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.                  

###### United States Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

# DATE AND TIME:

Friday, May 12, 2000, 9:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, N.W., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

# STATUS:

## Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Approval of Minutes of April 14, 2000 Meeting

III. Announcements

IV. Staff Director's Report

V. Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York City Report

VI. Future Agenda Items

# CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

David Aronson, Press and Communications (202) 376-8312.

Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00-11282  Filed 5-2-00; 2:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11688]



[[Page 30181]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week Ending 
April 14, 2000

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. 
Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the 
application.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7234.
    Date Filed: April 11, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

    PTC2 AFR 0078 dated 29 February 2000 (Mail Vote 068)
    TC2 Within Africa Resolutions r1-r29
    PTC2 AFR 0081 dated 24 March 2000
    Adopting Mail Vote 068
    Minutes--PTC2 AFR 0079 dated 29 February 2000
    TC2 Africa Policy Group Report
    Tables--PTC2 AFR FARES 0030 dated 4 April 2000
    Intended effective date: 1 May 2000

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-11688 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
#### A TO Z WELDING & MFG. CO., INC., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Appellee.

No. 86-1079.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 1986.

Decided Oct. 1, 1986.

*933A. Doug Chavis, Little Rock, Ark., Paul M. Predmore, Wynette J. Hewett & Gary Gray, Washington, D.C., for U.S.

Before HEANEY and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and REGAN,* United States Senior District Judge.

*

John K. Regan, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this appeal is whether a bankruptcy court has the power to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from collecting a tax assessed against certain officers and shareholders of A to Z Welding & Mfg. Co., Inc. (A to Z), a bankrupt corporation, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672.

BACKGROUND

A to Z filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on August 3, 1984. Thereafter, the IRS assessed a penalty against certain officers and shareholders of the debtor corporation requiring them to pay taxes withheld from its employee’s wages pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672. A to Z filed a complaint against the IRS seeking to enjoin collection of the assessed penalties. The bankruptcy court, held that it was barred by the anti-injunction statute, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), from issuing an injunction. Thus, the bankruptcy court dissolved a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from taking any action to collect the tax liabilities and dismissed A to Z’s complaint.

The district court 58 B.R. 1138, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, and this appeal followed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

A to Z argues that the “anti-injunction” statute is not relevant to the present case inasmuch as Congress, in enacting the bankruptcy code, has evidenced an intention to enact a complete scheme overriding the anti-injunction act. In support of its argument, A to Z relies on *Bostwick v. United States,*521 F.2d 741 (8th Cir.1975). *Bostwick*is inapposite to the case at hand. The injunction upheld in *Bostwick*was against collection of taxes assessed against the *debtors*in bankruptcy. 521 F.2d at 746. Thus, if a tax were assessed against the debtor, *Bostwick*may permit the bankruptcy court to override the anti-injunction act. Yet, this case involves an attempt to prohibit the IRS from collecting a tax assessed against officers and shareholders in their personal capacity. The anti-injunction act prohibits such a suit. *Kelly v. Lethert,*362 F.2d 629 (8th Cir.1966).

Affirmed.
§ 27.805 Flight crew emergency exits. ( a ) For rotorcraft with passenger emergency exits that are not convenient to the flight crew, there must be flight crew emergency exits, on both sides of the rotorcraft or as a top hatch in the flight crew area.
( b ) Each flight crew emergency exit must be of sufficient size and must be located so as to allow rapid evacuation of the flight crew. This must be shown by test.
( c ) Each flight crew emergency exit must not be obstructed by water or flotation devices after an emergency landing on water. This must be shown by test, demonstration, or analysis.
[Doc. No. 29247, 64 FR 45094, Aug. 18, 1999]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26524]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0706; FRL-9919-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AP06

Standards of Performance for Grain Elevators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that 
the period for providing public comments on the July 9, 2014, proposed 
rule titled ``Standards of Performance for Grain Elevators'' is being 
extended an additional 45 days.

DATES: The public comment period for the proposed rule published July 
9, 2014 (79 FR 39241), and initially extended by 30 days on September 
16, 2014 (79 FR 55413), is being extended an additional 45 days to 
December 22, 2014, in order to provide the public additional time to 
submit comments and supporting information.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to 
the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/
courier. Please refer to the proposal (79 FR 39241) for the addresses 
and detailed instructions.
    Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC 
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying. The EPA has established the official public docket 
for this rulemaking under Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0706.
    World Wide Web. The EPA Web site containing information for this 
rulemaking is: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nsps/grain/genspspg.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Schrock, Natural Resources 
Group (E143-03), Sector Policies and Programs Division, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5032; 
fax number (919) 541-3470; and email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comment Period

    The EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 45 
days. The public comment period will end on December 22, 2014, rather 
than November 6, 2014. This will ensure that the public has sufficient 
time to review and comment on all of the information available, 
including the proposed rule and other materials in the docket.

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-26524 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### § 14.24 Comments by other parties.

Any party to a proceeding other than the applicant and the FAA's counsel may file comments on an application within 30 days after it is served, or on an answer within 15 days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in proceedings on the application unless the ALJ or adjudicative officer determines that the public interest requires such participation in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comments.

[Doc. No. FAA-1998-4379, 64 FR 32936, June 18, 1999]
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00271

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF K.J. AND K.J.,

C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 231st District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 231

- 707263

- 21 )

December 22, 2022

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
CertainTeed Corporation

750 E. Swedesford Road • PO Box 860 • Valley Forge, PA 19482 • USA • Tel: (610) 341-7000 • www.certainteed.com

April 20, 2011

Dear CertaSprayTM Customer:

Safety is a priority for CertainTeed and the Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) industry.

As you may know, both OSHA and EPA have been inspecting SPF chemicals and 

installation practice, and working closely with the SPF industry to create an awareness 

of the safety risks associated with improper SPF installation practices.

The result of this work was the creation, in late 2010, of the American Chemistry 

Council’s website, www.spraypolyurethane.org. In addition to being a reference for 

health and safety matters, the website offers an online training module and a 

corresponding test that all professional SPF applicators should take. The training and 

test are free and takes less than two hours to complete. After successful completion of 

the test, the ACC issues a “recognition of completion” card to applicators who 

successfully pass the test. The training module and test will soon be available in 

Spanish as well.

As part of our commitment to safety for contractors, applicators and homeowners, 

starting May 1

st

, 2011, CertainTeed will launch a safety policy to require that all 

CertaSpray TM applicators complete the training, pass the ACC test and hold a valid ACC 

SPF Safety Card. The card is valid for two years from the date of issuance. 

CertainTeed reserves the right to verify compliance with this requirement at any time.

CertaSprayTM distributors should forward this letter to all CertaSprayTM contractors, in 

order to ensure they comply with CertainTeed’s safety policy as well.

We thank you for your compliance with CertainTeed’s safety policy. Together we will 

grow the SPF market safely.

Sincerely,

Lionel Rossignol

Product Manager

CertainTeed Corp, Insulation Group

PS: Please forward copy of ACC Safety Card and contact information to Denise Mattioli 

via email to Denise.B.Mattioli@Saint-Gobain.com or via fax to 610-341-7632.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7611

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ZACHARY LIVERMAN, a/k/a Zack,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:95-cr-00151-FBS-8)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zachary Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Zachary Liverman appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. The district 

court may reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) “if such a 

reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued 

by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A 

reduction “is not consistent with [the Commission’s] policy 

statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2)” if the amendment “does not have the effect of 

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” USSG 

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (2011). The district court correctly 

determined that it lacked authority to reduce Liverman’s 

sentence under Amendment 750 and § 3582(c)(2), because the 

amendment did not have the effect of lowering his Guidelines 

range. Under the new Guidelines, a level thirty-six applies to 

cocaine base quantities of between 2.8 kilograms and less than 

8.4 kilograms. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(3) (2011).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

United States v. Liverman, No. 2:95-cr-00151-FBS-8 (E.D. Va. 

filed Nov. 10, & entered Nov. 14, 2011). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense Acquisition University.

# ACTION:

Board of Visitors meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The next meeting of the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Board of Visitors (BoV) will be held at the Packard Conference Center, Building 184, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia on Wednesday June 7, 2000 from 0900 until 1500. The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the BoV on continuing items of interest. The agenda will also include a presentation by a FY 1999 DAU External Acquisition Research Program awardee.

The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Mr. John Michel at 703.845.6756.

      ( print page 30093)    
Dated: May 4, 2000.

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate, OSD Federal Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-11602  Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
§ 27.71 Autorotation performance. For single-engine helicopters and multiengine helicopters that do not meet the Category A engine isolation requirements of Part 29 of this chapter, the minimum rate of descent airspeed and the best angle-of-glide airspeed must be determined in autorotation at— ( a ) Maximum weight; and
( b ) Rotor speed(s) selected by the applicant.
[Amdt. 27-21, 49 FR 44433, Nov. 6, 1984]
#### § 415.111 Launch operator organization.

An applicant's safety review document must contain organizational charts and a description that shows that the launch operator's organization satisfies the requirements of § 417.103 of this chapter. An applicant's safety review document must also identify all persons with whom the applicant has contracted to provide safety-related goods or services for the launch of the launch vehicle.
Motion Granted; Order filed October 10, 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00307

- CR

____________ CHARLES RAY BLACKLOC K, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1474533



### ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Kevin Howard . Appellant ’ s brief was originally due July 8, 2019

. We have granted a total of 90 days to file appellant ’ s brief until October 7, 2019. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. No
brief was filed. On October 7, 2019 , counsel filed a further request for extension o ftime to file appellant ’ s brief. Counsel did not allege any exceptional circumstances

in the request.

We grant the request for extension and issue the following order.
Accordingly, we order Kevin Howard to file a brief with the clerk of this c ourt

on or before November 12, 2019 . If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, the c ourt may issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief and the

con sideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~ ~ourt**  

# of**~peaI~** 

# for tbejf eberaI**~ircuit**
AUGUST TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

### v. CAMTEK, LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
2010-1458 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in Case No. 05-CV-1396, Chief Judge Michael J. Davis. 

### ONMOTION Before NEWMAN, FRIEDMAN, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

### ORDER Camtek, Ltd. ("Camtek") moves for a partial stay ofa permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. August Technology Corporation ("August") opposes.
#### [571] Trustees of Salina *vs.*Gilbert.

Where a plaintiff fails to recover a sum sufficiently large to entitle him to costs, he is liable to pay his attorney full supreme court costs, if the *demand*put into the attorney’s hands for collection exceeded $250.

This was a motion by the plaintiffs for the re-taxation of their attorney’s bill of costs. The plaintiffs recovered in an action of assumpsit *less*than $50, and consequently were not entitled to tax costs against the defendant. Their attorney demanded a *full*bill of *supreme court costs.*The plaintiffs insisted he was entitled to only *common pleas costs.*

*By the Court,*

Nelson, J.

Had the plaintiffs recovered a sum which would have entitled them to costs as against the defendant, the attorney could not have demanded of his clients any greater or other costs than they might have demanded of the defendant in the suit. *(Scott & Wigram*v. *Elmendorf 12 Johns. R.*315.) But the plaintiffs having failed to recover a sum entitling them to costs, the attorney may claim to be paid such costs as the plaintiffs would have been entitled to recover, had they succeeded in recovering the *demand*put by them into his hands for collection; that is, he may claim supreme court costs,' if the demand exceeded $250; if otherwise, only common pleas costs.

Motion denied.
**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 Annual Report of Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (the “company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sally J. Smith, 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: February 25, 2011 |                                        |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                        |
|                    |                                        |
|                    | /s/    SALLY   J. SMITH |
|                    | Sally J. Smith                              |

 

----