alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13424]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent Systems; 
Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation's Special Emphasis 
Panel in Information and Intelligent Systems (1200) announces the 
following meetings.

    Date/Time: June 1-2, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 530, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Robotics and Human Augmentation 
Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.

    Date/Time: June 8-9, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 530, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Robotics and Human Augmentation 
Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.

    Date/Time: June 13-14, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 4610 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Knowledge and Cognitive Systems 
Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.

    Date/Time: June 15, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Key Bridge Marriott, 1401 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Computation and Social Systems 
Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.

    Date/Time: June 20-21, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: River Inn, 925 25th Street NW, Washington, DC.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Information and Data Management 
Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.


CONTACT PERSON: Dr. Ephraim Glinert, Deputy Division Director, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230; (703) 306-
1926.

MINUTES: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.

PURPOSE OF MEETINGS: To provide advice and recommendations concerning 
proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.

REASON FOR CLOSINGS: The proposals being reviewed include information 
of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical 
information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are 
exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act.

    Note: Closed portions are proper under the Sunshine Act 
exemptions cited. The CMO's signature on this Notice is the required 
determination.


    Dated: May 23, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-13424 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11852

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RICHARD HARRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

ROSADO, 

Correctional Officer, 

MOORE,

Correctional Officer, Captain, 

MANNING, 

Correctional Officer, Sargent, 

ALSTON, 

Correctional Officer, Sargent, 

USCA11 Case: 24-11852 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11852

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00895-WWB-PDB

____________________

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Richard Harris appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims against the defendants. However, the order is not final because Harris’s First Amendment claim 

remains pending before the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX 

Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 

2000) (providing that we generally only have jurisdiction to review 

district court orders or judgments that constitute “final decisions”); 

Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th 

Cir. 2012) (providing that an order that disposes of fewer than all 

claims against all parties is not a final decision). 

Further, the order is not immediately appealable under the 

collateral order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable 

on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 

1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). Harris may challenge the dismissal 

USCA11 Case: 24-11852 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 2 of 3
24-11852 Opinion of the Court 3

of his Eighth Amendment claims after his First Amendment claim 

has been fully resolved. 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 24-11852 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2024 Page: 3 of 3
**Improvements for Independence**

*Modifications designed to prevent accidents*

Being safe and comfortable at home is a large part of living well. Home modifications and repairs can help everyone, especially older adults and people with disabilities, prevent accidents and maintain an independent lifestyle. 

Many older adults prefer to stay at home for as long as possible, but too often don’t think about whether a home can adapt to their needs as they age. Making improvements before they are needed is a good way to ensure that a home is ready for aging in place. Forward-thinking improvements can also prevent falls, which often cause the need for long-term care.

Changes can be made to improve both the accessibility and adaptability of a home. Accessibility improvements involve tasks like widening doorways and lowering countertop heights for someone who uses a wheelchair. Adaptability changes, such as adding grab bars in bathrooms, are improvements made to assist persons for whom strength and balance may have become a challenge. These changes usually can be done without a major redesign or full-blown renovation. 

You can get started making your home ready for long-term living by conducting a top-to-bottom assessment.

**Home assessment**

Before making any changes, take a look at the entire home. Keep in mind items that may be needed in the future as well as now. This checklist can help identify areas that might need improvement. Everyone has different needs, but in general, a “no” answer may be cause for action.

· Are exterior walkways and entrances well-lit?

· Is there a step-free entrance to the home?

· Are entrance doors easy to lock, unlock, open, and close?

· Does the main floor include a kitchen, bedroom, and full bathroom?

· Are doorways wide enough for someone using a wheelchair, walker, or service animal?

· Is wall-to-wall carpeting secure and in good condition (flat, not bunched up)?

· Are area rugs secured to the floor with non-slip padding?

· Are walkways free from obstructions and hazards like cords and furniture?

· Do stairways have sturdy handrails on both sides?

· Can bathroom and kitchen cabinets be easily reached?

· Is there a step-free shower entrance?

· Are grab bars available near the shower and toilet?

· Do bathtubs and showers have non-slip mats, adhesive strips, or slip-free floors? 

· Will smoke detectors provide visual as well as audio alerts?

· Are telephones easily accessible on all floors?

More information about home modifications, including a detailed home assessment checklist as well as information about financial assistance, can be found at eldercare.gov.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 502 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 3, 2008 

Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. SALAZAR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

SEPTEMBER 22 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Space 

Foundation. 

Whereas, on March 21, 1983, the United States Space Foundation was founded by a small group of pioneering individuals in Colorado Springs, Colorado; 

Whereas 2008 marks the 25th year of excellence and service 

of the Space Foundation; 

Whereas the mission of the Space Foundation is to advance 

space-related endeavors to inspire, enable, and propel humanity; 

Whereas the Space Foundation has become the leading nonprofit organization advancing the exploration, developVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:01 Sep 23, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR502.ATS SR502

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

SRES 502 ATS 

ment, and use of space and space education for the benefit of all humankind; 

Whereas the Space Foundation embraces all aspects of space 

including commercial, civil, and national security; 

Whereas the current national security environment requires 

extensive use and advancement of space-based assets; 

Whereas the Space Foundation has contributed to space education programs in all 50 States and also in Europe and 

Asia; 

Whereas the Space Foundation is regarded internationally as 

a leading space advocacy organization, and is a member 

of the United States Delegation to the United Nations 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; and 

Whereas the Space Foundation hosts the National Space 

Symposium and Strategic Space and Defense, 2 of the 

top conferences for space professionals: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (a) recognizes the contributions made by the Space 

3 Foundation; and 

4 (b) commemorates the Space Foundation’s 25 years 

5 of excellence and support to the Nation. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**DAY, MONTH DD, YYYY: ANNUAL SMP/SHIP NATIONAL TRAINING CONFERENCE EVALUATION**

**General Session Evaluation:**

Information on each general session will be scored on a likert scale from 1-5, with 1 indicating ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 indicating ‘strongly agree’. Respondents will also have the opportunity to indicate they did not attend the session. Questions for each session will include the following:

· Provided useful information I can use in my day-to-day responsibilities

· Was presented at a level appropriate to my experience

· Speakers were knowledgeable and had good presentation skills

No more than 18 general sessions will be scheduled per annual training conference. It is expected that attendees will attend approximately 75% of sessions provided based on their program affiliation, and will therefore only spend time scoring 75% of the provided general session questions.

**Breakout Session Evaluation:**

Information on each breakout session will be scored on a likert scale from 1-5, with 1 indicating ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 indicating ‘strongly agree’. Respondents will have the opportunity to indicate which session they attended during this time block, as well as an option indicating they did not attend a session during this time block. Questions for each session will include the following:

· Provided useful information I can use in my day-to-day responsibilities

· Was presented at a level appropriate to my experience

· Speakers were knowledgeable and had good presentation skills

No more than 8 breakout time blocks will be scheduled per annual training conference. It is expected that attendees will attend only one session per time block.

**Conference/Attendee Logistic Evaluation:**

Information on  the participants overall conference experience will be scored on a likert scale from 1-5, with 1 indicating ‘extremely dissatisfied’ and 5 indicating ‘extremely satisfied’. No more than 6 questions will be asked within this section. Questions will include the following:

· Hotel (ex: location/rooms/staff) 	

· Conference and ACL staff (ex: knowledgeable/helpful) 	

· Conference packet and materials provided (ex: clarity/helpfulness)	

· Overall conference experience	

No more than 6 open-text questions will be asked on topics including satisfaction specifics, dissatisfaction specifics, and recommendations for future conferences.

No more than 6 multiple choice questions will be asked on attendee composition including number of conferences attended, program affiliation, program role, and number of years in that role.

**PRA Public Burden Statement:**

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number (OMB 0985-New).  Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including time for gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing, and reviewing the collection of information.  The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary. 

	2	

# image1.jpg
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13738]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can 
review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of 
the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Room 962. Interested 
parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal 
Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register.

    Agreement No.: 011548-004.
    Title: Hanjin/Sinotrans Cross Space Charter & Sailing Agreement.
    Parties: Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., China National Foreign Trade 
Transportation Corp.
    Synopsis: The proposed modification changes the agreement's name; 
restates the geographic scope; specifies the number of the vessels to 
be provided by each party, their capacity, and initial rotation; 
changes slot allocations; and makes other conforming and administrative 
changes.

    Agreement No.: 011648-003.
    Title: APL/Crowley/Lykes/MLL Space Charter and Sailing Agreement.
    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd., APL Co. PTE Ltd,. Crowley 
Liner Services, Inc., Crowley American Transport, Lykes Lines Limited, 
LLC, Mexican Lines Limited, Transportacion Maritima Grancolombiana, 
S.A. (``TMG'').
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment deletes TMG as a party to the 
Agreement; revises the Agreement's termination and withdrawal 
provisions; and updates provisions related to vessels, slot 
allocations, and sub-chartering.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: May 26, 2000.
Theodore A. Zook,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13738 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 63 
          - [AD-FRL-6706-2] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of interpretative rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                            The EPA is withdrawing the interpretative rule published in the                             **Federal Register**                             on April 21, 2000, at 65 FR 21363. That interpretative rule was intended to clarify the construction by EPA of the applicability of sections 112(g) and 112(j) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to all stationary combustion turbines and waste heat recovery units in combined cycle systems.                         

                            An administrative error led to publication of a preliminary draft of the interpretative rule, rather than the final interpretative rule EPA intended to publish. Concurrent with this withdrawal of the incorrect version of the interpretative rule published on April 21, 2000, EPA is publishing elsewhere in today's                             **Federal Register**                             a corrected version of the interpretative rule.                         

# DATES:

On May 25, 2000, EPA hereby withdraws the interpretative rule published at 65 FR 21363. The corrected interpretative rule will become legally effective on June 26, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                            For further information, contact Sims Roy, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5263, facsimile: (919) 541-5450, electronic mail address:                             *roy.sims@epa.gov.*

Dated: May 18, 2000. 

Robert Perciasepe, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 00-13197 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
§ 104.410 Submission and approval. ( a ) In accordance with § 104.115, each vessel owner or operator must either— ( 1 ) Submit one copy of their Vessel Security Plan (VSP), in English, for review and approval to the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center (MSC) and a letter certifying that the VSP meets applicable requirements of this part; or
( 2 ) If intending to operate under an Approved Alternative Security Program, a letter signed by the vessel owner or operator stating which approved Alternative Security Program the owner or operator intends to use.
( b ) Owners or operators of vessels not in service on or before December 31, 2003, must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section 60 days prior to beginning operations.
( c ) The Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center (MSC), will examine each submission for compliance with this part, and either— ( 1 ) Approve it and specify any conditions of approval, returning to the submitter a letter stating its acceptance and any conditions;
( 2 ) Return it for revision, returning a copy to the submitter with brief descriptions of the required revisions; or
( 3 ) Disapprove it, returning a copy to the submitter with a brief statement of the reasons for disapproval.
( d ) A VSP may be submitted and approved to cover more than one vessel where the vessel design and operations are similar.
( e ) Each company or vessel, owner or operator, that submits one VSP to cover two or more vessels of similar design and operation must address vessel-specific information that includes the physical and operational characteristics of each vessel.
( f ) A plan that is approved by the MSC is valid for 5 years from the date of its approval.
[USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 39302, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60515, Oct. 22, 2003; USCG-2004-19963, 70 FR 74669, Dec. 16, 2005; USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39173, July 1, 2013; USCG-2007-28915, 81 FR 57711, Aug. 23, 2016]
EXHIBIT 32



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 Big Sky Energy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Selami Ahmet Sehsuvaroglu, Chief Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  May 23, 2005

By: /s/ Selami Ahmet Sehsuvaroglu

Name:  Selami Ahmet Sehsuvaroglu

Title:   Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002

In Connection with the Quarterly Report of Heartland Oil and Gas Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert L. Poley, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the registrant, 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 registrant.



|             |  |  |  |  |  |                                      |  |                    
|------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------ |  | -------------------
|             |  |  |  | 
|             |  |  |  |  |  |                                      |  | /s/ Robert L. Poley
|             |  |  |  |  |  | Robert L. Poley                     
|May 15, 2006 |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6738
ROSCOE BERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS HARPER, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-237-5-H) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roscoe Berry, Appellant Pro Se. G. Christopher Olson, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Roscoe Berry appeals the district court's order denying reliefon his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Berry v. Harper , No. CA-97-237-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 1998). 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 process.

AFFIRMED