alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 674


Federal Perkins Loan Program; Correction of Effective Date

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations; correction of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2000 technical amendments to regulations governing 
the Federal Perkins Loan Program were published in the Federal Register 
(65 FR 18001). This document corrects the effective date of May 8, 2000 
announced. The correct effective date for the technical amendments is 
July 1, 2000. These technical amendments are to take effect immediately 
following the incorporation of previous amendments to 34 CFR part 674 
published on October 28, 1999 (64 FR 58298-58315) with an effective 
date of July 1, 2000.

DATES: The regulations amending 34 CFR part 674 published on April 6, 
2000 (65 FR 18001-18003) are effective July 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vanessa Freeman, Program 
Specialist, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
Room 3045, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-5449. 
Telephone: (202) 708-8242. If you use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding 
paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document in text or Adobe Portable Document 
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
http://ifap.ed.gov/csb_html/fedlreg.htm

To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program, which is 
available free at the first of the previous sites. If you have 
questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office 
(GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at 
(202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.037 Federal 
Perkins Loan Program)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 674

    Loan programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Student aid.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
Maureen McLaughlin,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 00-11230 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 43
Editorial Note: For miscellaneous technical amendments to this part 43, see Amdt. 43-3, 31 FR 3336, Mar. 3, 1966, and Amdt. 43-6, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

§ 43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, § 135.411(a)(1), and § 135.419 of this chapter). ( a ) *Maintenance record entries.* Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information: ( 1 ) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.
( 2 ) The date of completion of the work performed.
( 3 ) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
( 4 ) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.
( b ) Each holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under Part 121 or 135, that is required by its approved operations specifications to provide for a continuous airworthiness maintenance program, shall make a record of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration, on aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts which it operates in accordance with the applicable provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter, as appropriate.
( c ) This section does not apply to persons performing inspections in accordance with Part 91, 125, § 135.411(a)(1), or § 135.419 of this chapter.
( d ) In addition to the entry required by paragraph (a) of this section, major repairs and major alterations shall be entered on a form, and the form disposed of, in the manner prescribed in appendix B, by the person performing the work.
[Amdt. 43-23, 47 FR 41085, Sept. 16, 1982, as amended by Amdt. 43-37, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 43-39, 69 FR 44863, July 27, 2004]
#### § 89.120 Operations for aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.

The Administrator may authorize operations without remote identification where the operation is solely for the purpose of aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
ex10_1.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

     

    

     

    Robert E.
Swanson

    Chairman

    


    


    
      	 
      	
              July
      31, 2009

            


    

    


    


    


    Randall
D. Holmes

     

    
    

    
      	
              Re:    
      

            	
              Ridgewood
      Renewable Power LLC

              Senior
      Executive Bonus Plan

            


    

    


    Dear
Randy:

    


    Under
Section 2 (a) of the Ridgewood Renewable Power LLC Senior Executive Bonus Plan,
a "Qualified Transaction" is defined as "an RRP Asset Disposition or a Trust
Asset Disposition that is consummated pursuant to a definitive purchase and sale
agreement executed and delivered by all the parties thereto on or prior to June
30, 2009."

    


    Since
some of the contemplated transactions that we are working on have been delayed,
this letter will confirm that the date under the Senior Executive Bonus Plan is
being extended by deleting the "June 30, 2009" phrase and inserting the phrase
"December 31, 2009" in lieu thereof. Except for this amendment, the other
provisions of the Senior Executive Bonus Plan remain in effect as
written.

    


    Please
sign this letter in the space indicated below and return it to me to confirm
this extension and your continued participation in the Plan.

    


    
      	 
      	 
      	
              Sincerely
      yours,

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              /s/
      Robert E. Swanson

            	 
      
	
              Agreed:

            	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              /s/
      Randall D. Holmes

            	 
      	
              August
      1, 2009

            	 
      
	
              Randall
      D. Holmes

            	 
      	 
      	 
      


    

    


    


    


    


    947
Linwood Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450 • T: (201)447-9000 F:
(201)447-0474
#### § 406.157 Expert or opinion witnesses.

An employee of the FAA may not be called as an expert or opinion witness for any party other than the agency, in any proceeding governed by this part. An employee of a respondent may not be called as an expert or opinion witness for the complainant in any proceeding governed by this part to which the respondent is a party.
§ 460.43 Applicability. This subpart applies to: ( a ) An applicant for a license or permit under this chapter who proposes to have a space flight participant on board a vehicle;
( b ) An operator licensed or permitted under this chapter who has a space flight participant on board a vehicle; and
( c ) A space flight participant in an activity authorized under this chapter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AHMAD RASHAD TOMLINSON, a/k/a Tank,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00285-BO-1; 5:11-cv-00565-BO)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmad Rashad Tomlinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Rashad Tomlinson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion 

to alter or amend the judgment. Tomlinson was convicted of 

conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to 

distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender 

in May 2006 to 180 months’ imprisonment. He did not file a 

direct appeal. 

In 2011, Tomlinson filed this § 2255 motion 

challenging his career offender designation in light of the 

Supreme Court’s opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. 

Ct. 2577 (2010), and our opinion in United States v. Simmons, 

649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The district court held 

that Carachuri-Rosendo was retroactively applicable to cases on 

collateral review and that Tomlinson was entitled to equitable 

tolling to assert his claim under Simmons, but that ultimately 

Tomlinson’s claim failed on the merits. At the time the 

district court issued its decision denying § 2255 relief, it did 

not have the benefit of our recent opinion in United States v. 

Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012), where we held that 

Carachuri-Rosendo is not retroactively applicable to cases on 

collateral review. 691 F.3d at 559-60. 
3

In light of Powell, Tomlinson’s § 2255 motion is 

untimely. 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
[No. 49763-4-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### Willie M. Mieldon, *Appellant,*v. The University of Washington, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-19797-7, Glenna Hall, J., entered November 2, 9, and 29, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, J., concurred in by Baker and Schindler, JJ.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Calvin Fish, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered October 24, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered October 24, 2014, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. The instrument, including the certified abstract of defendant's driving record and proofs of mailing of notices of suspension of defendant's driver's licence, was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant was operating a motor vehicle while knowing or having reason to know that his licence had been suspended or revoked (<a href="../2016/2016_51287.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Thompson, </i>52 Misc 3d 145</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51287[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], <i>lv denied </i>28 NY3d 1076 [2016]; <a href="../2016/2016_50336.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Outerbridge</i>, 51 Misc 3d 126</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50336[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], <i>lv denied </i>27 NY3d 1137 [2016]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. </p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: June 15, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

185) IV-E-58 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57 PM Sheet 185 of 242 
P.2 

12 -G -S8 

Public Workshop 

Excess Evaporative Emissions and Test Procedures 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 

June 30, 1988 

Temperatures on High Ozone Days 

Mark A. Wolcott 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dennis F. Kahlbaum 

Computer Sciences Corporation 
P.3 

Analysis of Temperatures 

on High Ozone Days 

Data Sources 

1984 National Weather Service Data 

1984 AIRS Ozone Data 

1985-1987 Design Value Monitors 
P.4 

1984 National Weather Service Data 

Diurnal Temperature = 

Maximum - Minimum Daily Temperature 

1984 AIRS Ozone Data 

Design Value Monitors 

From 42 Out of 68 CMSAs 

Exceeding the Ozone NAAQS 

During 1985-1987 
P.5 

Average Maximum 

Daily One Hour Ozone 

12.0-26.0 (pphm) 

Mean = 13.7 (pphm) 

Average Maximum 

Daily Temperature 

45.0 °F-111.0 °F 

Mean = 90.6 °F 
P.6 

Average Diurnal Temperature 

7.0°F-41.0°F 

Mean = 24.8 F 

Group by ASTM Class 

Rank by Maximum Daily Temperature 

Select 90th Percentile 
P.7 

Class A Cities 

Maximum Daily One Hour Ozone 

Top 10 Percent 

14.2 (pphm) 

Class A Cities 

Maximum Daily Temperature 

Top 10 Percent 

104 °F 
P.8 

Class A Cities 

Diurnal Temperature 

Top 10 Percent 

23 °F 

Class B Cities 

Maximum Daily One Hour Ozone 

Top 10 Percent 

12.0-15.0 (pphm) 

Mean = 12.5 (pphm) 
P.9 

Class B Cities 

Maximum Daily Temperature 

Top 10 Percent 

105.0 °F-109.0 °F 

Mean = 106.7 °F 

Class B Cities 

Diurnal Temperature 

Top 10 Percent 

26.0 °F - 37.0 °F 

Mean = 31.7 °F 
P.10 

Class C Cities 

Maximum Daily One Hour Ozone 

Top 10 Percent 

12.0-24.4 (pphm) 

Mean = 15.0 (pphm) 

Class C Cities 

Maximum Daily Temperature 

Top 10 Percent 

94.0 °F - 99.0 °F 

Mean = 95.8 °F 
P.11 

Class C Cities 

Diurnal Temperature 

Top 10 Percent 

22.0 °F - 35.0 °F 

Mean = 25.3 °F
§ 61.131 Exceptions to the night flying requirements. ( a ) Subject to the limitations of paragraph (b) of this section, a person is not required to comply with the night flight training requirements of this subpart if the person receives flight training in and resides in the State of Alaska.
( b ) A person who receives flight training in and resides in the State of Alaska but does not meet the night flight training requirements of this section: ( 1 ) May be issued a pilot certificate with the limitation “night flying prohibited.”
( 2 ) Must comply with the appropriate night flight training requirements of this subpart within the 12-calendar-month period after the issuance of the pilot certificate. At the end of that period, the certificate will become invalid for use until the person complies with the appropriate night flight training requirements of this subpart. The person may have the “night flying prohibited” limitation removed if the person— ( i ) Accomplishes the appropriate night flight training requirements of this subpart; and
( ii ) Presents to an examiner a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor that verifies accomplishment of the appropriate night flight training requirements of this subpart.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40905, July 30, 1997]
§ 77.39 Contents of a petition. ( a ) You must file a petition for discretionary review in writing and it must be received by the FAA within 30 days after the issuance of a determination under § 77.31, or a revision or extension of the determination under § 77.35.
( b ) The petition must contain a full statement of the aeronautical basis on which the petition is made, and must include new information or facts not previously considered or presented during the aeronautical study, including valid aeronautical reasons why the determination, revisions, or extension made by the FAA should be reviewed.
( c ) In the event that the last day of the 30-day filing period falls on a weekend or a day the Federal government is closed, the last day of the filing period is the next day that the government is open.
( d ) The FAA will inform the petitioner or sponsor (if other than the petitioner) and the FCC (whenever an FCC-related proposal is involved) of the filing of the petition and that the determination is not final pending disposition of the petition.
#### Boyd PINKSTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16718.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 25, 1960.

*834Russell E. Parsons, Beverly Hills, Cal., Harry E. Weiss, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Lynn J. Gillard, U. S. Atty., John Riordan, Jr., John Kaplan, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, MATHEWS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On September 18, 1958, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, appellant, Boyd Pinkston, was indicted in two counts. Count 1 charged that on or about August 12, 1958, in San Francisco, California, appellant “did unlawfully sell, dispense and distribute, not in or from the original stamped package, a certain quantity of a narcotic drug, to wit, approximately 91 grains of heroin.” Count 2 charged that on or about August 18,1958, in San Francisco, California, appellant “did unlawfully sell, dispense and distribute, not in or from the original stamped package, a certain quantity of a narcotic drug, to wit, approximately 87 grains of heroin.”

Thus each count charged an offense described in 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a). Penalties therefor are prescribed in 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237(a).

Appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty and, having waived jury trial, was tried by the court without a jury. The court found him guilty as charged and entered a judgment sentencing him to be imprisoned for five years on each count of the indictment, the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal is from that judgment.

 Appellant’s brief does not, as required by our Rule 18, 28 U.S.C.A., contain a specification of errors relied upon. Hence this appeal presents nothing for review. Lemke v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 73, 14 Alaska 587. Though not required to do so, we have searched the record for error and have found none.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 5.53 System analysis and hazard identification. ( a ) When applying safety risk management, any person required to have an SMS under this part must analyze the systems identified in § 5.51. Those system analyses must be used to identify hazards under paragraph (c) of this section and in developing and implementing risk controls related to the system under § 5.55(c).
( b ) In conducting the system analysis, the following information must be considered: ( 1 ) Function and purpose of the system.
( 2 ) The system's operating environment.
( 3 ) An outline of the system's processes and procedures.
( 4 ) The personnel, equipment, and facilities necessary for operation of the system.
( 5 ) The interfaces of the system.
( c ) Any person required to have an SMS under this part must develop and maintain processes to identify hazards within the context of the system analysis.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0671, Amdt. 5-1, 80 FR 1326, Jan. 8, 2015, as amended by Amdt. 5-2, 89 FR 33106, Apr. 26, 2024]
§ 91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications required. ( a ) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the following: ( 1 ) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing that portion of the operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c), or an authorization under § 91.611) must have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 or 48 of this chapter. However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may only be obtained upon application to the responsible Flight Standards office.
( 2 ) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c), a Certificate of Aircraft registration as provided in part 48, or a registration certification issued under the laws of a foreign country.
( b ) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.
( c ) No person may operate an aircraft with a fuel tank installed within the passenger compartment or a baggage compartment unless the installation was accomplished pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, and a copy of FAA Form 337 authorizing that installation is on board the aircraft.
( d ) No person may operate a civil airplane (domestic or foreign) into or out of an airport in the United States unless it complies with the fuel venting and exhaust emissions requirements of part 34 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-218, 55 FR 32861, Aug. 10, 1990; Amdt. 91-318, 75 FR 41983, July 20, 2010; Amdt. 91-338, 80 FR 78648, Dec. 16, 2015; Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 91-350, 83 FR 9171, Mar. 5, 2018; Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 91-366, 87 FR 75846, Dec. 9, 2022]