alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Draft Recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee to Fund Projects that 

Reduce Pollution, Create Jobs and Facilitate the Transition to a Sustainable Economy 

(1) Legacy Sources 

The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) examined how to 

cost-effectively reduce air pollution, create jobs and improve health 

by buying back or retrofitting old, high emitting sources (legacy 

sources). Based on the success of California’s Carl Moyer Program 

and the Texas TERP Program, we recommend the establishment of a 

national fund to encourage the buy back or retrofit of legacy 

sources to reduce air pollution (including criteria, hazardous and 

other air pollutants). Legacy sources most appropriate for funding 

consideration include sources such as old, high emitting lawn and 

garden equipment, diesel trucks, and smaller stationary sources 

(e.g., generators, small boilers, wood stoves, etc.). This fund, along 

with other federal, state and local measures (including regulation), 

can rapidly reduce legacy source pollution, benefit disadvantaged 

communities, and create jobs manufacturing the replacement or 

retrofit equipment. Legacy programs have proven to be costeffective and should be expanded to a national level. 

(2) Economic Stimulus 

As a guiding principle, we recommend that projects chosen for 

funding minimize the impact to the environment by improving air 

quality and reducing pollution in other environmental media to the 

extent possible. Projects undertaken should support the 

development and use of low emitting and advanced technologies 

and include strategies to reduce, reuse and recycle materials to 

maximize environmental benefits and encourage the transition to a 

sustainable economy. For example, in connection with infrastructure 
and other funded projects, the use of well-controlled construction 

equipment, recycled materials, energy efficiency measures and 

appropriate site selection should be encouraged.
# EUR-Lex - 11957A142 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A142

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE THREE - PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS, CHAPTER I: THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, SECTION IV: THE COURT OF JUSTICE, ARTICLE 142 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 142

A MEMBER STATE WHICH CONSIDERS THAT ANOTHER MEMBER STATE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION UNDER THIS TREATY MAY BRING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE .

BEFORE A MEMBER STATE BRINGS AN ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER MEMBER STATE FOR AN ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER THIS TREATY , IT SHALL BRING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COMMISSION .

THE COMMISSION SHALL DELIVER A REASONED OPINION AFTER EACH OF THE STATES CONCERNED HAS BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ITS OWN CASE AND ITS OBSERVATIONS ON THE OTHER PARTY'S CASE BOTH ORALLY AND IN WRITING .

IF THE COMMISSION HAS NOT DELIVERED AN OPINION WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE IT , THE ABSENCE OF SUCH OPINION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE MATTER FROM BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
Case 16-26132 Doc 6 Filed 08/15/16 Entered 08/15/16 14:48:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-26132 Doc 6 Filed 08/15/16 Entered 08/15/16 14:48:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Elena Markovsky v. Kirby Tower, L.P.

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00516

- CV

Trial court case number: 2009

- 03458

Trial court: 11th District Court of Har ris County

Appellant’s “Motion to Transfer Appellate Records” is GRANTED . The Clerk of this Court is directed to transfer the clerk’s record and reporter’s record in case number

01

- 10

- 00738

- CV, a previous appeal involving the same parties, to the file in case number

01

- 13

- 00516

- CV.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting individually

Date: August 5, 2013
Home
About
2020 Federal View Point Survey Results
	About DTIC
	Administrator
	Announcements
	Contact Us
	DTIC’s Past and Future
	DTIC Strategic Plan
	Employment
	Sitemap
Products & Services
DTIC’s Products & Services
	DTIC Registration Benefits
	DTIC Combatant Command (CCMD) Classified Reading Room
	Training
Submit Documents
Sign In
Operating Status
 Defense Technical Information Center
				*Search this site, DoD S&T Reports, and more..*

**Internet Explorer Users:** It is recommended that you use the Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge browser for an optimal experience with this application as Microsoft’s support for Internet Explorer is ending.
	DISMISS 14 - Test Equipment, Research Facilities and Reprography
Return to Subject Categories
01
Holography
Techniques and devices for producing holograms. Acoustic holography.02
Test Facilities, Equipment and Methods
Laboratory and test facility design and operation; Measuring, testing and simulation devices with more than one application. For devices and facilities used for a single application, see the group where the application is treated.03
Recording and Playback Devices
Techniques and devices for recording variable quantities. Includes magnetic, thermoplastic, electrostatic and electrooptical recording systems. For photographic recording, See 14/04, Photography. For holographic recording, See 14/01, Holography. For devices used for a single application, see the group where the application is treated.04
Photography
Photographic techniques, equipment, processes and materials. For aerial and satellite photography and photogrammetry, See 08/02, Cartography and Aerial Photography. For holography, See14/01, Holography.05
Printing and Graphic Arts
Lithography and Photolithography; Drawing; Engraving; Visual design; Xerography. For computer graphics, See 12/05, Computer Programming and Software, or 12/06, Computer Hardware.
 **DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER**
8725 John J. Kingman Road
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6218
(800) 225-3842https://Discover.DTIC.mil
			AdministratorContact UsDoD Privacy ProgramEEOEmploymentFOIAInformation Analysis Centers
			Information QualityLegalMission StatementNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentPlain Language
			Policy MemorandaPrivacy PolicySAPRStrategic PlanSubmit DocumentsUSA.govUSD(R&E)
			LinkedIn

NOTICE:  The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the DTIC of non-U.S. Government sites or the information, products, or services contained therein.  Although the DTIC may or may not use these sites as additional distribution channels for Department of Defense information, it does not exercise editorial control over all of the information that you may find at these locations.  Such hyperlinks are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this website. The DTIC bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external website or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external website for answers to questions regarding its content. Please let us know about existing external links which you believe are inappropriate.
EXHIBIT 32.02
 
 Section 1350Certification
 
 In connection with this quarterly report of Sage Fund Limited Partnership (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Ahmed S. Hassanein, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Steben & Company, Inc., the General Partner of the Fund certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.  This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
 
 By:
/s/ Ahmed S. Hassanein

Date:  August 14, 2009Ahmed S. HassaneinChief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




E-5
#### § 34.6 Schedule of appraisals.

The Secretary shall make fair market value appraisals of areas administered by the Service within five years after October 17, 1978, beginning with areas established earliest. All areas for which payments were not authorized prior to fiscal year 1979 (*i.e.*; fish hatcheries, administrative sites, and research stations) shall be included in the areas appraised during the first fiscal year. Once appraised, areas shall be reappraised on a schedule of at least once every five years. Until areas are appraised, the fair market value for the purposes of this regulation shall be the adjusted cost as of September 30, 1978, except that fee lands added to such areas after that date shall be on the basis of fair market value.
Case 16-24658 Doc 13 Filed 08/18/16 Entered 08/19/16 09:14:22 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL C UR TIS RE YNOLDS, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. LINDA M C GREW ; e t a l., R

e sponde nt s - Appe lle e s . Nos. 14-55090 14-55292 D.C . Nos. 2:13-c v-03591-M W F 2:13-cv-07798-M W F M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, fe de ra l prisone r M ic h a e l C urtis R e ynolds a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nts dismi ssing his 28 U.S.C . § 2241 

# FIL ED FEB 25 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).ha

be a s c orpus pe t itions. W e re vie w the dism issa l of a se c tion 2241 petition de novo, se eAlaimalo v . Unite d State s , 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd we a ffirm . In Appe a l No. 14-55090, R e ynolds c ha lle nge s the loss of good tim e c re dits following a

disc i plina

ry he aring. In Appe a l No. 14-55292, R e ynolds c onte nds tha

t the B ure a u of Prisons (“ B O P” ) im

prope rly c la ssifie d him

a s a high-se c urity -risk inm ate and im

p rope rly house d him

in a high-se c urity

fa c ility . The distric t c ourt did not e rr by

dism issing e ithe r of R e ynolds’ s pe titions for failure to e xha u st the a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a

va ila b le to him . Se e W

ard v . C hav e z , 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th C ir. 2012). Although R e yn olds a tte m p te d to a ppe a l the B O P’ s de c isions, the

re c ord shows tha

t the B OP re

je c t e d his a

p pe a ls be c a

use the y did not m e e t B OP re quire m e nts. Se e28 C .F.R . § 542.17 (2012). W e are a lso unpe rsua de d by R e ynolds’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the doc um e nts submitte d to thedistric t c ourt by re sponde nts we re fraudule nt or fa lse . W e re je c t a s m e ritle ss R e ynolds’ s c ha lle n ge s to the distric t c ourt’ s ha ndling of his pe titions.

14 - 5 50 9 0 & 1 4 - 5 5 2 9 2 2R e ynolds’ s re que st for a n e m e rge n c y

te m pora ry re s tra ining orde r is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

14 - 5 50 9 0 & 1 4 - 5 5 2 9 2 3
Case 16-25920 Doc 8 Filed 08/17/16 Entered 08/17/16 16:32:31 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 18, 2014

No. 04-13-00744-CR

Arturo NORIEGA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR4087

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Court Reporter’s Notification of Late Record is hereby NOTED. The reporter’s 

record is due March 3, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# EUR-Lex - 11965F/PRO/PRI/12 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11965F/PRO/PRI/12

**TREATY ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, CHAPTER V: OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ARTICLE 12 **

*
Official Journal L 152 , 13/07/1967 P. 0014 *

++++

ARTICLE 12

IN THE TERRITORY OF EACH MEMBER STATE AND WHATEVER THEIR NATIONALITY , OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES SHALL :

( A ) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES RELATING , ON THE ONE HAND , TO THE RULES ON THE LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS TOWARDS THE COMMUNITIES AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN DISPUTES BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES AND THEIR OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS , BE IMMUNE FROM LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ACTS PERFORMED BY THEM IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY , INCLUDING THEIR WORDS SPOKEN OR WRITTEN . THEY SHALL CONTINUE TO ENJOY THIS IMMUNITY AFTER THEY HAVE CEASED TO HOLD OFFICE .

( B ) TOGETHER WITH THEIR SPOUSES AND DEPENDENT MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES , NOT BE SUBJECT TO IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS OR TO FORMALITIES FOR THE REGISTRATION OF ALIENS ;

( C ) IN RESPECT OF CURRENCY OR EXCHANGE REGULATIONS , BE ACCORDED THE SAME FACILITIES AS ARE CUSTOMARILY ACCORDED TO OFFICIALS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ;

( D ) ENJOY THE RIGHT TO IMPORT FREE OF DUTY THEIR FURNITURE AND EFFECTS AT THE TIME OF FIRST TAKING UP THEIR POST IN THE COUNTRY CONCERNED , AND THE RIGHT TO RE-EXPORT FREE OF DUTY THEIR FURNITURE AND EFFECTS , ON TERMINATION OF THEIR DUTIES IN THAT COUNTRY , SUBJECT IN EITHER CASE TO THE CONDITIONS CONSIDERED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THIS RIGHT IS EXERCISED ;

( E ) HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPORT FREE OF DUTY A MOTOR CAR FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE , ACQUIRED EITHER IN THE COUNTRY OF THEIR LAST RESIDENCE OR IN THE COUNTRY OF WHICH THEY ARE NATIONALS ON THE TERMS RULING IN THE HOME MARKET IN THAT COUNTRY , AND TO RE-EXPORT IT FREE OF DUTY , SUBJECT IN EITHER CASE TO THE CONDITIONS CONSIDERED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY CONCERNED .
2021 Anti-Heroin Task Force (AHTF) Program Awards 

State Agency Name Award Amount 

Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection $2,297,039 

Kentucky Kentucky State Police $1,243,989 

Maryland Maryland State Police $3,313,713 

Massachusetts Massachusetts Attorney General $3,889,492 

Minnesota Minnesota Department of Public Safety $3,197,577 

New Hampshire New Hampshire Department of Justice $1,402,083 

New Jersey New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety $3,975,502 

North Carolina North Carolina Department of Public Safety $1,855,922 

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Police $3,993,161 

South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division $781,732 

Tennessee Tennessee Bureau of Investigation $2,722,905 

Vermont Vermont Department of Public Safety $732,884 

Virginia Virginia Department of State Police $1,744,001 

Total number of awards 13 

TOTAL AMOUNT OF 2021 AHTF AWARDS $31,150,000
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 July 19, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 19, 2017

155846(44)(45)

In re PETITION OF ISABELLA COUNTY

TREASURER.

______________________________________

ISABELLA COUNTY TREASURER, Petitioner-Appellee,

SC: 155846

v COA: 329858

Isabella CC: 2014-011664-CF

ESTATE OF TIMOTHY SCOTT PUNG, Respondent-Appellant.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before July 31, 2017.
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.381 Landing fish intact. ( a ) *Intact fish requirement.* Cobia in or from the Gulf and in the South Atlantic EEZ south of a line extending due east from the Florida/Georgia border, and king mackerel and Spanish mackerel in or from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, except as specified for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel in paragraph (b) of this section, must be maintained with head and fins intact. Such fish may be eviscerated, gilled, and scaled, but must otherwise be maintained in a whole condition. The operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ is responsible for ensuring that fish on that vessel in the EEZ are maintained intact and, if taken from the EEZ, are maintained intact through offloading ashore, as specified in this section.
( b ) *Damaged king or Spanish mackerel.* ( 1 ) *Commercial.* Damaged king or Spanish mackerel in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic EEZ that comply with the minimum size limits in § 622.380(b) and (c), respectively, and the trip limits in § 622.385(a) and (b), respectively, may be possessed in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ on, and offloaded ashore from, a vessel that is operating under the respective trip limits. Such damaged fish also may be sold. A maximum of five additional damaged king mackerel, not subject to the size limits or trip limits, may be possessed or offloaded ashore but may not be sold or purchased and are not counted against the trip limit. For the purposes of this paragraph (b)(1), damaged fish, refers to king or Spanish mackerel that are damaged only through natural predation.
( 2 ) *Recreational.* Damaged king or Spanish mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic EEZ that comply with the minimum size limits § 622.380(b) and (c), respectively, and the recreational bag and possession limits in § 622.382(a), may be possessed in the Mid-Atlantic or South Atlantic EEZ on, and offloaded ashore from, a vessel that is operating under the respective bag and possession limits. For the purposes of this paragraph (b)(2), damaged fish, refers to king or Spanish mackerel that are damaged only through natural predation.
[88 FR 29847, May 9, 2023]
§ 221.47 What are the requirements for subpoenas and witness fees? ( a ) *Request for subpoena.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, any party may request by written motion that the ALJ issue a subpoena to the extent authorized by law for the attendance of a person, the giving of testimony, or the production of documents or other relevant evidence during discovery or for the hearing.
( 2 ) A party may request a subpoena for a senior Department employee only if the party shows: ( i ) That the employee's testimony is necessary in order to provide significant, unprivileged information that is not available from any other source or by less burdensome means; and
( ii ) That the employee's attendance would not significantly interfere with the ability to perform his or her government duties.
( b ) *Service.* ( 1 ) A subpoena may be served by any person who is not a party and is 18 years of age or older.
( 2 ) Service must be made by hand delivering a copy of the subpoena to the person named therein.
( 3 ) The person serving the subpoena must: ( i ) Prepare a certificate of service setting forth: ( A ) The date, time, and manner of service; or
( B ) The reason for any failure of service; and
( ii ) Swear to or affirm the certificate, attach it to a copy of the subpoena, and return it to the party on whose behalf the subpoena was served.
( c ) *Witness fees.* ( 1 ) A party who subpoenas a witness who is not a party must pay him or her the same fees and mileage expenses that are paid witnesses in the district courts of the United States.
( 2 ) A witness who is not a party and who attends a deposition or hearing at the request of any party without having been subpoenaed is entitled to the same fees and mileage expenses as if he or she had been subpoenaed. However, this paragraph does not apply to Federal employees who are called as witnesses by a Department.
( d ) *Motion to quash.* ( 1 ) A person to whom a subpoena is directed may request by motion that the ALJ quash or modify the subpoena.
( 2 ) The motion must be filed: ( i ) Within 5 days after service of the subpoena; or
( ii ) At or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance, if that is less than 5 days after service of the subpoena.
( 3 ) The ALJ may quash or modify the subpoena if it: ( i ) Is unreasonable;
( ii ) Requires production of information during discovery that is not discoverable; or
( iii ) Requires disclosure of irrelevant, privileged, or otherwise protected information.
( e ) *Enforcement.* For good cause shown, the ALJ may apply to the appropriate United States District Court for the issuance of an order compelling the appearance and testimony of a witness or the production of evidence as set forth in a subpoena that has been duly issued and served.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1609

___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee ,

v. Jacob Alan Sanders, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
.

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________ Submitted: November 16, 2023 Filed: November 30, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jacob Sanders appeals a sentence imposed by the district court 1 after Sanders pleaded guilty to attempted possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.minor. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and

has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred by applying USSG § 2G2.2(c)(1) and imposing an unreasonable sentence. A plea agreement signed by Sanders included a waiver of the right to appeal. On de novo review, we will enforce the appeal waiver. Sanders knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement; the issues raised fall within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-