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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-071] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The inventions listed below are assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

June 19, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Guy M. Miller, Patent Counsel, Goddard Space Flight Center, Mail Code 750.2, Greenbelt, MD 20771; 301-286-7351. 

NASA Case No. GSC 13,707-1: Dual Antenna Compensating Combiner (DACC); 

NASA Case No. GSC 13,874-1: Adhesive Bubble Removal Technique and Fixture for Fiber Optic Applications; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,098-1: Microaltimeter; 

NASA Case No. GSC 13,966-1: GPS “Compound Eye” Attitude Sensor; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,106-1: Automated Liquid Helium Transport System; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,147-1: Process for Producing High Quality Optically Polished Surfaces On Bare Aluminum Substrates; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,172-1: Hub Mounted Bending Beam for Shape Adjustment of Springback Reflectors; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,205-1: Continuously Variable Planetary Transmission(CVPT); 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,207-1: Gear Bearings; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,213-1: Estimated Spectrum Adaptive Postfilter (ESAP) and the Iterative Prepost Filtering (IPF) Algorithms; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,236-1: MEMS Devices for Spacecraft Thermal Control Applications; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,243-1: Autonomous Unified On-Board Orbit and Attitude Control System for Satellites; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,339-1: 3-D Interactive Display; 

NASA Case No. GSC 14,370-1: Circular Polarization Keying. 

Dated: June 12, 2000. 

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-15328 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
D AVID LOPEZ GONZALES , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA -CR 20-0347 PRPC

P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-124110-001 The Honorable Stephen M. Hopkins , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent

D avid Lopez Gonzales , Florence Petitioner

M EMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass , Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court

. FILED 2-11-2021STATE v. GONZALES Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner David Lopez Gonzales seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s four th petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying t he petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
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 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 of AMERCO (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Shoen, President and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, 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.







AMERCO,


a Nevada corporation





/s/ Edward J. Shoen





Edward J. Shoen


President and Chairman of the Board


Date:  November 4, 2009
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

        In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The
Alpine Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended September 30, 2003
(the "Periodic  Report"),  I, Steven S. Elbaum,  Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company,  hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the best of my knowledge
and belief,  that the Periodic  Report fully complies with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the
information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 12, 2003                     /s/  STEVEN S. ELBAUM
                                            -----------------------
                                            Steven S. Elbaum
                                            Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-CR-20521-RNS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

vs. 

THEODORE FARNSWORTH and 

J. MITCHELL LOWE

 

Defendants. 

 / 

UNITED STATES’ FIFTH RESPONSE TO THE STANDING DISCOVERY ORDERS 

The United States hereby files its fifth response to the Standing Discovery Orders (ECF 

Nos. 8 and 9) as to Defendants Theodore Farnsworth and J. Michell Lowe (the “Defendants”) and 

hereby notifies the Court and all interested parties that as of May 26, 2023, the following 

supplemental discovery has been produced to the Defendants: 

Description Beginning Bates Range Ending Bates Range

Third Party Records 

Produced to the SEC DOJ-PROD22-0000000001 DOJ-PROD22-0000188874 

The United States recognizes that its obligation to provide discovery is of a continuing 

nature and will supplement this response if and when it obtains additional evidence and materials. 

Respectfully submitted,

 GLENN S. LEON

CHIEF, FRAUD SECTION

CRIMINAL DIVISION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

 

 By: /s/ Lauren Archer 

 Lauren Archer 

 Christopher Fenton 

Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

Matthew Reilly

Trial Attorneys

Florida Special Bar No. A5502575 (Archer)

United States Department of Justice

Criminal Division, Fraud Section

1400 New York Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: (202) 538-3859

Email: Lauren.Archer2@usdoj.gov

Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 30, 2023, the foregoing was filed and served on all counsel of 

record using the CM/ECF system.

 /s/ Lauren Archer 

 Lauren Archer 

Trial Attorney

 Florida Special Bar No. A5502575 

 United States Department of Justice

Criminal Division, Fraud Section

 1400 New York Ave., NW 

 Washington, DC 20005 

 Tel: (202) 538-3859 

 Email: Lauren.Archer2@usdoj.gov 

Case 1:22-cr-20521-DSL Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 35.2  LOGO contactus@exelatech.com 1 844 XELATFC Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1123 Pursuant to Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, a review of the Exelas activities during the year ended December 31, 2022 (the Reporting Period) and of its performance under the servicing agreement between Exela and American Express. To the best of such
officers knowledge, based on such review, Exela has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period except for the period from June 19, 2022 through June 27, 2022. Thomas K.
Dolan SVP Information Security and Risk March 8, 2023
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 23
- 00120
- CV

Marcus North , Appellant

v. Tyler Reynolds , Appellee

FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 21
- 2545
- F395 , THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on April 7, 2023

. On April 12, 2023 , we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his failure to pay or make ar ran gements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by April 24, 2023 . Fur ther, the notice advised appella nt that his failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this Court’s no tice, and the
clerk’s record has not been filed.
If a trial

- court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may dismiss the ap peal for want of prosecution unless the appellan t w as entitled to proceed2 without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established
that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex . R. Civ. P. 145 . Because appellant has failed to pay or make arran gem ents to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

____________ ______________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofani s Dismiss ed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: May 12, 2023
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5624

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require persons

making certain campaign-related telephone calls to disclose the identification of the person financing the call, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 2, 2000

Mr. MOORE (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. SAWYER, Mr. SERRANO, Mr.

MORAN of Virginia, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. FILNER, Mr.

GREEN of Texas, Mr. NADLER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. MALONEY of

Connecticut, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. INSLEE,

Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. HILL of Indiana, Mr. HOLT, Mr.

LARSON, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, and Mr. WU) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

require persons making certain campaign-related telephone calls to disclose the identification of the person

financing the call, 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 ‘‘Campaign Tele5 marketers Disclosure Act of 2000’’.
2

•HR 5624 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONS FI2 NANCING CERTAIN CAMPAIGN-RELATED

3 TELEPHONE CALLS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Federal Election

5 Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended

6 by adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘DISCLOSURE OF IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONS

8 FINANCING CERTAIN TELEPHONE CALLS

9 ‘‘SEC. 323. (a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, dur10 ing the 30-day period which ends on the date of an election

11 for Federal office, contacts an individual by telephone (or

12 causes an individual to be contacted by telephone) and

13 mentions the name of a candidate in such election or oth14 erwise provides information relating to the candidate dur15 ing the course of the telephone call shall during the course

16 of the call disclose the identification of each person who

17 in whole or in part paid for the caller to make the call.

18 ‘‘(b) APPLICATION TO AUTOMATED OR RECORDED

19 CALLS.—Subsection (a) shall apply to automated or re20 corded telephone calls, calls made directly by an indi21 vidual, or calls made in any other manner.

22 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply

23 with respect to any telephone call for which the caller is

24 not compensated for making the call or any telephone call

25 which is placed for the primary purpose of making a com26 mercial transaction.’’.
3

•HR 5624 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to telephone calls

3 made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6803

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GERALD JEROME RICE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(CR-00-31-CCB; CA-05-965-CCB)

Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Jerome Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio,

United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Jerome Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Rice has not made the requisite showing.

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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 102-37.520 What is the authority for public airport donations?

The authority for public airport donations is 49 U.S.C. 47151. 49 U.S.C. 47151 authorizes executive agencies to give priority consideration to requests from a public airport (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102) for the donation of surplus property if the Department of Transportation (DOT) considers the property appropriate for airport purposes and GSA approves the donation.

[67 FR 2584, Jan. 18, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 23868, Apr. 25, 2006]
#### In the Matter of Howard K. Simmons.

JUNE 6, 1963.

Present: Condon, C. J., Roberts, Paolino and Joslin, JJ.

ORDER

This cause came on to be heard before the Court in chambers on the petition of Howard K. Simmons to be reinstated as a member of the Bar of this State.

After hearing petitioner’s counsel and upon consideration of a brief in support of the petition, and there appearing to be no objection thereto on the part of the Investigating Committee, the Court is of the opinion that the disciplinary punishment heretofore meted out to petitioner has substantially served its purpose and the ends of justice have been thereby fully met.

Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED

that said petitioner Howard K. Simmons be and he hereby is reinstated as a member of the Bar of this State in accordance with the prayer of his petition.

*349
      *Aram A. Arabian,*for petitioner.

Pursuant hereto the Clerk of the Court is directed to restore said Howard K. Simmons to the roll of attorneys and to issue to him a certificate of reinstatement as of this sixth day of June, 1963, upon petitioner subscribing to the oath originally made at his admission.

Entered as the order of this Court this sixth day of June, 1963.

By order:

(signed) Raymond A. McCabe

Raymond A. McCabe, Clerk
#### § 101-6.000 Scope of part.

This part sets forth miscellaneous regulations regarding Federal Property Management Regulations matters which do not come within the scope of any other subchapter of chapter 101.

(5 U.S.C. 5724, and E.O. 11012, 27 FR 2983; 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 591)

[29 FR 15972, Dec. 1, 1964]

###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.2 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-6 appear at 68 FR 51373, Aug. 26, 2003.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.21 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982, 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983, and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.
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

          - [Docket No. ER00-2811-000]

Take notice that on June 12, 2000, ISO New England Inc. (the ISO), tendered for filing, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, a request for expedited approval of revisions to the NEPOOL Market Rules in order to implement changes in market mitigation procedures and to facilitate Emergency Energy Transactions.

Copies of said filing have been served upon the Secretary of the NPC, the Participants in the New England Power Pool, non-Participant transmission customers and upon the New England State Governors and Regulatory Commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 26, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15566  Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 24.9

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik, and each of them, his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as
the case may be, of United Surgical Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or its substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/PAUL B. QUEALLYPaul B. Queally
| |  | ---------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### § 102-118.530 Will GSA instruct my agency's disbursing offices to offset unpaid TSP billings?

Yes, GSA will instruct one or more of your agency's disbursing offices to deduct the amount due from an unpaid TSP's bill. A 3-year limitation applies on the deduction of overcharges from amounts due a TSP (31 U.S.C. 3726). For ordinary debt there is no limitation on the period within which an offset may be initiated or taken (31 U.S.C. 3716).

[65 FR 24569, Apr. 26, 2000, as amended at 87 FR 32326, May 31, 2022]