alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-9566.

#### Hammonds *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
ACCEPTED 01-15-00188-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/26/2015 4:05:35 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
Employment Status of AmeriCorps Members References 

Updated: 02.02.2022

National and Community Service Act – As Amended 

• Member status is referenced on page 11, 42 U.S.C. 12511 (30) (B)

• (30) PARTICIPANT. — 

(A) IN GENERAL. —The term ‘‘participant’’ means— (i) for purposes of subtitle C, an 

individual in an approved national service position; and (ii) for purposes of any other 

provision of this Act, an individual enrolled in a program that receives assistance under 

this title. 

(B) RULE. —A participant shall not be considered to be an employee of the organization 

receiving assistance under the national service laws through which the participant is 

engaging in service. 

45 CFR 2510.20 Definitions – “Participant"

• Member status and the definition of “Participant” as part of 45 CFR 2510.20 Definitions 

• Participant. 

(1) the term participant means an individual enrolled in a program that receives 

assistance under the Act. 

(2) A participant may not be considered to be an employee of the program in which the 

participant is enrolled. 

(3) A participant may also be referred to by the term member. 

Department of Labor – Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 25-95

• Coverage of Services Performed by AmeriCorps Participants

• To provide States with guidance concerning coverage of services performed by AmeriCorps 

participants for State and local governments and certain nonprofit organizations.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50266

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTEMIO SALVADOR-DANIEL, also known as Daniel Salgado-Vences,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-650-1

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Artemio Salvador-Daniel appeals the 21-month sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues

that his within-guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the

sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), because it overstates the seriousness of

his criminal history and fails to provide just punishment for the offense in light

of his history and characteristics, including his motive for reentering the

country. He also contends that the sentence is greater than necessary because

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 16, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50266 Document: 00511323736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2010
No. 10-50266

the illegal reentry guidelines double counted his criminal history by using a

prior conviction both to enhance his offense level and to calculate his criminal

history category.

Because Salvador-Daniel did not object to his sentence in the district court,

review is for plain error only. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92

(5th Cir. 2007).

In United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

130 S. Ct. 378 (2009), we held that there was no impermissible double counting

in the guidelines calculations that rendered the sentence unreasonable. See also

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.6). Further, Salvador-Daniel’s disagreement with

the propriety of the sentence imposed and with the district court’s weighing of

the mitigating factors he presented in support of a lesser sentence does not

suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his withinguidelines sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 624 (2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d

519, 526 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 624 (2008); United States v. Alonzo,

435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50266 Document: 00511323736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2010
#### § 105-72.600 Purpose of reports and records.

Sections 105-72.601 through 105-72.603 set forth the procedures for monitoring and reporting on the recipient's financial and program performance and the necessary standard reporting forms. They also set forth record retention requirements.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06096**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 06096\06096_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06096\06096_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 06096\06096_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06096\06096_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06096\06096_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06096\06096_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06096\06096_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06096\06096_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06096\06096_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06096\06096_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06096\06096_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06096\Certification Statement Plant ID 06096.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 06096\Supplemental Documents\06096_AES Deepwater MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06096\Supplemental Documents\06096_AES Deepwater WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06096\Supplemental Documents\06096_Follow Up Response.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 06096\Supplemental Documents\0696_Follow Up Responses 2.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 51-10.160 Communications. ( a ) The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public. ( 1 ) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency. ( i ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the handicapped person.
( ii ) The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.
( 2 ) Where the agency communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, telecommunication devices for deaf person (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used.
( b ) The agency shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) The agency shall provide signage at a primary entrance to each of its inaccessible facilities, directing users to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each primary entrance of an accessible facility.
( d ) This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and adminstrative burdens. In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 51-10.160 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, handicapped persons receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
No. 10-11289.

#### Saeku *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

★

● ● ●

●
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 Quarterly Report of Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2007 (the Report), I, Robert Essner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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
Company.

Dated: August 7, 2007



By:

/s/ Robert EssnerRobert EssnerChairman and Chief Executive Officer
# Comments on: 18-1479: CAREY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
080A14

#### State v. David Martin Beasley Young

Special Order
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 83 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 83

To modify the provision of law which provides a permanent appropriation 
  for the compensation of Members of Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on Appropriations, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the provision of law which provides a permanent appropriation 
  for the compensation of Members of Congress, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Pay For Performance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PERMANENT APPROPRIATION FOR MEMBERS' PAY.

    Subsection (c) of section 130 of the joint resolution entitled 
``Joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
1982, and for other purposes'' (Public Law 97-51; 2 U.S.C. 31 note) is 
amended by striking out ``Effective'' and by inserting ``(1) Except to 
the extent provided by paragraph (2), effective'' and by inserting at 
the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) If Congress has not passed all general appropriation bills 
before the beginning of a fiscal year, then the appropriation contained 
in paragraph (1) shall not be effective with respect to such fiscal 
year.''.

SEC. 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATION.

    It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or 
the Senate to consider the general appropriation bill making 
appropriations for the legislative branch for any fiscal year unless 
and until all other general appropriation bills for such fiscal year 
have been presented to the President for signature under section 7 of 
Article I of the Constitution.
                                 <all>
```
§ 102-74.535 What items may Federal agencies provide to permittees free of charge? Federal agencies may provide to permittees at no cost— ( a ) Space; and
( b ) Services normally provided at the building in question during normal hours of building operation, such as security, cleaning, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning. The Regional Officer must approve an applicant's request to provide its own services, such as security and cleaning, prior to permit approval.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1038

ZEBEDEE MILBY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTRAR , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:17

- cv
- 00590

- MHL )

Submitted : May 24, 2019 Decided: June 11, 2019

Before WILKINSON , FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Zebedee Milby , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Zebedee Milby appeals the district court’s order s dismissing his civil comp laint for failing to comply with a court order and denying reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Milby’s motion to remand
and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Milby v. Office of the Fed. Registrar , No. 3:17

- cv
- 00590

- MHL (E.D. Va. May 31, 2018 & Oct. 12, 2018) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
21.1








List of
Subsidiaries





Tanger
Development Corporation





TWMB
Associates, LLC





Tanger
Deer Park, LLC





Deer Park
Enterprise, LLC





DPE Mezz,
LLC





Tanger
COROC, LLC





Tanger
COROC II, LLC





COROC
Holdings, LLC





COROC/Riviera
L.L.C.





COROC/Hilton
Head I L.L.C.





COROC/Hilton
Head II L.L.C.





COROC/Lincoln
City L.L.C.





COROC/Myrtle
Beach L.L.C.





COROC/Park
City L.L.C.





COROC/Rehoboth
I L.L.C.





COROC/Rehoboth
II L.L.C.





COROC/Rehoboth
III L.L.C.





COROC/Lakes
Region L.L.C.





COROC/Tilton
L.L.C.





COROC/Tuscola
L.L.C.





COROC/Westbrook
I L.L.C.





COROC/Westbrook
II L.L.C.





Tanger
Devco, LLC





Tanger
WD, LLC





Tanger
Wisconsin Dells, LLC





Northline
Indemnity, LLC





Tanger
Piedmont, LLC





Tanger
PSL, LLC
#### § 302-7.8 At what location can CONUS-to-CONUS or OCONUS-to-CONUS HHG shipments be temporarily stored?

Your HHG may be placed in temporary storage at origin, in transit, at destination, or any combination thereof upon agency approval.

[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18340, Apr. 1, 2011]
500 P.2d 311

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Walton Carl MURPHREE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 386.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.

Aug. 24, 1972.

*52Jay H. Bundy, Kingman, for appellant.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Mary Z. Chandler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

JACOBSON, Judge.

The only error raised by defendant in support of his argument that his conviction by a jury on two felony counts of drawing checks on insufficient funds or credit should be reversed is that the prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury made allegedly prejudicial remarks. However, the defendant made no objection in the trial court as to the comments of which he now complains.

It is the well-settled rule that it is the duty of counsel and not of the trial court to voice objections to arguments of counsel that are objectionable, and that failure to do so constitutes a waiver of any right to review. State v. Maloney, 105 Ariz. 348, 464 P.2d 793 cert. den. 400 U.S. 841, 91 S.Ct. 82, 27 L.Ed.2d 75 (1970); State v. White, 102 Ariz. 162, 426 P.2d 796 (1967); State v. Stout, 5 Ariz.App. 271, 425 P.2d 582 (1967).

The only exception to this rule is where the comments made are of such magnitude as to result in an obvious miscarriage of justice. State v. Smith, 101 Ariz. 407, 420 P.2d 278 (1966) ; State v. Marsin, 82 Ariz. 1, 307 P.2d 607 (1957); Rutledge v. State, 41 Ariz. 48, IS P.2d 255 (1932).

In this case it was undisputed that the defendant had written the checks involved and that they had been dishonored by the bank upon presentment on the grounds of insufficient funds. Further, there was testimony that defendant’s own accountant had informed him prior to the time he wrote the checks in question that a check upon which he relied to cover these insufficient checks had also been dishonored. Under these circumstances the comments of the prosecutor complained of did not constitute an “obvious miscarriage of justice.”

Judgment affirmed.

HAIRE, Chief Judge, Division 1, and EUBANK, J., concur.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02825

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02825\02825_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 02825\02825_Checklist00.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02825\02825_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02825\02825_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02825\02825_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02825\02825_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02825\02825_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02825\02825_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02825\02825_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

02825\Certification Statement Plant ID 02825.pdf Plant certification statement

02825\Supplemental Documents\02825_Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02825\Supplemental Documents\02825_SG ash diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02825\Supplemental Documents\02825_SG map 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02825\Supplemental Documents\02825_SG water balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02825\Supplemental Documents\Change Form_02825.doc Technical Reviewer Notes

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
#### § 50-204.68 Hydrogen.

The in-plant transfer, handling, storage, and utilization of hydrogen shall be in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlets G-5.1-1961 and G-5.2-1966.
#### § 102-80.85 Are Federally owned and leased buildings exempt from State and local code requirements in fire protection?

Federally owned buildings are generally exempt from State and local code requirements in fire protection; however, in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 3312, each building constructed or altered by a Federal agency must be constructed or altered, to the maximum extent feasible, in compliance with one of the nationally recognized model building codes and with other nationally recognized codes. Leased buildings are subject to local code requirements and inspection.
Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 1 of 1
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 2

- 2082 LT Case No . 202 1

- CA

- 000116

_____________________________

E DWARD R. L EVINE ,
Appellant,

v.

V ICTOR O. M EAD ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for S eminole County

. Je ssica J. Recksiedler, Judge

.
Edward R. Levine, Titusv ille, pro se.

Victor O. Me ad, of the Law Offices of Victor O. Mead, Winter Park, pro se.

February 20, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

L AMBERT , E ISNAUGLE , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
No. 10-11032.

#### McDowell *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00092-CV

WILLIAM WINDSOR,

Appellant

v.

JOEYISALITTLEKID, ET AL,

Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

Appellant’s Request for Leave to Supplement Record filed on July 2, 2015 is denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Request denied

Order issued and filed July 9, 2015
#### § 301-74.14 What records must we maintain to document the selection of a conference site?

For each conference you sponsor or fund, in whole or in part for 30 or more attendees, you must maintain a record of the cost of each alternative conference site considered. You must consider at least three sites. You must make these records available for inspection by your Office of the Inspector General or other interested parties.

[FTR Amdt. 89, 65 FR 1327, Jan. 10, 2000. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2013-01, 78 FR 65212, Oct. 31, 2013]
§ 50-204.33 Disclosure to former employee of individual employee's record. ( a ) At the request of a former employee an employer shall furnish to the employee a report of the employee's exposure to radiation as shown in records maintained by the employer pursuant to § 50-204.32(a). Such report shall be furnished within 30 days from the time the request is made, and shall cover each calendar quarter of the individual's employment involving exposure to radiation or such lesser period as may be requested by the employee. The report shall also include the results of any calculations and analysis of radioactive material deposited in the body of the employee. The report shall be in writing and contain the following statement: “You should preserve this report for future reference.”
( b ) The former employee's request should include appropriate identifying data, such as social security number and dates and locations of employment.