alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Initial Review Group, Health Services and Behavioral Research Review Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         March 28-29, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lorraine Gunzerath, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Office of Extramural Activities, Extramural Project Review Branch, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3043, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, 301-443-2369,                         *Igunzera@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 6, 2006.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-9697 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10318

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS PEREZ, also known as Enrique Perez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CR-342-1-T

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Perez, also known as Enrique Perez, appeals from his

sentence following conviction for conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine. Perez argues that the district

court erred by increasing his offense level by three levels

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) for being a manager or supervisor

of a criminal activity involving five or more participants. 

Perez does not challenge the district court’s factual findings,

but argues that the district court erred in concluding that its

factual findings warranted application of § 3B1.1(b).
No. 98-10318

-2-

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear

error and the application of the sentencing guidelines de novo. 

United States v. Sylvester, 143 F.3d 923, 931 (5th Cir. 1998). A

finding that a defendant is a manager or supervisor pursuant to

§ 3B1.1(b) is a factual finding. United States v. Morris, 46

F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 1995). A factual finding is not clearly

erroneous if it is plausible in light of the entire record. Id. 

To qualify for this adjustment, Perez must have been the

manager or supervisor of one or more other participants. 

§ 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). The district court found that Perez

warranted the § 3B1.1(b) adjustment because he handled the

negotiations, he made trips back and forth between the parties,

and the other coparticipants were acting as his assistants. 

Based on the testimony of the DEA agent and informant involved in

the undercover operations leading to the arrest of Perez, Perez

was acting as a manager or supervisor regarding two of his

coparticipants. The district court did not err in applying

§ 3B1.1(b) to Perez’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on the Maine Republican 

Party (MRP) (Resubmission) 

A09-09 

Agenda Document No. 12-75 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, recording secretary of the Federal Election Commission open 

meeting on November 15,2012 do hereby certify that the Commission took the following 

actions in the above-captioned matter: 

1. Decided by a vote of 6-0 to: 

Approve the recommendations in the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on the Maine Republican Party (MRP), Agenda Document 

No. 12-75, with respect to Findings 1,2,3B, 4, and tiie sub-finding related 

to Voter Identification ($19,000) in Finding 3A. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn n, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

2. Failed by a vote of 3-3 to: 

Approve, with respect to Finding 3A pertaining to Administrative 

Costs ($48,520), Payroll & Associated Costs ($14,999), and Printed 

Materials ($11,500), that the Maine Rqpublican Party made potentially 

federal or allocable expenses firom a non-federal account in the amount 

of $75,019 which required reporting. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Walther, and Weintraub voted afBrmatively for the motion. 

Commissioners Hunter, McGahn U, and Petersen dissented. 

. Attest: ^ \ 

Date Shawn Woodhead Wertii ' 

Secretary and Clerk ofthe Comniission
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

IntheMatterof ) 

) All-19 

Audit Division Recommendation ) Agenda Document No. 14-6 

Memorandum on the Democratic Party of ) 

South Caiolma (DPSC) ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shelley E. Garr, recording secretaiy of the Federal Election Commission open meeting on 

January 16,2014 do hereby certify that the Commission took tiie following actions in the abovecaptioned matter: 

I 

1. Failedby avoteof 3-3 to: 

Fmd that DPSC fidled to maintain logs to document the time employees 

spent on federal election activity totaling $481,956, subject to an amendment 

to include the $11,920 paid to contract workers. 

Commissioners Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted affirmatively for fhe motion. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen dissented. 

2. Decidedbyavoteof6-0to: 

a. Find that DPSC &iled to maintain logs to document the time employees 

spent on federal election activity totaling $481,956. 

b. Find that DPSC did not exceed the 2010 coordinated party expenditure limit 

Commissioners Goodman, Himter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest 

(Date lelleyE. 

Deputy Secretaiy of the Commission
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               COMMERCE ONE, INC.

                    (Pursuant to Sections 242 and 245 of the
                General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)

         Robert M. Kimmitt and Robert M. Tarkoff each hereby certifies:

         (1) They are the President and Secretary, respectively, of Commerce
One, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware (the "General Corporation Law");

         (2) The first paragraph of Article Fourth of the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation, originally filed on March 24,
1999 and amended and restated on July 17, 1999, is hereby amended to read as
follows:

First:                     The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of
                           stock to be designated respectively Common Stock and
                           Preferred Stock. The total number of shares of all
                           classes of stock which the Corporation has authority
                           to issue is Nine Hundred Ninety Million
                           (990,000,000), consisting of Nine Hundred Fifty
                           Million (950,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $0.0001
                           par value (the "Common Stock"), and Forty Million
                           (40,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par
                           value (the "Preferred Stock").

         (3) This Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation has been duly adopted by the Board of Directors of
this Corporation in accordance with Sections 242 and 245 of the General
Corporation Law.

         (4) This Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation has been
duly approved, in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law, by
vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote
thereon.

<PAGE>

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation on this
17TH day of June, 2000.
----

                                                 /S/ ROBERT M. KIMMITT
                                                 ----------------------
                                                 Robert M. Kimmitt
                                                 President

/S/ ROBERT M. TARKOFF
---------------------
Robert M. Tarkoff
Secretary


                                      -2-
Exhibit 21.1  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
OF  ONEBEACON
INSURANCE GROUP, LTD. asof December 31, 2008  Subsidiary
  
  Jurisdiction
  of IncorporationA. W. G.
  Dewar, Inc.
  
  MassachusettsAdirondack AIF, LLC
  
  New YorkAdirondack Insurance
  Exchange
  
  New YorkAtlantic Specialty
  Insurance Company
  
  New YorkAutoOneInsurance
  Agency, Inc.
  
  DelawareAutoOneInsurance
  Company
  
  New YorkAutoOneManagement Company, Inc.
  
  DelawareAutoOneSelect
  Insurance Company
  
  New YorkThe Camden Fire
  Insurance Association
  
  New JerseyThe Employers Fire
  Insurance Company
  
  MassachusettsEssentiaInsurance
  Company
  
  MissouriHomeland Insurance
  Company of New York
  
  New YorkHouston General
  Insurance Company
  
  TexasHouston General
  Insurance Exchange
  
  TexasHouston General
  Insurance Management Company
  
  TexasMassachusetts Homeland
  Insurance Company
  
  MassachusettsMill Shares Holdings
  (Bermuda) Ltd.
  
  BermudaNational Marine
  Underwriters, Inc.
  
  DelawareNew Jersey Skylands Management LLC
  
  MarylandThe Northern Assurance
  Company of America
  
  MassachusettsOneBeacon America
  Insurance Company
  
  MassachusettsOneBeacon
  Entertainment, LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Holdings
  (Gibraltar) Limited
  
  GibraltarOneBeacon Holdings
  (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgOneBeacon Insurance
  Company
  
  PennsylvaniaOneBeacon Insurance
  Group LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon
  Lloyds, Inc.
  
  TexasOneBeacon Lloyds of
  Texas
  
  TexasOneBeacon Midwest
  Insurance Company
  
  WisconsinOneBeacon Professional
  Partners, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Risk
  Management, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Services,
  LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon Sports and
  Leisure, LLC
  
  DelawareOneBeacon U.S.
  Enterprises Holdings, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon U.S.
  Financial Services, Inc.
  
  DelawareOneBeacon U.S.
  Holdings, Inc.
  
  DelawarePennsylvania General
  Insurance Company
  
  PennsylvaniaPotomac Insurance
  Company
  
  PennsylvaniaTCHInsurance
  Agency, Inc.
  
  MassachusettsTraders &
  General Insurance Company
  
  TexasWM Belvaux
  (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgWM Findel
  (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgWM Kehlen
  (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgWM Queensway
  (Gibraltar) Limited
  
  GibraltarYork Insurance Company
  of Maine
  
  Maine
#### Morse, administrator, appellant, v. Brockett *et al.,*administrators.

*Contract—construction of.*

S. was liable upon the paper of a firm, and judgments were obtained against him thereon. To secure him, A., a member of the firm, confessed judgment for $37,750, which became a lien on A.’s farm. Subsequently it was agreed between S. and E. who was also liable upon the firm paper, that if S. would satisfy his judgment, and the sons of A. (to whom A. had conveyed his farm) would give E. a mortgage for $10,000, E. would take up and discharge the indebtedness of the firm on which S. was liable to the amount of §30,000. S. satisfied the judgment and the $10,000 mortage was made to E. As a part of the agreement the sons gave a subsequent mortgage to S. for $33,000 to secure the balance then due upon his liabilities for the firm. B. took up of the firm indebtedness $16,705.80, including three judgments against S. which were assigned to E. *Held,*that E. could not enforce the judgments against S„ and this even if they were assigned to him before the agreement was made, and the mortgage to E.was a lien upon the farm prior to that of S., to the extent only of $10,000 less $3,394.30, the difference between the amount of firm indebtedness taken up by him and $30,000.

*774Appeals by George E. Morse from judgments entered in the county of Madison, upon the reports of a referee.

There were three actions, two brought by George E. Morse, as administrator, etc., of Ellis Morse, deceased, against Samuel White and others, to recover the amount claimed to be due on three judgments against said defendants. Samuel White died during the pendency of the action, and his administrator, David Z. Brockett, was substituted. The third action was brought by said Samuel White against George E. Morse, as administrator, and others, to restrain the statute foreclosure of a mortgage. The material facts in each case were the same and they were tried as one action.

*Conkling, Lord & Coxe,*for appellant.

*Charles Mason*and *Joseph Mason,*for respondent.

Bockes, J.

The head-note states sufficiently the points passed upon in the opinion, which is chiefly devoted to a review of the facts in the cases.

*Judgments affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6565

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CORNELL BLACKWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-62-P, CA-96-68-3-P)

Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cornell Blackwell, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Blackwell, Nos.

CR-92-62-P; CA-96-68-3-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Waiving the Prohibition on the Use of Fiscal Year 2006 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 574 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006 (the “Act”), Public Law 109-102, I hereby: 

- Determine that it is important to the national interests of the United States to waive the prohibition of section 574(a) of the Act with respect to Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cyrus, Ecuador, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, South Africa, and Tanzania; and
- Waive the prohibition of section 574(a) of the Act with respect to these countries.

                    You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress, and to arrange for its publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

[FR Doc. 06-9665

Billing code 4710-10-P
§ 1329.2 Purpose. The purpose of title VII of the Act is to promote a philosophy of independent living (IL), including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities, and to promote the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society by: ( a ) Providing financial assistance to States for providing, expanding, and improving the provision of IL services;
( b ) Providing financial assistance to develop and support statewide networks of Centers for Independent Living (Centers or CILs);
( c ) Providing financial assistance to States, with the goal of improving the independence of individuals with disabilities, for improving working relationships among— ( 1 ) State Independent Living Services;
( 2 ) Centers for Independent Living;
( 3 ) Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs or Councils) established under section 705 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 796d);
( 4 ) State vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs receiving assistance under Title 1 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 720 *et seq.*);
( 5 ) State programs of supported employment services receiving assistance under Title VI of the Act (29 U.S.C. 795g *et seq.*);
( 6 ) Client assistance programs (CAPs) receiving assistance under section 112 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 732);
( 7 ) Programs funded under other titles of the Act;
( 8 ) Programs funded under other Federal laws; and
( 9 ) Programs funded through non-Federal sources with the goal of improving the independence of individuals with disabilities.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen
D. Brown, President 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/ Allen D. Brown
Allen D. Brown
President
### RE:RegionalhazeRPanalysis AldenWest to:VanessaHinkle 10/26/201101:55PM


### From: "AldenWest"<wesLalden@ecrweb.com> To: VanessaHinkle/R8/USEPAlUS@EPA

Hi Vanessa,
As you point out, most of the dataused to develop this cost equation were for smaller engines. However, a few of them were over 500 hp, including one that was 3,000 hp. On page 16 there is a graph showing the linear equation used to model cost vs horsepower. It appears that the higher horsepower engines continue to follow the linearpath. The data are also the most recent we could find. For these reasons, we made the assumption that this equation couldbe extrapolated further out tomodel 5,500 horsepower and would still be valid. The appendix is located at the end of the document (attached)

. There are some data in the impacts assessment for the 2002 RICE NESHAP, attached, which regulates engines that are over 500 hp. Specifically, on page 3-10 there is a table showing the control costs (this document assumes control withNSCR) for engines inhigher horsepower ranges. We did not use this databecause we couldnot obtain the supporting documentation that went along with the table, and the information is more outdated than the 2010 memorandum discussed above. However, the 2002 data indicate that the annualized cost of control for an engine in the 5,000 to 10,000 hp range wouldbe over three times higher than the cost calculatedusing the equations from the 2010 memorandum (Annual control cost from 2002 RIA

### =$105,000; comparedto annual control cost used in 4-factor (from 2010 memorandum) = $31,914). Although the annualized cost is higher, the cost effectiveness calculated from the 2002 data would still be low. I calculatedthe cost effectiveness as follows: annual cost of NSCR froln 2002 data is $105,000 dividedby emissions reduced (from4-factor analysis) of 669.3 tons, yields a cost effectiveness of $157/tonNOx reduced. Both sets of data provide a low cost effectiveness value for NSCR. Hope this helps, please letme know ifyou have any more questions.
Alden
-----Original Message----­ From: Hinkle.Vanessa@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Hinkle.Vanessa@epamail.epa.govJ
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:55AM To: AldenWest Cc: Fallon.Gail@epamail.epa.gov; 'Doug' Subject: RE: Regional haze RP analysis
Hi Alden

- As I understand it, this was used for the RICE NESHAPS rule making in 2010. That rule making was for engines that are < 500 hp. Would the equations be valid for engines as large as those at Devon (5500 hpj? Were there engines of comparable size in the data set for NSCR? Canyou sendme Appendix Ato thememo? Thanks.
Vanessa Hinkle Environmental Scientist EPA Region 8