date of April 1, 2000.

CNG states that the purpose of the filing is to comply with the Commission's April 18, 2000 letter order in this proceeding correcting the classification of Line H-156 to transmission as required by the Commission's order issued in Docket No. CP97-549-000.

CNG states that copies of this letter of transmittal and enclosures are being served upon parties listed on the official service list.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

                        Secreta                              ( print page 26593)                            ry.                    

[FR Doc. 00-11359  Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
DPR MODIFIED PROMESA B2500A (Form 2500A) (06/17) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTIO RICO

In re , ) Case No. 

Debtors ) 

) Chapter

) 

) 

Plaintiff ) 

) 

v. ) Adv. Proc. No. 

)

) 

Defendant ) 

SUMMONS IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file a motion or answer to the complaint which is 

attached to this summons with the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the date of issuance of 

this summons, except that the United States and its officers and agencies shall file a motion or answer 

to the complaint within 35 days. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff`s 

attorney, whose name and address are:

If you make a motion, your time to answer is governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012. 

If you fail to respond to this summons, your failure will be deemed to be your consent to 

entry of a judgment by the district court and judgment by default may be taken against you for the 

relief demanded in the complaint.

Date:

FRANCES RIOS DE MORAN, ESQ.

CLERK OF COURT

________________________________________

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

To: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD 

FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3435-17 Filed:07/05/18 Entered:07/05/18 13:08:30 Desc:

Summons Natalie A. Jaresko Page 1 of 2
DPR MODIFIED PROMESA B2500A (Form 2500A) (06/17)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, (name), certify that service of this summons and a copy of 

the complaint was made (date) by:

 Mail service: Regular, first class United States mail, postage fully pre-paid, addressed

to:

 Personal Service: By leaving the process with the defendant or with an officer or agent

of defendant at:

 Residence Service: By leaving the process with the following adult at:

 Certified Mail Service on an Insured Depository Institution: By sending the process by

certified mail addressed to the following officer of the defendant at:

 Publication: The defendant was served as follows: [Describe briefly]

 State Law: The defendant was served pursuant to the laws of the State of , as 

follows: [Describe briefly]

If service was made by personal service, by residence service, or pursuant to state law, I further 

certify that I am, and at all times during the service of process was, not less than 18 years of age and 

not a party to the matter concerning which service of process was made.

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date Signature 

Print Name: 

Business Address:

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3435-17 Filed:07/05/18 Entered:07/05/18 13:08:30 Desc:

Summons Natalie A. Jaresko Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **7709**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
RONELL MCKINLEY PRESSEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at N ewport News

. R ebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 4:01

- cr - 00 083

- RBS

- 3 )

Submitted : April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ronell McKinley Pressey , Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney , Assistant United States Attorney, N ewport News , Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronell McKinley Pressey appeals the district court ’ s
order s denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and his
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United State s v. Pressey , No. 4:01

- cr - 00083

- RBS

- 3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2011 & Dec. 1, 2011)

. 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 proce ss.

AFFIRMED
§ 417.205 General. ( a ) *Public risk management.* A flight safety analysis must demonstrate that a launch operator will, for each launch, control the risk to the public from hazards associated with normal and malfunctioning launch vehicle flight. The analysis must employ risk assessment, hazard isolation, or a combination of risk assessment and partial isolation of the hazards, to demonstrate control of the risk to the public. ( 1 ) *Risk assessment.* When demonstrating control of risk through risk assessment, the analysis must demonstrate that any risk to the public satisfies the public risk criteria of § 417.107(b). The analysis must account for the variability associated with: ( i ) Each source of a hazard during flight;
( ii ) Normal flight and each failure response mode of the launch vehicle;
( iii ) Each external and launch vehicle flight environment;
( iv ) Populations potentially exposed to the flight; and
( v ) The performance of any flight safety system, including time delays associated with the system.
( 2 ) *Hazard isolation.* When demonstrating control of risk through hazard isolation, the analysis must establish the geographical areas from which the public must be excluded during flight and any operational controls needed to isolate all hazards from the public.
( 3 ) *Combination of risk assessment and partial isolation of hazards.* When demonstrating control of risk through a combination of risk assessment and partial isolation of the hazards from the public, the analysis must demonstrate that the residual public risk due to any hazard not isolated from the public under paragraph (a)(2) of this section satisfies the public risk criteria of § 417.107(b).
( b ) *Dependent analyses.* Because some analyses required by this subpart are inherently dependent on one another, the data output of any one analysis must be compatible in form and content with the data input requirements of any other analysis that depends on that output. Figure 417.205-1 illustrates the flight safety analyses that might be performed for a launch flown with a flight safety system and the typical dependencies that might exist among the analyses.
fj 

i)o6Kd' bOT bST / ff f ^ f ^ ^ 

U.S. Deportment of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

May 4, 2010 

VIA EMAIL 

The Honorable Mayor Kathy Rogers 

Mayor 

City of Alamosa 

425 4th Street 

P.O. Box 419 

Alamosa, Colorado 81101 

Dear Mayor Rogers: 

I would like to update you on the essential air service situation at Alamosa and Cortez and 

give you an opportunity to submit comments, if you wish. 

As you know, by Order 2010-3-34, issued March 30, 2010, the Department solicited 

proposals from air carriers interested in providing essential air service at the communities in 

anticipation of the end of the current contract on July 3 U 2010. At this stage, we would 

normally ask for your preferences for various carriers and service options. However, in 

response to that order. Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the incumbent), was the only carrier to 

submit a proposal. Nonetheless, we want to give you an opportunity to submit any final 

comments for the record that you may have before we make a carrier-selection 

recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. 

In addition to our brief description below, the proposal, as well as Order 2010-3-34, can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov, by doing a search on Docket DOT-OST-1997-2960 or 

DOT-OST-1998-3508. 

Great Lakes proposes to continue operating its current level of service, i.e., 18 nonstop round 

trips per week between each community and Denver International Airport, with 19-seat 

Beech 1900 aircraft, at the annual subsidy rate of $1,987,155 for Alamosa, and $1,847,657 at 

Cortez. 

Please note that proposed schedules are illustrative and the carriers may make schedule 

changes to reflect changing conditions. The Department expects subsidized air carriers to 

maintain well-timed and well-spaced flights to ensure full compensation. 
My purpose in writing to you at this time is to give you an opportunity to submit any final 

comments you might have on the proposed_service. We request that you review this 

information as expeditiously as possible and submit any comments you may have as soon as 

possible, but in any case no later than June 4, 2010. We will carefully consider your 

comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a final decision. 

If you have questions, or if you find that you need additional time to draft your comments, 

please let us know. 

Please submit your comments to me at: EAS@dot.gov. 

In addition, we would appreciate if you would email your comments to both 

dennis.devanv@dot.gov and renee.williams@dot.gov. You should also send a copy of your 

comments to Great Lakes. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Renee 

Williams of my staff at 202-366-1058. 

An identical letter has been sent to the Manager of the SLV Regional Airport. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis J. DeVany, Chief 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis
§ 417.103 Safety organization. ( a ) A launch operator must maintain and document a safety organization. A launch operator must identify lines of communication and approval authority for all public safety decisions, including those regarding design, operations, and analysis. A launch operator must describe its lines of communication, both within the launch operator's organization and between the launch operator and any federal launch range or other launch site operator providing launch services, in writing. Documented approval authority shall also be employed by the launch operator throughout the life of the launch system to ensure public safety and compliance with this part.
( b ) A launch operator's safety organization must include, but need not be limited to, the following launch management positions: ( 1 ) An employee of the launch operator who has the launch operator's final approval authority for launch. This employee, referred to as the launch director in this part, must ensure compliance with this part.
( 2 ) An employee of the launch operator who is authorized to examine all aspects of the launch operator's launch safety operations and to monitor independently personnel compliance with the launch operator's safety policies and procedures. This employee, referred to as the safety official in this part, shall have direct access to the launch director, who shall ensure that all of the safety official's concerns are addressed prior to launch.
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 Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alton L. Boynton, certify, 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 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: April 6, 2011





/s/ Alton L. BoyntonAlton L. BoyntonPresident and Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial and Accounting Officer
§ 398.9 Load factor standards. The load factor standards used in this part may be raised for individual eligible places under either of the following circumstances: ( a ) The place is served by the carrier as part of a linear route; or
( b ) It would be in the interest of the community, the carrier, or the general public to raise the load factor standard for that place.
Exhibit 32.2 IDEAEDGE, INC. CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002) In connection with the Annual Report of IdeaEdge, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jonathan Shultz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  October 31, 2008/s/ Jonathan ShultzJonathan ShultzChief Financial Officer
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - TA-W-35,196

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 2, 1998, applicable to workers of Monarch Machine Tool Co., Cortland, New York. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 23, 1998 (63 FR 71165).                

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of vertical machining centers. Findings show that Monarch Machine Tool Co. was sold in February, 2000 to local management and is now known as New Monarch Machine Tool, Inc. The Department is amending the certification determination to correctly identify the new title name to read “New Monarch Machine Tool, Inc., (formerly known as Monarch Machine Tool Co.)”, Cortland, New York.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-35,196 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of New Monarch Machine Tool, Inc. (formerly known as Monarch Machine Tool Co.), Cortland, New York who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 28, 1997 through December 2, 2000 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Dated: Signed at Washington, D.C. this 25th day of April, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-11111  Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### MANES v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 88-68AC (Lower Court Case No. 88-13045MM10)

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County

March 4, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Office of the Public Defender, for appellant.

Office of the State Attorney, for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RICHARD D. EADE, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE having come before this Court sua sponte, pursuant to its authority under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a)(c), which provides for the expeditious disposition of nonmeritorious appeals, the Court having considered same and being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that,

1. Rule 9.315(a), Fla. R. App. P., provides that after service of the initial brief under Rule 9.140, Fla. R. App. P., the court on its own *?motion may summarily affirm the order to be reviewed if the court finds that no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated.

2. In a motion previously before this Court, the public defender’s office requested permission to withdraw as counsel in accordance with *Anders v California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d (1967). *Anders*provides that counsel may be allowed to withdraw when he finds his case to be wholly frivolous. Upon careful review of the lower court proceeding as dictated by *State v Causey,*503 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1987), this Court found no evidence of reversible error. Accordingly, counsel’s motion was granted on July 10, 1990 and the appellant was given until August 10, 1990, to submit a brief raising meritorious points on her behalf.

3. Herein, the appellant has failed to respond within the thirty (30) days. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED as no meritorious basis for reversal has been demonstrated.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Broward County Courthouse, 201 Southeast Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 33301 this 4th day of March, 1991.
#### Frank E. Johnson, a Justice cf the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*Edward J. Flynn, as Secretary of State, Appellant.

(Argued October 19, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*Frank E. Johnson,*in person, plaintiff-appellant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Henry Epstein*of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

*620Appeals dismissed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4301 

To encourage States to permit members of the Armed Forces who are outside 

of the State under orders to renew a permit to carry a concealed 

firearm through the mail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2020 

Mr. HAWLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To encourage States to permit members of the Armed Forces 

who are outside of the State under orders to renew 

a permit to carry a concealed firearm through the mail, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘U.S. Military Right 

5 to Carry Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4301 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONCEALED CARRY RENEWALS BY MAIL FOR MEM2 BERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State that receives funds under 

4 subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con5 trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et 

6 seq.) shall have in place— 

7 (1) a law or policy that permits a member of 

8 the Armed Forces who is a resident of the State and 

9 who is outside of the State under orders to renew a 

10 permit to carry a concealed firearm through the 

11 mail; and 

12 (2) a law or policy that treats a member of the 

13 Armed Forces on active duty in the State as a resi14 dent of the State for purposes of issuing a permit 

15 to carry a concealed firearm in the State. 

16 (b) REDUCTION IN FUNDS.—Beginning in the first 

17 fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this 

18 Act, the Attorney General shall, with respect to the 

19 amount that a State would otherwise receive under the 

20 grant program described in subsection (a)— 

21 (1) reduce such amount by 5 percent in the 

22 case of a State that fails to comply with the require23 ment under subsection (a)(1); and 

24 (2) reduce such amount by 5 percent in the 

25 case of a State that fails to comply with the require26 ment under subsection (a)(2). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4301 IS

1 (c) REALLOCATION.—The Attorney General shall re2 allocate amounts not awarded to a State pursuant to sub3 section (b) to States that comply with the requirement 

4 under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS