alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 60-300.82 Labor organizations and recruiting and training agencies. ( a ) Whenever performance in accordance with the equal opportunity clause or any matter contained in the regulations in this part may necessitate a revision of a collective bargaining agreement, the labor organizations which are parties to such agreement shall be given an adequate opportunity to present their views to OFCCP.
( b ) OFCCP shall use its best efforts, directly or through contractors, subcontractors, local officials, the Department of Veterans Affairs, vocational rehabilitation facilities, and all other available instrumentalities, to cause any labor organization, recruiting and training agency or other representative of workers who are employed by a contractor to cooperate with, and to assist in, the implementation of the purposes of the Act.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 February 26, 2009

Andrew Goodrich, 

### EM Director, Air Quality Management Division Washoe County District Health Department P.O. Box 11130 Reno, Nevada 89520-0027
Dear Mr. Goodrich: In response to your request, dated January 15,2009,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (EPA) hereby grants to the Washoe County District Health Department, Air Quality Management Division (Washoe County) formal delegation ofthe following Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 63 (40 CFR Part 63) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Subpart 

### VVV -Publicly Owned Treatment Works Subpart EEEE - Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Subpart WWWW -Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Subpart 

### ZZZZ -Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Subpart WWWWW -Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers Subpart BBBBBB - Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants and Pipeline Facilities Subpart CCCCCC
- Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Subpart HHHHIIH -Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources Subpart 

### 000000 -Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Area Sources Subpart WWWWWW -Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations Subpart XXXXXX -Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories Regarding any other 40 CFR Part 63 standard previously delegated to Washoe County, this letter is also delegating any amendments made to those standards as of August 28, 2008. In this letter, we are responding only to your request for delegation of 40 CFR Part 63NESHAP. You will receive a separate letter addressing delegation of40 CFR Part 60 Standards ofPerformance for New Stationary Sources.

Pnnted on Recyrled Paper

p- "-- <--. - -- - 

### - - --

### These delegations arebeing granted in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated June 24, 1997, with an amendment dated December 

### 16, 1998, between Washoe County and EPA regarding the delegation ofNESHAP. As set forth in the MOA, these delegations are effective upon the date ofthis letter and EPA will publish a future Federal Register notice to codifythese delegations into the Code ofFederal Regulations. We appreciate Washoe County's efforts to implement the federal air toxics program and hope to continue working with you to reduce emissions of air toxics in your area. If you have any questions about this delegation, please call me at (415) 947-8715 or have your staff contact Mae Wang at (415) 947-4124. Sincerely,

Director, Air Division

cc: Charlene Albee, Washoe County
DAVEE' LEE MALONE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5701

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed November 2, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

.

Davee' Lee Malone, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E

. Markham, Assistant Attorney

Gener al, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 51-3.1 General. Under the provisions of section 2(c) of the JWOD Act, the following are currently designated central nonprofit agencies: ( a ) To represent nonprofit agencies for the blind: National Industries for the Blind.
( b ) To represent nonprofit agencies employing persons with other severe disabilities: NISH.
Volume 2 of 3, Part B 

V. EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS— 

SEPTEMBER 13–16 & 21, 2010 

iii. Memorandum for the Record 

(September 15, 2010) 
1137
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROY MILES FORD,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00139-CR

Appeal from the

33rd Judicial District Court

of Burnet County, Texas

(TC# 49738)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Nicholas Ferguson, the Chief Executive Officer of Schroder
Ventures International  Investment Trust plc (the "Company"),  has executed this
certification  in connection  with the filing with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission of the Company's  Transition  Report on Form 20-F for the period from
July 1, 2002 and  December  31,  2002 (the  "Report").  The  undersigned  hereby
certifies 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.


Date: April 2, 2003                                  /s/ NICHOLAS FERGUSON
                                                     Nicholas Ferguson
                                                     Chief Executive Officer



                    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

     The undersigned,  Christopher  Morris,  the Principal  Financial Officer of
Schroder  Ventures  International  Investment  Trust  plc (the  "Company"),  has
executed this  certification  in connection  with the filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission of the Company's  Transition Report on Form 20-F for the
period from July 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 (the  "Report").  The  undersigned
hereby certifies 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.


Date: April 2, 2003                                  /s/ CHRISTOPHER MORRIS
                                                     Christopher Morris
                                                     Principal Financial Officer



Schroder Ventures International Investment Trust plc
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.7003 Authority to update FCC Form 477.

The Office of International Affairs, Space Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, and Office of Economics and Analytics may update the specific content of data to be submitted on FCC Form 477 as necessary to reflect changes over time in transmission technologies, spectrum usage, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and other data storage and processing functionalities, and other related matters; and may implement any technical improvements or other clarifications to the filing mechanism and forms.

[88 FR 21435, Apr. 10, 2023]
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



In connection with Bancshares of Florida, Inc.s (Company)
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (Report), I certify 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 as of, and for the period ended,
March 31, 2004.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 17,
2004



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL L. MCMULLAN                                  
|Michael L. McMullan President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 105-68.520 Who places the information into the EPLS? Federal officials who take actions to exclude persons under this part or officials who are responsible for identifying disqualified persons must enter the following information about those persons into the *EPLS*: ( a ) Information required by § 105-68.515(a);
( b ) The Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the excluded or disqualified person, including the social security number (SSN) for an individual, if the number is available and may be disclosed under law;
( c ) Information about an excluded or disqualified person, generally within five working days, after— ( 1 ) Taking an exclusion action;
( 2 ) Modifying or rescinding an exclusion action;
( 3 ) Finding that a person is disqualified; or
( 4 ) Finding that there has been a change in the status of a person who is listed as disqualified.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSHUA A. M c KNIGHT,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30097

D.C . No. 6:08-c r-00011-C C L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na C ha rle s C . Love ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Joshua A. M c K

night a ppe a ls from the re v o c ation of supervise d re le a se and the 2 4-m o nth se nte nc e im p ose d upon re voc at ion. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

a lifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), M c Knight’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c o unse l of re c ord. W e have



# FIL ED
FEB 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).provide d M c Knight theopportunity to file a pro se supple m e n ta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d
. Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua n t to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

1 6
- 3 0 0 9 7 2
```

[House Report 106-27]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-27

=======================================================================

 
       PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 438, THE WIRELESS 
              COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

 February 23, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 76]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 76, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 438, 
the ``Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999'' 
under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general 
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Commerce.
    The rule waives points of order against consideration of 
the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII 
(requiring a three-day layover of the committee report). The 
Commerce Committee report was filed on Tuesday, February 23, 
and the bill will possibly be considered on the floor as early 
as Wednesday, February 24.
    The rule makes in order the Committee on Commerce amendment 
in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that 
each section shall be considered as read.
    The Chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record. The rule allows for the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration 
of the bill, and to reduce voting time to five minutes on a 
postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute vote. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.

                                

```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,455
<PP&E>                                          21,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,844)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,401
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,992
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,054
<SALES>                                         61,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,886
<CGS>                                           44,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,292
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .002
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: 20-136: In Re ARUNACHALAM                    [ORDER], Nonprecedential
§ 0.415 The rules and regulations (looseleaf service). ( a ) In this service, the rules are divided into 10 volumes, each containing several related parts. Each volume may be purchased separately from the Superintendent of Documents. The purchase price for a volume includes a subscription to replacement pages reflecting changes in the rules contained therein until such time as the volume is revised. Each volume is revised periodically, depending primarily on the frequency with which the rules it contains have been amended. When a volume is revised, the revised volume and replacement pages therefor will be furnished to those who renew their subscriptions.
( b ) [Reserved]
[41 FR 21449, May 26, 1976, as amended at 45 FR 49935, July 28, 1980; 51 FR 31304, Sept. 2, 1986]
Rockingham

No. 80-452

#### Rosemarie Haight v. Alfred A. Petit

October 7, 1981

*Scammon & Gage,*of Exeter *(Peter A. Meneghin, III,*on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Shute, Engel & Frasier,*of Exeter, waived brief and oral argument, for the defendant.

*887Memorandum Opinion

This is an appeal from a decision of the Rockingham County Superior Court *(Bean,*J.) denying the plaintiffs motion to modify an order for child support previously entered pursuant to a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support petition. RSA ch. 546. The order provided for support while the child was a “minor.” The court refused to increase the level of support but ordered that it be terminated when the parties’ eighteen-year-old child completed high school.

The trial court excluded evidence of the defendant’s second spouse’s income, ruling that it was irrelevant and not proper evidence to consider in a modification hearing. The plaintiff preserved her exception, and three months later this court held in *Logan v. Logan,*120 N.H. 839, 843, 424 A.2d 403, 405 (1980), that RSA 546-A:2 imposes a duty of support upon stepparents. Accordingly, since the total financial picture of both the Haight and Petit families should be taken into account, *id.*at 842-43, 424 A.2d at 405, we remand.

In connection with the remand, we note that the defendant’s support obligation does not end automatically when his child reaches eighteen years of age. Under RSA 546:7, the obligor’s duties of support are those imposed by the law of the state where he was present during the period for which support is sought. Defendant has been a New Hampshire resident since 1969, and his duty is, therefore, established by New Hampshire law, including case law. RSA 546:2 V.

In *Byrne v. Byrne,*120 N.H. 428, 418 A.2d 1267 (1980), as in this case, the court ordered support for the parties’ “minor child” at a time when the age of majority was twenty-one. The age of majority subsequently was reduced to eighteen in 1973. RSA 21:44. We held that the original support order was unaffected by a reduction in the age of majority and that it referred to the age of majority at the time of the order. *Byrne v. Byrne,*120 N.H. at 430, 418 A.2d at 1268. *See also French v. French,*117 N.H. 696, 699, 378 A.2d 1127, 1128-29 (1977) (trial court has jurisdiction to order obligor to pay educational expenses of child who had reached adulthood); *Walker v. Walker,*116 N.H. 717, 718, 367 A.2d 211, 212 (1976). The duration of an obligor’s duty of support can depend not only on the terms of the decree but on the age of “majority” when the decree was issued.

*888Because the trial judge ruled as a matter of law that he could not increase support, we find no merit to the plaintiffs argument that he was “biased.”

*Remanded.*
094P16

#### State v. Harold Lamont Fletcher

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1312)

Allowed
June 11, 2015

Mr. Nephi Richardson

Dear Mr. Richardson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 29, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2013), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 101.1505 Segmentation plan. ( a ) An entity may request any portion of the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands, up to 5 gigahertz in each segment for a total of 10 gigahertz. Licensees are also permitted to register smaller segments.
( b ) The 92-95 GHz band is divided into three segments: 92.0-94.0 GHz and 94.1-95.0 GHz for non-government and government users, and 94.0-94.1 GHz for Federal Government use. Pairing is allowed and segments may be aggregated without limit. The bands in paragraph (a) of this section can be included for a possible 12.9 gigahertz maximum aggregation. Licensees are also permitted to register smaller segments than provided here.
[70 FR 29998, May 25, 2005]
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Application to Amend Foreign Air Carrier Permit
#### § 101.56 [Reserved]
#### § 51-9.301 Notification.

Any individual who wishes to determine if a system of records maintained by the Committee contains a record pertaining to him should direct a request to the Executive Director at the address indicated in the public notice describing the system of records which has been published in the Federal Register. The request should display clearly the legend “Privacy Act Request” both on the face of the request letter and on the face of the envelope. The request letter should contain the complete name and identifying number of the system as published in the Federal Register; the full name, address, and telephone number of the subject individual; a brief description of the nature, time, place and circumstances of the individual's association with the Committee and any other information which the individual believes would facilitate the Executive Director's determination whether the individual's name is included in the system of records. The Executive Director shall answer or acknowledge the request within ten working days.
#### § 101.703 Permissible communications.

Stations in this service are authorized to render any kind of communication service provided for in the legally applicable tariffs of the carrier, unless otherwise directed in the applicable instrument of authorization or limited by § 101.147 or §§ 101.111 and 101.113.
No. 11-5033.

#### Tjandra *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.