alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program 

FY 2018 Overview 

The COPS Office is pleased to announce the awarding of a total of $7,241,531 in FY 2018 funding 

through the COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program (CAMP) to the following states: Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. 

CAMP is a competitive grant program designed to advance public safety by providing funds to support 

the investigation of illicit activities related to the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. 

CAMP provides two years of grant funding directly to state law enforcement agencies in states with high 

seizures of precursor chemicals, finished methamphetamine, laboratories, and laboratory dump seizures 

for the purpose of locating and investigating illicit activities including precursor diversion, laboratories, 

and methamphetamine traffickers. Since 1998, the COPS Office has invested more than $500 million 

nationwide to combat the spread of methamphetamine. 

The COPS Office encourages CAMP grantee states to develop partnerships with other agencies invested 

in the fight against methamphetamine such as the Environmental Protection Agency, fire departments, 

local businesses, mental health organizations, child protection services, and other local law enforcement 

entities. The COPS Office also encourages data-collection and information-sharing efforts aimed at 

better identifying and responding to the needs of drug-endangered children. 

Eligible CAMP applications underwent an exhaustive and comprehensive review process. Peer reviewers 

evaluated key factors such as the agencies’ current and proposed methamphetamine investigative 

activities, their participation in related task forces, the strength of their collaboration with other 

agencies, and their HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) threat assessment. In addition, the COPS 

Office evaluated three years of each state’s seizure data (seizures of precursor chemicals, finished 

methamphetamine, methamphetamine laboratories, and laboratory dump seizures) in making the final 

funding decisions. 

The COPS Office looks forward to working with the FY 2018 CAMP grantees to support their efforts in 

fighting methamphetamine in their states.
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I, Ian R.
McNeil, certify that:




1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Searchlight Minerals
Corp.;




2.  Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.  Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:




(a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





(c)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.





SEARCHLIGHT
      MINERALS CORP.Date:  July
      6, 2009
              By:
              /s/ IAN R. MCNEILIan
      R. McNeilChief
      Executive Officer
#### DELORES D. STEWART *v.*LEROY STEWART

(AC 17791)

(AC 18086)

Schaller, Mihalakos and Zarella, Js.

Argued February 25

officially released April 18, 2000

*Delores D. Stewart,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*336
      *Julia von*Schilling, for the appellee (defendant).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Delores D. Stewart, appeals in AC 17791 from the trial court’s denial of her “motion for payment,” in which she alleged that she was owed back alimony. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs claim had been previously denied by the court in 1993 and that the judgment had been affirmed by this court in *Stewart*v. *Stewart,*41 Conn. App. 906, 675 A.2d 10, cert. denied, 237 Conn. 929, 678 A.2d 484 (1996). We conclude, as to the plaintiffs claims in AC 17791, that the trial court correctly ruled that the matter had been previously determined in *Stewart*v. *Stewart,*supra, 906. Accordingly, the denial of the plaintiffs motion for payment is affirmed.

The plaintiff appeals, in AC 18086, from the trial court’s denial of her motion to modify alimony. The plaintiff claims on appeal, in essence, that the court abused its discretion in refusing to increase her alimony on the basis of a substantial change in circumstances consisting of deterioration in her health.

“The well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases is that this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts. ... As has often been explained, the foundation for this standard is that the trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the personal factors significant to a domestic relations case, such as demeanor and attitude of the parties at the hearing. ... In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) *Simmons*v. *Simmons,*244 Conn. 158, 174-75, 708 A.2d 949 (1998).

*337“[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Eldridge*v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 534, 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Crowley*v. *Crowley,*46 Conn. App. 87, 90-91, 699 A.2d 1029 (1997).

The trial court found, inter alia, that “the plaintiffs health is no worse now than what may have comprised her failing health in 1991.” We conclude, on the basis of the evidence presented to the trial court, that the court reasonably could have concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish the claimed change in her circumstances. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for modification.

The denials of the plaintiffs motions for payment of alimony arrearage and for modification of alimony are affirmed.
# Map            El Salvador
###### Editorial Note on Part 300

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

#### § 300.44 Other inspections.

The operator and each member of the crew of any vessel from which any fish taken in the Licensing Area is unloaded or transshipped shall allow, or arrange for, and assist any authorized inspector, authorized party officer, or authorized officer to have full access to any place where the fish is unloaded or transshipped, to remove samples, to have full access to the vessel's records, including its log and documentation for the purpose of inspection and photocopying, and to gather any other information relating to fisheries in the Licensing Area without interfering unduly with the lawful operation of the vessel.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2012** 

**- NM** 
**- 043** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION UNDER EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14 OR 15d-14**I, Mark M. Salter, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 of TejasIncorporated;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 31, 2006         /s/ Mark M. Salter   Mark M. Salter   Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VERITAS Software
Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned
officers of VERITAS Software Corporation certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to his respective knowledge:

     (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of VERITAS Software Corporation.

Date:  November 14, 2003
                                                /s/ Gary L. Bloom
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Gary L. Bloom
                                                Chief Executive Officer



Date:  November 14, 2003
                                                /s/ Edwin J. Gillis
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Edwin J. Gillis
                                                Chief Financial Officer
§ 1250.74 How does NARA process appeals? ( a ) We respond to your appeal within 20 working days after the appeal official designated in 36 CFR 1250.72(a)(1)(i) and (ii) receives it. NARA has adopted the practice of generally handling backlogged appeals on a first-in, first-out basis. ( 1 ) An adverse determination by the Archivist or Deputy Archivist will be the final action by NARA; and
( 2 ) In the event you decide to file a FOIA lawsuit, NARA will administratively close your request.
( b ) We notify you of your right to seek judicial review of an adverse determination as set forth in the FOIA at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). If you wish to seek judicial review of any adverse determination, you must first appeal it administratively under this section.
( c ) We also inform you that OGIS offers dispute resolution services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Dispute resolution is a voluntary process. If we agree to participate in the dispute resolution services provided by OGIS, we will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute. You may contact OGIS in any of the following ways:
Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS, College Park, MD 20740, *ogis.archives.gov,* Email: *ogis@nara.gov*, Telephone: 202-741-5770, Facsimile: 202-741-5769, Toll-free: 1-877-684-6448. [79 FR 56504, Sept. 22, 2014, as amended at 82 FR 8902, Feb. 1, 2017]
#### § 1206.4 What is the purpose of the Commission?

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC or Commission), a statutory body affiliated with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), supports a wide range of activities to preserve, publish, and encourage the use of primary documentary sources. Through the NHPRC's grant programs, training programs, and special projects, the Commission offers advice and assistance to State and local government agencies, non-Federal nonprofit organizations and institutions, and Federally-acknowledged or state-recognized Native American tribes or groups committed to the preservation, publication, or use of United States documentary resources.

[75 FR 66317, Oct. 28, 2010]
Case 16-29423 Doc 34 Filed 05/17/18 Entered 05/17/18 11:14:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-29423 Doc 34 Filed 05/17/18 Entered 05/17/18 11:14:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 190 (Monday, October 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 57942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8433]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0001; FRL-8099-4]


National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee 
(NPPTAC); Notice of Public Meeting; Cancellation

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  In the Federal Register of September 15, 2006 (71 FR 54480) 
(FRL-8093-2), EPA announced a public meeting of the National Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC). The purpose of this 
notice is to inform the public that the NPPTAC public meeting has been 
canceled. Meetings of the Committee Work Groups have also been 
canceled. This includes the Pollution Prevention (P2) Work Group, the 
Information Integration and Data Use Work Group, and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Reports Interim Work Group meetings.

DATES:  The meeting scheduled to be held on October 4, 2006, from 8:30 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and October 5, 2006, from 10:15 a.m. to 1 p.m., has 
been canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For general information contact: 
Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance 
Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail 
address:<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53070010127e1b3c273f3a3d36133623327d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c686f7f7d11745348505552597c594c5d125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For technical information contact: John Alter, (7408), Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 564-9891; e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e203e3e3a2f2d60213e3e3a0e2b3e2f60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2acb2b2b6a3a1ecadb2b2b682a7b2a3eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemical health and safety, NPPTAC, 
Pollution prevention, Toxics, Toxic chemicals.


    Dated: September 28, 2006.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 06-8433 Filed 9-28-06; 1:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



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 Immediatek Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zach
Bair, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at
the dates and for the periods indicated. /s/ Zach Bair  
 Dated: November 15, 2004
§ 1150.48 PER: Citation, answer, amendment. ( a ) Unless otherwise specified, other relevant sections shall apply to PER proceedings.
( b ) In addition to all other forms of relief requested, the citation shall request PER when it appears to the Executive Director that immediate and irreparable harm from noncompliance with the standard is occurring or is about to occur. Citations requesting PER shall recite specific facts and include the affidavit or the notarized complaint upon which the PER request is based. Citations requesting PER shall recite that a hearing regarding PER has been scheduled to take place eight (8) days after receipt of the citation. Citations requesting PER may be filed without prejudice to proceedings in which PER is not requested and without prejudice to further proceedings if PER is denied. The time and place of hearing fixed in the citation shall be reasonable and shall be subject to change for cause.
( c ) Answers to citations requesting PER shall be in the form of all answers, as set forth in § 1150.43, and must be filed within four (4) days after receipt of the citation. Answers shall recite in detail, by affidavit or by notarized answer, why the PER requested should not be granted.
( d ) When a citation contains both a request for relief to ensure compliance with a standard and a request for PER, an answer to the PER request shall be filed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and an answer to a request for other relief shall be filed in accordance with § 1150.43.
( e ) Citations and answers in PER proceedings may not be amended prior to hearing. Citations and answers in PER proceedings may be amended at the hearing with the permission of the judge.
**Exhibit
23.1**
 
 
 
 **CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-4 No. 333-120923, Form S-3 No. 333-111441, Form S-3 No. 333-106976, Form S-3
No. 333-103355, Form S-3 No. 333-61292, Form S-3 No. 333-42144, Form S-3 No.
333-87045, and Form S-3 No. 333-83478) and in the related Prospectuses of
Maverick Tube Corporation and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
333-115461, Form S-8 No. 33-89526, Form S-8 No. 333-52621, Form S-8 No.
333-30696, and Form S-8 No. 333-46740) pertaining to the Maverick Tube
Corporation 2004 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the Maverick Tube Corporation 2004
Stock Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Directors, the Maverick Tube Corporation
Amended and Restated 1990 Stock Option Plan, the Maverick Tube Corporation 1994
Stock Option Plan, the Maverick Tube Corporation Director Stock Option Plan, the
Maverick Tube Corporation 1999 Director Stock Option Plan, and the Amended and
Restated Prudential Steel Ltd. Stock Option Plan of Maverick Tube Corporation of
our reports dated March 2, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Maverick Tube Corporation and Subsidiaries, Maverick
Tube Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Maverick Tube Corporation and Subsidiaries included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2004.
 
 
 /s/ Ernst
& Young LLP
 
 
 St.
Louis, Missouri
 March 14,
2005
#### §§ 217.38-217.39 [Reserved]