alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Development document for finaleffluent guidelines and standards for the construction & developmentcategory [electronic resource].**
 
Report | Appendices:A-EF-I
 
SuDoc Number:EP 2.8:C 76/8
Item Number:0607-C (online)
CGP systemNumber:000660954
 
August 28, 2019
§ 109-1.108 Agency implementation and supplementation of FPMR/FMR. ( a ) The DOE-PMR includes basic and significant Departmental personal property management policies and standards which implement, supplement, or deviate from the FPMR/FMR. In the absence of any DOE-PMR issuance, the basic FPMR/FMR material shall govern.
( b ) The DOE-PMR shall be consistent with the FPMR/FMR and shall not duplicate or paraphrase the FPMR/FMR material.
( c ) Implementing procedures, instructions, and guides which are necessary to clarify or to implement the DOE-PMR may be issued by Headquarters or field organizations, provided that the implementing procedures, instructions and guides: ( 1 ) Are consistent with the policies and procedures contained in this regulation;
( 2 ) To the extent practicable, follow the format, arrangement, and numbering system of this regulation; and
( 3 ) Contain no material which duplicates, paraphrases, or is inconsistent with the contents of this regulation.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2016

No. 04-16-00431-CR

Crystal B. WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR2757C

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After this court granted appellant’s first motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief, 

the brief was due October 31, 2016. Appellant has now filed a second motion for extension of 

time, asking for another thirty days in which to file the brief. After review, we GRANT

appellant’s motion to extend time to file the brief and ORDER appellant to file the brief in this 

court on or before November 30, 2016.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ALFONSO CERVANTES REYES,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 103 65

D.C. No. 5:05

- cr
- 00516

- EJD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Cervantes Reyes appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

. The government objects to the timeliness of the appeal . Construing

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 10365

Cervantes Reyes ’s pro se filings liberally, see Orona v. United States , 826 F.3d

1196 , 1199 (9th Cir. 2016 ), we treat his motion to vacate the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction as a motion for reconsideration. So

treated , Cervantes Reyes’s notice of appeal was timely filed. See United States v.
Belgarde , 300 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002) ( “A motion for reconsideration is
timely if it is fi led within the time for appeal . . . and an appeal is timely if it is

filed within the time to appeal after the denial of the motion for reconsideration.”)
Cervantes Reyes contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendment 7 82 to the Sentencing Guidelines . We review de novo whether a
district court had authority to mo dify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). S ee

United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Assuming without
deciding that Cervantes Reyes is eligible for a two

- point reduction in his base
offense level, t he district court correctly concluded that Cervantes Reyes is
ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is
already below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“ [T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s te rm of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that
is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Cervantes Reyes ’s3 15

- 10365

claims to the contrary are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See

Dillo n v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) does not
permit a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).

To the extent that Cervantes Reyes claims that the district court erred by
failing to grant his motion for an extension of time to file a reply t o the
government’s opposition to his motion for a sentence reduction, the district court

did not abuse its discre tion because Cervantes Reyes is not entitled to a sentence

reduction. See Eldridge v. Block , 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0909 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-027-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspect 6.0 $ 510.00 $0 $ 510.00 668 $340,680.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $340,680

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
§ 105-74.650 Grant. *Grant* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6304, is used to enter into a relationship— ( a ) The principal purpose of which is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States, rather than to acquire property or services for the Federal Government's direct benefit or use; and
( b ) In which substantial involvement is not expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38863-38864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15832]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems: Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463. as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems (1189).
    Date and time: July 25-26, 2000; 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 380, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: A. Frederick Thompson, Program Director, 
Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, National 
Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Boulevard; Arlington, Virginia 
22230; Telephone: (703) 306-1318.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Environmental Technology 
Engineering ``New Technologies for the Environment'' proposals as 
part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: 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

[[Page 38864]]

U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.


    Dated: June 19, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-15832 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Case 2:22-cv-14411-JEM   Document 29   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2023   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:22-cv-14411-JEM   Document 29   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2023   Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 31, 2015

p0323

Order 

Clerk

March 31, 2015

149523

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149523

COA: 308066

Kent CC: 11-003416-FC

SIMON JOSEPH AGUILAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 29, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Philip McDermott, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of AltiGen
Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003 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 such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of AltiGen
Communications, Inc.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/ Philip McDermott   
| |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Philip McDermott       
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
  I, Jay S. Wintrob, Chief Executive Officer of AIG SunAmerica Life AssuranceCompany, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004
   /s/ JAY S. WINTROB  Jay S. Wintrob  Chief Executive Officer
#### § 105-55.033 Preservation of evidence.

The General Services Administration (GSA) will take care to preserve all files and records that may be needed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prove their claims in court. GSA ordinarily will include certified copies of the documents that form the basis for the claim in the packages referring their claims to DOJ for litigation. GSA will provide originals of such documents immediately upon request by DOJ.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# Time and Date:

12 noon, Monday, June 26, 2000.

# Place:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information:

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: June 16, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-15700 Filed 6-16-00; 3:04 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Projects Nos. 2060-005, 2084-020, 2320-005, and 2330-007 and Project No. 2869-007, New York]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects staff has reviewed the applications for new license for the Carry Falls, Upper Raquette River, Middle Raquette River, and the Lower Raquette River Hydroelectic Projects, and the application for amendment of exemption for the Potsdam Water Power Project, located on the Raquette River in St. Lawrence County, New York, and has prepared a draft multiple project Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the projects. In the DEA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the existing projects and has concluded that approval of the projects, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice and should be addressed to David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Please affix “Carry Falls Project No. 2060-005”, “Upper Raquette River Project No. 2084-020”, “Middle Raquette River Project No. 2320-005”, “Lower Raquette River Project No. 2330-007”, and/or “Potsdam Water Power Project No. 2869-007”, as appropriate, to all comments. For further information, please contact Charles T. Raabe at (202) 219-2811.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-15737 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NO. 07-05-0109-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	DECEMBER 20, 2005

	______________________________

	DONALD HICKS,

				Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

				Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 140th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2005-408202; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	__________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	Donald Hicks (appellant) appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft.  The clerk’s record was filed on July 8, 2005, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed on November 3, 2005, and the reporter’s record was filed on October 21, 2005.  Thus, appellant’s brief was due to be filed no later than December 5, 2005.  That date passed without appellant filing a brief, however.  So, on December 6, 2005, this court notified appellant that neither the brief nor an extension of time to file the brief had been received by the court and unless a brief or a response was filed by December 16, 2005, the appeal would be abated to the trial court.  No response or brief has been received by the court.

	Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 140th District Court of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.	whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and,

	2.  	whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel due to appellate counsel’s failure to timely file appellate brief.  See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 394, 105 S. Ct. 830, 834-35, 83 L. Ed.2d 821, 828 (1985) (holding that an indigent defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on the first appeal as of right and that counsel must be available to assist in preparing and submitting an appellate brief). 

	We further direct the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing subjects.  Should the trial court find that appellant desires to pursue the appeal, is indigent, and has been denied effective assistance of counsel, we further direct it to appoint new counsel to assist in the prosecution of the appeal.  The name, address, phone number, telefax number, and state bar number of the new counsel, if any, who will represent appellant on appeal must also be included in the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Furthermore, the trial court shall also cause to be developed 1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and 2) a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and argument presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Additionally, the trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before January 20, 2006.  Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before January 20, 2006.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.