alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Kathleen M. Roberts 

Executive Director 

DEC -2 2014 

Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group 

2200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 1 OOW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Dear Ms. Roberts: 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

I am writing to confirm that on October 21, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) received your petition requesting that the EPA "initiate a rulemaking to amend 

the [Toxic Substances Control Act] Section 8 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) partially 

exempted chemical list set forth in the [EPA's] regulations at 40 C.F.R. Section 711.6(b){l)," 

pursuant to Section 21 ofTSCA. 

Section 21 ofTSCA provides that the Administrator shall either grant or deny a petition 

within 90 days after the date of filing (January 19, 2015, for your petition). Section 21 further 

provides that, if the Administrator grants the petition, the Administrator shall promptly 

commence an appropriate proceeding and that, if the Administrator denies the petition, the 

Administrator shall publish the reasons for such a denial in the Federal Register. 

On October 22, 2014, the EPA also received your petition to amend the CDR partially 

exempted chemical list at 40 C.F.R. Section 711.6(b){2)(iv). 

Both your petitions are under review by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (OCSPP), which is responsible for programs under TSCA. 

If you have questions relating to these petitions, please contact Loraine Passe by 

telephone at (202) 564-9064 or by email at passe.loraine@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

w~c.<tl.._~ 

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director 

Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics 

Internet Address (URL) • http.//www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted w1th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
Argued November *2,*

decided November 28, 1911.

#### SMITH *v.*FISER.

[118 Pac. 1118.]

From Malheur: Dalton Biggs, Judge.

This is a proceeding by *habeas corpus*commenced by the plaintiif, Jessie Smith, against her sister, Kate Fiser, and her father, J. M. Brown, to recover the custody and control of her daughter, Margaret Potter. Upon trial the court made and rendered a decree in favor of the defendants, and plaintiif appeals.

Affirmed.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Messrs Hayes & Crandall,*with an oral argument by *Mr. George W. Hayes.*

For respondents there was a brief over the names of *Messrs. McCulloch, Soliss & Duncan,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Robert M. Duncan.*

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a careful consideration of the testimony, we are of the opinion that the decree of the circuit court is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a),


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Sam Heidari, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quantenna Communications, 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(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.





Date:March 1, 2017By:/s/ Sam HeidariName:Sam HeidariTitle:Chief Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 13855 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 4:12

- cv - 00251

- BAE

- GRS ; 4:10

- cr - 00159

- BAE

- GRS

- 4 HEZEKIAH MURDOCK, Petitioner

- Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

_______________ _________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ (January 9, 2015) Before TJOFLAT , JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-13855 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 1 of 32 Hezekiah Murdock, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence , pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion finding that the ineffective

- assistance claim was barred by the collateral

at tack waiver in Murdock’ s plea agreement. On October 14, 2014, the United States Department of Justice issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors regarding the enforcement of appeal waivers in which defendants waive claims of ineffective assistance o f counsel on direct appeal and collateral attack. See Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General, to All Federal Prosecutors (Oct. 14, 2014), available at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/DOJ_Ineffective_Assistance_Counsel.pdf (“For cases in which a defendant’s ineffective assistance claim would be barred by a previously executed waiver, prosecutors should decline to enforce the waiver when defense counsel re ndered ineffective assistance resulting in prejudice or when the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim raises a serious debatable issue that a court should resolve.”). In light of this new policy, and in response to our directive asking the United Stat es Attorney to address its impact on this case, the government has withdrawn its reliance on Murdock’s collateral

- attack waiver.

Case: 13-13855 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 2 of 33 As a result, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court with the instruction to afford Murdock an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective

- assistance

- of

- counsel claim. Case: 13-13855 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

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 First Place Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Steven R. Lewis, 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 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 amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Steven R. Lewis                  
|                   |  |  |  | Steven R. Lewis                      
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC. 20463 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Patricia C. Orrock |y/i3y 25,20I8 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Thomas E. Hintermister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Erin Chlopak 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

for Policy 

LHbyJW Lorenzo Holloway ' 

Assistant General Counsel 

Compliance Advice 

Jennifer Waldman 

Attorney 

Draft Final Audit Report on O'Malley for President (LRA 1007) 

The Office of General Counsel ("OGC") has reviewed the Draft Final Audit Report 

("DFAR") on O'Malley for President ("Committee"). The DFAR contains five findings: Net 

Outstanding Campaign Obligations (Finding 1), Amounts Owed to the U.S. Treasury (Finding 

2), Failure to Itemize Offsets to Expenditures (Finding 3), Reporting of Debts and Obligations 

(Finding 4), and Stale-Dated Checks (Finding S). We concur with the findings but have 

additional comments regarding Finding 2. If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer 

Waldman, the attorney assigned to this audit. 

Finding 2 in the DFAR notes that the Committee does not owe a repayment to the United 

States Treasury. The Audit Division reached the same conclusion in the Preliminary Audit 

Report ("PAR"). To provide additional legal support for Finding 2 in the DFAR, we recommend 
LRA 1007 - O'Malley for President 

DFAR Legal Comments 

Page 2 of2 

that the Audit Division attach our comments on the PAR. In our comments on the PAR, we 

explain the legal basis supporting the conclusion that the Committee does not owe a repayment. 

Although the preliminary audit report may include calculations regarding future 

repayments, 11 C.F.R. § 9038.1(c)(l)(iii), the final audit report serves as the legal notification of 

any repayment determination made by the Commission. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(a)(2). Therefore, 

while the conclusion that the Committee does not owe a repayment remains the same between 

the PAR and the DFAR, the DFAR triggers the repayment process, and it must include the legal 

basis for the Commission's repayment determination. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(1). We, therefore, 

incorporate our comments on the PAR by reference here and, we recommend that the Audit 

Division attach our comments on the PAR to the DFAR. 

The DFAR does not include an explicit recommendation that the Commission determine 

that no repayment is owed to the United States Treasury. Since a determination that no 

repayment is owed is still a determination, we recommend that the Audit Division revise the 

DFAR to include this recommendation.
---

---

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 Defense Industries International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tsippy
Moldovan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/ Tsippy Moldovan 
Tsippy MoldovanChief Financial OfficerJanuary 16, 2008 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 



---

---
[Crim. No. 3344.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

October 18, 1940.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOHN A. GORDON, Appellant.

Ames Peterson for Appellant.

Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and Alberta Belford, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of receiving stolen property, after trial before a jury, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the People (re-' spondent), the essential facts are:

*227Defendant purchased a model A 42 hydraulic jack from Perry A. Heywood, who had stolen the same from a service station belonging to the Shell Oil Company. Said Perry A. Heywood was the principal witness against defendant.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on this proposition:

*Since the principal witness against him was the thief who stole the property which defendant 'purchased, such witness was an accomplice, and in order to sustain a conviction the testimony of such witness must under section 1111 of the Penal Code be corroborated.*

This proposition is untenable. The law is established in California that one who receives stolen property is not an accomplice of the thief within the rule set forth in section 1111 of the Penal Code requiring corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice. *(People*v. *Williams,*7 Cal. App. (2d) 600 [46 Pac. (2d) 796'].)

No other error being urged or appearing in the record, the judgment and order appealed from are and each is affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on November 14, 1940. Carter, J., voted for a hearing.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTransport systems research vehicle color display system operations manualA recent upgrade of the Transport Systems Research Vehicle operated by the Advanced Transport Operating Systems Program Office at the NASA Langley Research Center has resulted in an all-glass panel in the research flight deck. Eight ARINC-D size CRT color displays make up the panel. A major goal of the display upgrade effort was ease of operation and maintenance of the hardware while maintaining versatility needed for flight research. Software is the key to this required versatility and will be the area demanding the most detailed technical design expertise. This document is is intended to serve as a single source of quick reference information needed for routine operation and system level maintenance. Detailed maintenance and modification of the display system will require specific design documentation and must be accomplished by individuals with specialized knowledge and experience.Document ID19900002420Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsEasley, Wesley C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Johnson, Larry E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1989Subject CategoryAircraft InstrumentationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:101577NASA-TM-101577Accession Number90N11736Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-66-41-22Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900002420.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 287.40 Are there any matching funds requirements with the NEW Program?

No, Tribal grantees are not required to match NEW Federal funds.
§ 1608.3 Prohibitions applicable to the Corporation and to recipients. ( a ) Neither the Corporation nor any recipient shall use any political test or qualification in making any decision, taking any action, or performing any function under the act.
( b ) Neither the Corporation nor any recipient shall contribute or make available Corporation funds, or any personnel or equipment ( 1 ) To any political party or association;
( 2 ) To the campaign of any candidate for public or party office; or
( 3 ) For use in advocating or opposing any ballot measure, initiative, or referendum.
Exhibit
        99.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF**
 **THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Elephant Talk
        Communications, Inc. (the “Company") for the period ended September 30, 2006 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"), the undersigned, Steven van der Velden, President & Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, and Manu Ohri, Chief Financial Officer
        of the
        Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
                  November 18, 2006
              
              /s/
                  Steven van der VeldenSteven
                  van der VeldenPresident
                  & Chief Executive OfficerDated:
                  November 18, 2006
              
              /s/
                  Manu OhriManu
                  OhriChief
                  Financial Officer
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 Corridor Communications Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby 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 knowledge:

      (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 results of operations
            of the Company.

November 19, 2004                  By: /s/ J. Michael Heil
                                      -------------------------------
                                      J. Michael Heil
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      Acting Chief Financial Officer
§ 2301.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1614 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Executive Director shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to Executive Director, United States Arctic Research Commission, ICC Building, room 6333, 12th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20423.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate Government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 2301.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[58 FR 57698, 57699, Oct. 26, 1993]