alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- HomeCurrently selected
- Audits /   Evaluations
- Investigations
- Correspondence
- Audits   Initiated
- Testimony
- About   OIG     - The Inspector     General
  - The Deputy Inspector     General
  - Organization
  - Organization     Chart
  - Mission, Vision, and     Core Values
  - FAQs About OIG     Investigations
  - Careers
  - Contact     Us 
- Lists
- Libraries
Home > 2010 Census: Partner Support Program Lacked Adequate Controls for Monitoring Purchases and Ensuring Compliance 2010 Census: Partner Support Program Lacked Adequate Controls for Monitoring Purchases and Ensuring Compliance November 18, 2010 OIG-11-013-A Publication Links
Download Announcement

Download Abstract

Download Report
Oversight Areas- Office   of the Secretary
- Bureau   of Economic Analysis
- Bureau   of Industry and Security
- U.S.   Census Bureau
- Economic   Development Administration
- Economics   and Statistics Administration
- International   Trade Administration
- Minority   Business Development Agency
- National   Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National   Telecommunications and Information Administration
- National   Institute of Standards and Technology
- National   Technical Information Service
- U.S.   Patent and Trademark Office
- home
- U.S. Dept of   Commerce
- usa.gov
- foia
- info   quality
- privacy policy
- disclaimer
- FAR
- CIGIE
- Other Links
- Contact Webmaster
#### § 1357.20 Child abuse and neglect programs.

The State agency must assure that, with regard to any child abuse and neglect programs or projects funded under title IV-B of the Act, the requirements of section 106(b)(1) and (2) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as amended, are met. These requirements relate to the State plan and assurances required for the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grant Program.

[61 FR 58660, Nov. 18, 1996]
#### § 1613.2 Definition.

*Criminal proceeding* means the adversary judicial process prosecuted by a public officer and initiated by a formal complaint, information, or indictment charging a person with an offense denominated “criminal” by applicable law and punishable by death, imprisonment, or a jail sentence.

[79 FR 21150, Apr. 15, 2014]
Da t e : Nove mb er 4, 2 01 4 Meetin g : Gene r a l ) 

# (\LA R ul e(s) Disc u ssed : 

# ·l~~ W ri tte n Ma te ria ls?



# Yes **~** Na m e O rga ni za ti o n Pho n e N umb e r 

# 1
STANDARD REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 1 of 1 

NANOMATERIAL 

P-08-0199 3/17/2008 

Assessor: C. Cinalli

Summary – This standard review report is exactly the same as the initial review report 

since did not change in the SR engineering report dated 3/17/08. 

Production Volume: 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

Chemical Name: 

Fate Assessment: 

Due to the novel nature of nanomaterials, it is not possible at this time to make 

assumptions about their behavior in the environment without the collection of physicochemical 

(p-chem) and fate data. The p-chem properties which seem most important for fate assessment 

are: surface reactivity, aggregation/agglomeration, physical form, particle size distribution, 

surface area solubility, dispersability, shape, adsorption tendency and surface charge porosity. 

These p-chem properties are novel to nanomaterials and are not estimated by our current 

collection of fate models, EPI Suite. Therefore, specific data on the actual behavior of the 

nanomaterial in waste water treatment plants (e.g., biodegradation, sorption to sludge, 

volatilization, etc.) and drinking water treatment plants (e.g., effect of chlorination, oxygenation, 

etc.) are needed to determine removal rates. Additionally, data are needed to assess the potential 

for ground water migration. Testing methods typically used for these parameters (e.g., ready 

biodegradation test, porous pot, etc.) may or may not apply. If the amount of the nanomaterial 

released is of concern, EAB recommends that the submitter evaluate the current OPPT guidelines 

for fate testing and then submit fate testing protocols based on their specific knowledge of the 

nanomaterial to the EAB’s fate experts for their review prior to the actual testing. It is possible 

that after several nanomaterials have gone through p-chem and fate testing, that models in EPI 

Suite could be validated for use, or, more likely, a new fate model or models could be developed 

to estimate the fate of a new nanomaterial in the environment. 

General Population and Environmental Exposure
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 MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
George M. Lee, Executive Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and operating results of the
      Company.





/s/
      George M. LeeGeorge
      M. LeeExecutive
      Vice Chairman, President and ChiefExecutive
      Officer


November
7, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
ROBERTO CARLOS MARQUEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 50257

D.C. No. 3:20

- cr

- 02044

- H

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Carlos Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 87

- month sentence imposed following his jury

- trial conviction for
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 50257

Marquez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a
minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because it failed to compare his
culpability to that of other likely participants in the drug

- smuggling operation

. We
review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo , its factual
findings for clear error, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse

of discretion. See United States v. Gasca

- Ruiz , 852 F.3d 1167 , 1170 (9th Cir.
2017) (en banc).
Marquez ’s cursory request for a minor role adjustment before the district

court failed to present any arguments regarding his relative culpability , and
throughout the proceedings he provided little and inconsistent information about

the offense

. On this record, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying a minor role adjustment because Marquez failed to meet his burden to

demonstrate that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant in
the criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); see also United States v.

Diaz , 884 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (defendant bears the burden of establishing
entitlement to minor role adjustment) ; id. at 916 ( relative culpabil ity is determined
by comparing defendant ’ s involvement to that of “ all likely participants in the

criminal scheme for whom there is sufficient evidence of their existence and
participation ” ).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 35.3

         Annual Servicer's Statement as to Compliance for the year ended
                                December 31, 2006
                           (Ford Motor Credit Company)

To:      GS Whole Loan Trust
         c/o Goldman, Sachs & Co.
         85 Broad Street
         New York, NY 10004

                          SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2005
(the "Agreement"), among Ford Motor Credit Company (the "Company"), as Servicer
(the "Servicer"), and GS Whole Loan Trust, the undersigned authorized officer of
the Servicer does hereby state that:

(a)      A review of the Servicer's activities and of its performance under the
         Agreement during the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006
         has been made under my supervision.

(b)      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
         fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material
         respects throughout the aforementioned period.

                                                     /s/ Daniel J. Gardetto
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Daniel J. Gardetto
                                                     Assistant Treasurer

Dated as of March 15, 2007
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { CONVENEDJANUARY6,1999 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Tuesday, March 23, 1999 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GARY SISCO, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk 
1 

RESOLUTIONS 

CALENDAR Ex. REs REPORTED 

No. No. SUBJECT BY 
2 

TREATIES 

- REPORTED CALENDAR TREATY 

No. Doc No SuBJECT BY 
3 

NOMINATIONS 

CALENDAR MESSAGE REPORTED 

No. No. NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR BY 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

* 1 1-15 Susan G. Esserman, of Maryland, to be Deputy Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

United States Trade Representative, with the Committee on Finance, without 

rank of Ambassador, vice Jeffrey M. Lang, printed report. 

resigned. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

* 2 1-18 Timothy F. Geithner, ofNewYork, to be an Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice David A. Committee on Finance, without 

Lipton. printed report. 

* 3 1-19 Gary Gensler, of Maryland, to be an Under Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Secretary of the Treasury, vice John D. Committee on Finance, without 

Hawke, Jr. printed report. 

* 4 3-5 Edwin M. Truman, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice Timothy Committee on Finance, without 

F. Geithner. printed report. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

* 15 22 Gary S. Guzy, of the District of Columbia, to be Mar 17, 99 Reported by Mr. 

an Assistant Administrator of the Chafee, Committee on 

Environmental Protection Agency, vice Environment and Public Works, 

Jonathan Z. Cannon, resigned. without printed report. 

*Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: January

24, 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013 - 0602 FROM: Howard J. Hoffman , EPA - OGC SUBJECT: November 12, 2014 M eeting with SEIA Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan

for Existing Power Plants On November 12, 2014 , Matt Clouse of EPA - OAP and Howard J. Hoffman of EPA - OGC met by telephone with Katherine Stainken and Tom Kimbis of the Solar Energy I ndustries Association (SEIA) to discuss legal issues concern ing the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Hollaway, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and operating results of the Company.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David Hollaway                                     
|David Hollaway Chief Financial Officer November 6, 2008
Rockingham,

No. 5315.

#### Lawrence Stiles & *a. v.*Francis Dube & *a.*

Argued April 6, 1965.

Decided June 30, 1965.

*Russell H. McGuirk*and *Robert Shaw {Mr. McGuirk*orally), for the plaintiffs.

*Lawrence J. Walsh*(by brief and orally), for the defendants.

Blandin, J.

The defendants in their brief state that the question presented is whether “In a hearing upon a motion or plea grounded upon fact, can the trial court consider any allegation of fact not supported by sworn testimony or affidavit?” Superior Court Rule 47, upon which the defendants rely, so far as material, states that the court will not “hear any motion grounded upon facts, unless they are verified by affidavit . . . ; and the same rule will be applied as to all facts relied on in opposing any motion.”

The defendants ’ plea in abatement was supported by affidavits that they never dealt with the plaintiff Lawrence Stiles, an inhabitant of Rockingham county, but only with the plaintiff *340Frederick Stiles, an inhabitant of Carroll county, as were both defendants. The defendants contend since RSA 507:9 requires that the action be brought in the county where “some one of them resides,” no suit lay in Rockingham county.

The plaintiffs filed no affidavits, but alleged at the hearing that they could prove the plaintiff Lawrence Stiles was a proper party and that the action could be brought in Rockingham county under section 9, *supra.*The defendants claim under Superior Court Rule 47 that the Trial Court erred as a matter of law in considering the plaintiffs’ allegations and denying the defendants’ plea.

It is well established here that the Superior Court has broad discretion to determine whether to waive its own rules and that its action is not reviewable except for abuse of discretion. *Hall*v. *Insurance Company,*91 N. H. 6, 8; *Timmins*v. *Brennan,*103 N. H. 459. Upon the record before us, we cannot say as a matter of law that there was any abuse of discretion. It follows that the defendants’ exception to the Court’s ruling on the motion cannot prevail.

The order is

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 231 (Friday, December 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 69568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ 
support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly 
scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of 
time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review 
meetings which require their type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the Announcement of Availability of 
Funds for Grants regarding Adolescent Family Life (AFL) Research are to 
be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. This program is sponsored by 
the Office of Population Affairs. These discussions are likely to 
reveal personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure 
under the above-cited statutes.
    SEP Meeting on: Announcement of Availability of Funds for Grants 
regarding Adolescent Family Life (AFL) Research.
    Date: December 11, 2006 (Open on December 11 from 8:30 a.m. to 8:45 
a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: John M. Eisenberg Building, AHRQ Conference Center, 540 
Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone 
(301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities 
dictate.

    Dated: November 20, 2006.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 06-9486 Filed 11-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
#### §§ 2490.131-2490.139 [Reserved]
§ 155.1055 Service area of a QHP. The Exchange must have a process to establish or evaluate the service areas of QHPs to ensure such service areas meet the following minimum criteria: ( a ) The service area of a QHP covers a minimum geographical area that is at least the entire geographic area of a county, or a group of counties defined by the Exchange, unless the Exchange determines that serving a smaller geographic area is necessary, nondiscriminatory, and in the best interest of the qualified individuals and employers.
( b ) The service area of a QHP has been established without regard to racial, ethnic, language, health status-related factors specified under section 2705(a) of the PHS Act, or other factors that exclude specific high utilizing, high cost or medically-underserved populations.
#### Atwell, administrator, etc., v. Brown, appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought by Isaiah Scott against Charles K. Brown and Samuel S. Stone, constituting the firm of Brown *&*Stone, to recover proceeds of alleged sales of rights to use a patent of which plaintiff claimed to be the owner. Pending the litigation Stone died and subsequently Scott died, and Frank S. Atwell was appointed his administrator.

*G. B. Kellogg*and *John B. Gale,*for appellant.

*Robert Christie,*for respondent.

Boardman, J.

The opinion is devoted to a review of the evidence, no legal question of any moment being passed upon.

*Judgment affirmed.*
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03587**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  03587\03587_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 03587\03587_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03587\03587_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03587\03587_Checklist_102910_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 03587\03587_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03587\03587_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03587\03587_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03587\Supporting Documentation\3587_ Aerial Maps, Diagrams, Certification Statement.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith-Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2049

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Arturo Cardenas-Gutierrez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 17, 2003

Filed: February 5, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arturo Cardenas-Gutierrez was convicted of possession with intent to distribute

more than 500 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1). His sentence included 235 months of imprisonment, 5 years of supervised

release, and a $100 special assessment. He now appeals, contending that the district

court1

 erred by denying his motions for continuance, for dismissal, and for acquittal.

We affirm.
-2-

On the day trial was to begin, Cardenas-Gutierrez moved for a continuance to

secure the appearance of his uncle, “Romero,” whom Cardenas-Gutierrez claimed to

have been traveling to see when he was arrested in Nebraska. At the time of his

arrest, Cardenas-Gutierrez said that his uncle lived in New Jersey, but was unable to

provide a last name, city of residence, or telephone number. Cardenas-Gutierrez did

not specify in his motion what relevant testimony his uncle, whose whereabouts he

claimed to have just discovered, would give. We review a denial of a motion to

continue for abuse of discretion, United States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070, 1071-72 (8th

Cir. 2003). No abuse of discretion is shown here, for Cardenas-Gutierrez failed to

“make some plausible showing of how [the] testimony would have been both material

and favorable to his defense.” United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867

(1982). 

Following the government’s case-in-chief, and again following the jury’s guilty

verdict, Cardenas-Gutierrez moved for judgment of acquittal, challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable

to the jury’s verdict, United States v. Smith, 104 F.3d 145, 147 (8th Cir. 1997), we

conclude that a reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that

Cardenas-Gutierrez possessed and intended to distribute the methamphetamine found

in the car. United States v. Buford, 108 F.3d 151, 153 (8th Cir. 1997).

Finally, Cardenas-Gutierrez argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion for new trial. The only mention of such a motion was the district court’s

immediately corrected mischaracterization of defendant’s motion for acquittal.

Cardenas-Gutierrez in fact made no motion for new trial.

The conviction is affirmed.

______________________________