alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 447.12 Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this part. ( a ) *Postal Service.* The United States Postal Service as established by 39 U.S.C. 201.
( b ) *Employee.* An individual appointed to a position, temporary or permanent, within the Postal Service, or hired as an executive under an employment contract, including a substitute or a special employee as defined by 18 U.S.C. 202(a). The term “employee” does not include the Governors of the Postal Service.
22-mj-03444-McAliley

Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 1 of 11
August 25, 2022

22-mj-03444-McAliley

Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 10 of 11
25th

Case 1:22-cr-20421-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2022 Page 11 of 11
Order entered October 5, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 21 - 00662 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 00663 - CR PHILLIP LYNN SCHWARTZKOPF , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 001 - 86990 - 2020 & 001 - 86991 - 2020 O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Elizabeth Griffin’s October 4, 2021 request for an extension of time to complete the report er’s record . We GRANT the request to extent we ORDER the reporter’s record filed on or before November 3, 2021. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3( c). /s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
#### § 101-30.101-1 Civil agency item.

*Civil agency item* means an item of supply in the supply system of one or more civilian agencies, which is repetitively procured, stocked, or otherwise managed (includes direct delivery requirements as well as items stocked for issue).

[46 FR 35644, July 10, 1981]
§ 3025.105 Issuance of Commission views. ( a ) The Commission will review timely filed comments responding to a Commission solicitation pursuant to § 3025.103(a) prior to submitting its views to the Secretary of State.
( b ) After Commission views are developed, the Commission shall post Commission views in the applicable docket established pursuant to § 3025.103(a) and submit Commission views to the Secretary of State pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1).
#### § 912.12 Review by legal officers.

The authority of the Postal Service to adjust, determine, compromise, and settle a claim under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act shall, if the amount of a proposed compromise, settlement, or award exceeds $5,000, be exercised only after review by a legal officer of the Postal Service.

[45 FR 43720, June 30, 1980, as amended at 69 FR 52607, Aug. 27, 2004]
Air Conditioning Credits in the LightDuty GHG Rule (and Beyond)

13 Jul 2010

Update for SAE Automotive 

Refrigerant and System 

Efficiency Symposium

Brian Nelson

US EPA
2

Key Elements Concerning A/C Credits

 “Leakage” credits are calculated using the method described in 

SAE J2727 (August 2008 version)

 “Efficiency” credits are calculated using menu-based approach, 

where design/control attributes of the vehicle’s A/C system are 

used to determine the amount of the credit:

– For model years 2012 and 2013, only the menu is used

– For model years 2014 through 2016, the menu is supplemented by an A/C Idle 

Test

– The A/C Idle Test is used to measure the incremental CO2 emissions due to 

A/C Use, and adjust the credit amount downward if test result less than 14.9 

g/min.

 “Off-Cycle” credits are those which are not capture in an existing 

test cycle or menu item

– Mfr. must justify rationale for granting an off-cycle credit for “new and 

innovative” technologies

– Standard test metric does not exist for off-cycle credits
A/C Credit Adjustment (2014-2016 only)

3
4

What We Finalized in the A/C Credit Menu
Early A/C Credits

 Available in MYs 2009 – 2011

 Credits determined using same methodology as used for 

MY2012 A/C credits

 To earn early A/C credits for vehicles in California and CAA 177

states, the manufacturer must use one of the EPA early CO2 

credit Pathways that covers those vehicles

 For vehicles outside of California and CAA 177 states, 

manufacturers may earn early A/C credits regardless of 

whether or not the vehicles are included in an early CO2 credit 

Pathway 

5
Status of New MVAC Alternative Refrigerants

6
7

Next Steps

 Have begun discussions with stakeholders to establish a 

framework for quantifying the power consumed by vehicle A/C 

systems:

– Development of test methods/procedures

– Use of models to determine expected power consumption

– Verification of model results with vehicle-level testing

 What we said in the Final Rule concerning next steps:

– “While EPA considers a test cycle that covers a broader range of vehicle 

speed and climatic conditions to be ideal, developing such a representative 

A/C test would involve the work of many stakeholders, and would require a 

significant amount of time, exceeding the scope of this rule. EPA expects 

to continue working with industry, the California Air Resources Board, and 

other stakeholders to move toward increasingly robust performance tests 

and methods for determining the efficiency of mobile A/C systems and the 

related impact on vehicle CO2 emissions, including a potential adapted 

SC03 test.”
PUBLIC LAW 115–145—MAR. 23, 2018 132 STAT. 1229 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2672: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Nov. 15, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): Mar. 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–145 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 520 Carter 

Street in Fairview, Illinois, as the ‘‘Sgt. Douglas J. Riney Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SGT. DOUGLAS J. RINEY POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 520 Carter Street in Fairview, Illinois, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Sgt. Douglas J. Riney Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sgt. Douglas J. Riney Post Office’’. 

Approved March 23, 2018. 

Mar. 23, 2018 

[H.R. 2672] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    375,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               464,318
<PP&E>                                         841,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                 468,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 913,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          423,489
<BONDS>                                        232,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,275
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   913,450
<SALES>                                        217,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               217,978
<CGS>                                           12,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                117,676
<INCOME-TAX>                                        22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            117,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   117,654
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 702.336 Formal hearings; new issues. ( a ) If, during the course of the formal hearing, the evidence presented warrants consideration of an issue or issues not previously considered, the hearing may be expanded to include the new issue. If in the opinion of the administrative law judge the new issue requires additional time for preparation, the parties shall be given a reasonable time within which to prepare for it. If the new issue arises from evidence that has not been considered by the district director, and such evidence is likely to resolve the case without the need for a formal hearing, the administrative law judge may remand the case to the district director for his or her evaluation and recommendation pursuant to, § 702.316.
( b ) At any time prior to the filing of the compensation order in the case, the administrative law judge may in his discretion, upon the application of a party or upon his own motion, give notice that he will consider any new issue. The parties shall be given not less than 10 days' notice of the hearing on such new issue. The parties may stipulate that the issue may be heard at an earlier time and shall proceed to a hearing on the new issue in the same manner as on an issue initially considered.
[38 FR 26861, Sept. 26, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 42552, Aug. 23, 1977]
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Bennie Johnson, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-14-00194-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

12F0821-102). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss and Justice Carter*, 

participating. Sitting by assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Bennie Johnson, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 14, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 127.307 Emergency Manual. Each *Emergency Manual* must contain— ( a ) LNG release response procedures, including contacting local response organizations;
( b ) Emergency shutdown procedures;
( c ) A description of the fire equipment and systems and their operating procedures;
( d ) A description of the emergency lighting and emergency power systems;
( e ) The telephone numbers of local Coast Guard units, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, and other emergency response organizations;
( f ) If the waterfront facility handling LNG has personnel shelters, the location of and provisions in each shelter;
( g ) First aid procedures and if there are first aid stations, the locations of each station; and
( h ) Emergency procedures for mooring and unmooring a vessel.
[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

________________________________/

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF FILING

The United States of America hereby files the attached cover letter to the Special 

Master accompanying the Annotated Logs of Disputed Documents for Report and 

Recommendation. See Attachment A. 

Respectfully submitted,

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

MATTHEW G. OLSEN

Assistant Attorney General

By: /s/

JAY I. BRATT 

Chief

JULIE A. EDELSTEIN

Deputy Chief

STEPHEN MARZEN

Trial Attorney

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section 

National Security Division

Department of Justice

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 176 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 12, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

/s/ Julie A. Edelstein

Julie A. Edelstein

Deputy Chief

Counterintelligence and Export Control Section

National Security Division

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

Special Bar # A5502949

Tel.: 202-233-0986

Email: julie.a.edelstein@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 176 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of ITIS Holdings Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of ITIS
Holdings Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the second quarter of 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:

     (1)     the 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ITIS
Holdings Inc.

                                                    ITIS Holdings Inc.


August 15, 2005                                          /s/ Hunter M.A. Carr
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Hunter M.A. Carr
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

                                                        /s/ Joanna Hoover
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Joanna Hoover
                                                    Principal Accounting Officer
#### MARGARRETTA P. BARNES, Responden , *v.*SARAH J. STOUGHTON and others, Appellants.

*Appeal*— service *of notice of*— v/pon *what*parties— Gode, § 827.

Defendant S. moved for a resale in an action of foreclosure, which was denied, and due notice of the entry of the order was served upon him by plaintiff’s attorney. Subsequently, and within the time allowed by the Code, he served a notice of appeal upon the attorney for the plaintiff, but not upon the attorney for the purchasers. *Meld,*that the appeal should be dismissed, on the ground that the proper parties had not been brought before the court.

Appeal from an order, denying a motion for a resale of certain real estate, sold under a decree of foreclosure entered in this action, and requiring the purchaser to complete the purchase of the lots struck off to him.

*F. Gr. Salmon*and *James R. Mrvrmn,*for the respondent.

*Wakema/n <& Lattmg,*for the purchaser.

*255Barnard, P. J.:

On the 15th oí March, 1875, an order was made by Judge Tappen, at Special Term, denying a motion for a resale in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage.

On the 20th of March, 1875, written notice of the entry of such order was given by plaintiff’s attorney to the attorneys for the moving parties. On the twenty-sixth of March, the defendant Stoughton, who had made said motion, served a notice of appeal, upon the plaintiff’s attorney, from the order denying said resale. No notice of appeal was served on the several purchasers who had bought at the sale, and no notice of the entry of the order had been served by these purchasers upon the attorney for the defendant Stoughton. The General Term dismissed the appeal, after argument, as to Stoughton, for the reason that the appeal-did not bring up the parties to the order appealed from.

A reargument is asked, upon the ground that a notice of appeal served on the plaintiff did bring up all parties ; and that, upon the argument of the appeal, all the purchasers could be properly bound by the order made by the appellate court.

An appeal must be made by the service of notice “ upon the adverse party.” (Code, § 327.)

An adverse party is one who has an interest adverse to the reversal of the order. *(Cotes*v. *Carroll,*28 How., 436; *Hiscock*v. *Phelps,*2 Lansing, 106.) Only one notice is required to limit the time in which to appeal. (Code, § 332.)

• If this was not so there might be many appeals from the same order taken at different times and heard separately.

I see no reason to have a reargument on the Stoughton appeal dismissed in May.

As to the appeals which have been taken after the dismissal of Stoughton appeal, and after thirty days from the service of the notice in writing, March 20, 1875, it follows that they are unauthorized, and must be dismissed as having been taken after the time to appeal had expired.

Reargument denied, with costs. Appeals dismissed, two motions, with costs.

Present — Barnard, P. J., and Talcott, J.

Reargument denied, with costs and disbursements.
Overview of Evaluation Designs

Handout #3

Crosswalk for Outcome Evaluation of a Literacy Program

Research 

question

What is collected and how? From whom / data sources? When collected and by 

whom?

How will you analyze the 

data?

What impact 

does the 

literacy 

intervention 

program have 

on student selfefficacy relative 

to a 

comparison 

group of 

students?
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-22300-CV-WILLIAMS

MORTADA ABDALLA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KING’S FOOD SPOT INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report 

and Recommendation (DE 102) (“Report”) on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Final Default 

Judgment Against Defendant Yousef Ayyad (DE 100) (“Motion”). In the Report,

Magistrate Judge Reid recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion. (DE 102 at 1.) 

Specifically, the Report finds that Plaintiff sufficiently established Defendant Yousef 

Ayyad’s liability for overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Id. at 3–6.) The Report further recommends that Plaintiff be awarded 

$15,317.00 in overtime wages, $16,716.25 in attorney’s fees, and $180.00 in cost. (Id.

at 6–11.) No objections were filed to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. 

Upon an independent review of the Report, the Motion, the record, and applicable 

law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report (DE 102) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment Against Defendant 

Yousef Ayyad (DE 100) is GRANTED. 

Case 1:22-cv-22300-KMW Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. Final Judgment will be entered by way of a separate Order. 

4. All hearings and deadlines are CANCELED. 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 5th day of June,

2024.

Case 1:22-cv-22300-KMW Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2024 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 VoIP, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A
      for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Sasnett, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





(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 result of operations of the Company.











Date:
      May
      11, 2006


/s/
                  David SasnettDavid
                  SasnettChief
                  Financial Officer