alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1225.12 How are records schedules developed? The principal steps in developing agency records schedules are listed below. Additional details that may be helpful are provided in the NARA records management handbook, *Disposition of Federal Records* at *http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/publications/disposition-of-federal-records/index.html .* ( a ) Conduct a functional or work process analysis to identify the functions or activities performed by each organization or unit. Identify the recordkeeping requirements for each.
( b ) Prepare an inventory for each function or activity to identify records series, systems, and nonrecord materials.
( c ) Determine the appropriate scope of the records schedule items, e.g., individual series/system component, work process, group of related work processes, or broad program area.
( d ) Evaluate the period of time the agency needs each records series or system based on use, value to agency operations and oversight agencies, and legal obligations. Determine whether a fixed or flexible retention period is more appropriate. For records proposed as temporary, specify a retention period that meets agency business needs and legal requirements. For records proposed as permanent records, identify how long the records are needed by the agency before they are transferred to NARA.
( e ) Determine whether the proposed disposition should be limited to records in a specific medium. Records schedules submitted to NARA for approval on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral, *i.e.*, the disposition instructions apply to the described records in any medium, unless the schedule identifies a specific medium for a specific series.
( f ) Compile a schedule for records, including descriptions and disposition instructions for each item, using an SF 115.
( g ) Obtain internal clearances, as appropriate, from program offices and other stakeholders such as the legal counsel, chief information officer, electronic systems manager, and agency historian, as appropriate.
( h ) Obtain approval from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), when required (see § 1225.20(a) for the categories that require GAO approval).
( i ) Submit an SF 115 covering only new or revised record items to NARA for approval (see § 1225.18(d)).
( j ) The disposition instructions on SF 115s approved by the Archivist of the United States are mandatory (44 U.S.C. 3314).
#### § 223.39 [Reserved]
#### § 183.114 Test of flotation materials.

(a) *Vapor test.* The flotation material must not reduce in buoyant force more than 5 percent after being immersed in a fully saturated gasoline vapor atmosphere for 30 days at a minimum temperature of 38 °C.

(b) *24-hour gasoline test.* The flotation material must not reduce in buoyant force more than 5 percent after being immersed for 24 hours at 23 plus or minus 2 °C in reference fuel B, of ASTM D 471 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 183.5](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.5)).

(c) *30-day gasoline test.* The flotation material must not reduce in buoyant force more than 5 percent after being immersed for 30 days at 23 plus or minus 2 °C in reference fuel B, of ASTM D 471 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 183.5](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.5)).

(d) *24-hour oil test.* The flotation material must not reduce in buoyant force more than 5 percent after being immersed for 24 hours at 23 plus or minus 2 °C in reference oil No. 2, of ASTM D 471 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 183.5](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.5)).

(e) *30-day oil test.* The flotation material must not reduce in buoyant force more than 5 percent after being immersed for 30 days at 23 plus or minus 2 °C in reference oil No. 2, of ASTM D 471 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 183.5](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.5)).

(f) *24-hour bilge cleaner test.* The flotation material must not reduce in buoyant force more than 5 percent after being immersed for 24 hours at 23 plus or minus 2 °C in a 5-percent solution of trisodium phosphate in water.

(g) *30-day bilge cleaner test.* The flotation material must not reduce in buoyant force more than 5 percent after being immersed for 30 days at 23 plus or minus 2 °C in a 5-percent solution of trisodium phosphate in water.

(h) The buoyant force reduction in [paragraphs (a)](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.114#p-183.114(a)) through [(g)](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.114#p-183.114(g)) of this section is measured in accordance with ASTM D 2842 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 183.5](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.5)).

Table [183.114](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.114)—Flotation Performance Tests

| Test [183.114](/on/2024-09-23/title-33/section-183.114) | Area 183.110 | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (b) Engine room bilge | (c) Engine room unless open to atmosphere | (d) Bilge |
| (a) Vapor test | | X | |
| (b) 24 hour gasoline test | | | X |
| (c) 30 day gasoline test | X | | |
| (d) 24 hour oil test | | | X |
| (e) 30 day oil test | X | | |
| (f) 24 hour bilge cleaner test | | | X |
| (g) 30 day bilge cleaner test | X | | |

[CGD 77-145, [43 FR 56859](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/43-FR-56859), Dec. 4, 1978; [44 FR 47934](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-47934), Aug. 16, 1979, as amended by USCG-2000-7223, [65 FR 40059](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/65-FR-40059), June 29, 2000]
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Robert
      Scherne, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
      Plastinum Corp. on Form 10-KSB, for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of New Generation Holdings, Inc.




/*s*/*Robert
                Scherne**Robert
                Scherne*
              *Interim
                Chief Financial Officer*
              *Plastinum
                Corp.*


March
      6,
      2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5602 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5602

To designate any clinic that is a certified community behavioral health 
   clinic as a ``Stabenow-Blunt Community Behavioral Health Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 19 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

 Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate any clinic that is a certified community behavioral health 
   clinic as a ``Stabenow-Blunt Community Behavioral Health Clinic''.

    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 ``Stabenow-Blunt Behavioral Health 
Legacy Act''.

SEC. 2. STABENOW-BLUNT COMMUNITY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CLINICS.

    (a) Designation.--A clinic that has been certified as a certified 
community behavioral health clinic in accordance with the requirements 
of section 223(b) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (42 
U.S.C. 1396a note) (or a successor section) shall be known as a 
``Stabenow-Blunt Community Behavioral Health Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to a clinic referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to a ``Stabenow-Blunt 
Community Behavioral Health Clinic''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gaetano Gianvecchio, Appellant.

(Argued March 4, 1907;

decided April 2, 1907.)

*People*v. *Gianvecchio,*113 App. Div. 903, affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 11, 1906, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the county of New York, rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of forgery in the second degree.

*Rosario Maggio*for appellant.

*WilUams Travers*Jerome, *District Attorney (_Robert G. Taylor*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
§ 51.36 What conditions must be met before the Director determines that a concessioner is a preferred offeror? A concessioner is a preferred offeror if the Director determines that the following conditions are met: ( a ) The concessioner was a satisfactory concessioner during the term of its concession contract as determined under this part;
( b ) The applicable new contract is a qualified concession contract as determined under this part; and
( c ) If applicable, the concessioner's previous concession contract was an outfitter and guide concession contract as determined under this part.
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF FRANCIS R. VALEO, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

BY GERALD A. HACKETT, EXECUTIVE CLERK 

Monday, January 30, 1967 

NOMINATION 

Date or Calendar Message Name of nommee Office Predecessor 

report No. No. 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

1967 

Jan. 26 13 3 Gen. John P. McConnell, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air 

FR611 (major general, Force, for a period of 2 

Regular Air Force), years beginning Feb. 1, 

U.S. Air Force. 1967, under the provisions of sec. 8034, title 

10, of the United States 

Code. 

65-022-67-No. 5 

U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF1CE: 1967
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50877 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JERRY LEE MASSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:02-CR-661-All

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerry Lee Massey appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A). Massey argues that the Government was bound to prove as an element of the offense that he knew the drug quantity of the controlled substance. However, we are not convinced that either the indictment nor the jury charge, when read as a whole and in the context of the trial, required the jury to find knowledge of drugNo. 05-50877 -2- quantity as an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. See United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 2003). Massey additionally argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knowingly possessed with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Massey failed to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence. Accordingly, “review is limited to determining whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice, that is, whether the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 274 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted). Massey readily admits that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it. His contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove his knowing possession of a particular quantity is misguided: knowledge of quantity is not an element of an offense under § 841(a) and was not made the law of the case in this instance. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d at 700. Massey also asserts that the district court improperly permitted the Government to argue that the jury could consider incidents not alleged in the indictment to determine whether Massey possessed with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Any error was not prejudicial. The court specifically charged the jury not to consider such extraneous evidence. Moreover, the strength of the evidence in support of Massey’s guiltNo. 05-50877 -3-

was overwhelming. Thus, Massey has not established that the challenged statements constituted improper remarks that prejudiced his substantive rights. United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 414- 15 (5th Cir. 1998). AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 12007P019 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12007P019

**Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - TITLE II - FREEDOMS - Article 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition **

*
Official Journal 303 , 14/12/2007 P. 0006 - 0006 *

Article 19

Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12005SP052 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SP052

**Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union - PART FIVE:PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROTOCOL - TITLE II:APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS - Article 52 **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0043 - 0043 *

Article 52

Upon accession, Bulgaria and Romania shall be considered as being addressees of European framework laws, regulations and decisions within the meaning of Article I-33 of the Constitution, and of directives and decisions within the meaning of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of Article 161 of the EAEC Treaty, provided that those European framework laws, regulations and decisions, and those directives and decisions have been addressed to all the present Member States. Except with regard to European decisions which enter into force pursuant to Article I-39(2) of the Constitution, and to directives and decisions which have entered into force pursuant to Article 254(1) and (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Bulgaria and Romania shall be considered as having received notification of such European decisions and such directives and decisions upon accession.

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Dean L. Julia, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ace Marketing &
Promotions, Inc.;

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 (if any) 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 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 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.


DATE: AUGUST 12, 2005                    /S/ DEAN L. JULIA
                                         -------------------------
                                         DEAN L. JULIA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 23, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-10142

________________________

Agency No. PHMSA-2008-0350

AIR SEA CONTAINERS, INC.,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

PIPELINE SAFETY AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the 

Department of Transportation

_________________________

(April 23, 2012)
Before HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,*

 District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Air Sea Containers, Inc. (“Air Sea”) petitions for review of the Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s final determination imposing fines

totaling $33,170.00 for four violations of the federal Hazardous Materials

Regulations issued by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. See

49 C.F.R. Parts 171 to 180. After review of the record and with the benefit of oral

argument, we conclude that substantial evidence supports each of the four

violations for which Air Sea was fined. We further conclude that the

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not abuse his discretion by denying Air Sea’s

motion to extend the time to file a post-hearing brief after the pertinent deadline

imposed by the ALJ. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

*

Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of

Louisiana, sitting by designation.

2
§ 242.14 Relationship to State procedures and regulations. ( a ) State fish and game regulations apply to public lands and such laws are hereby adopted and made a part of the regulations in this part to the extent they are not inconsistent with, or superseded by, the regulations in this part.
( b ) The Board may close public lands to hunting, trapping, or fishing, or take actions to restrict the taking of fish and wildlife when necessary to conserve healthy populations of fish and wildlife, continue subsistence uses of such populations, or pursuant to other applicable Federal law. The Board may review and adopt State openings, closures, or restrictions which serve to achieve the objectives of the regulations in this part.
( c ) The Board may enter into agreements with the State in order to coordinate respective management responsibilities.
( d ) Petition for repeal of subsistence rules and regulations. ( 1 ) The State of Alaska may petition the Secretaries for repeal of the subsistence rules and regulations in this part when the State has enacted and implemented subsistence management and use laws which: ( i ) Are consistent with sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA; and
( ii ) Provide for the subsistence definition, preference, and participation specified in sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA.
( 2 ) The State's petition shall: ( i ) Be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240, and the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20240;
( ii ) Include the entire text of applicable State legislation indicating compliance with sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA; and
( iii ) Set forth all data and arguments available to the State in support of legislative compliance with sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA.
( 3 ) If the Secretaries find that the State's petition contains adequate justification, a rulemaking proceeding for repeal of the regulations in this part will be initiated. If the Secretaries find that the State's petition does not contain adequate justification, the petition will be denied by letter or other notice, with a statement of the ground for denial.
§ 1208.110 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The agency shall, by September 6, 1989, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this regulation and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with handicaps or organizations representing individuals with handicaps, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The agency shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

U.S. Department of Energy Room 1E-245 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 May 16, 2006 Purpose: The Department is holding this informal public meeting as a first step in the standards rulemaking process for commercial refrigeration equipment. This meeting is intended to familiarize interested stakeholders with the approach and analytical tools that the DOE anticipates using, and as such, it is the starting point for the standardsdeve1opment process. The meeting will highlight issues on which DOE requests feedback from interested parties on the assumptions, methodology, and analytical tools the DOE proposes to use. 9:00

- 9:05 am Welcome 9:05 - 9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review 9:15 - 9:45 am Introduction and Analytical Methodology 9:45 - 10:30 am Market and Technology Assessment 10:30

- 10:45 am Break 10:45 am - 12:00 pm Screening Analysis and Engineering Analysis 12:00 - 1:00 pm Break for Lunch1:00 - 2:15 pm Markups for Equipment Price Determination, Energy Use and EndUse Load Characterization and Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 2:15 - 2:45 pm Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis 2:45

- 3:00 pm Break 3:00 - 3:15 pm Revisions to ANOPR analyses and LCC Subgroup Analysis 3:15 - 3:30 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis 3:30 - 4:00 pm Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis 4:00 - 4:45 pm Other Issues and Comments / Closing Remarks 4:45pm Adjourn