alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 5.53 How does HHS calculate FOIA fees for different categories of requesters? ( a ) If you are a commercial use requester, we charge you fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating responsive records.
( b ) If you are an educational or noncommercial scientific institution requester, or a member of the news media, you are entitled to search time, review time, and up to 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media) without charge. We charge duplication fees after the first 100 pages (or its cost equivalent).
( c ) If you do not fall into either of the categories in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (*i.e.* you are an “other requester”), you are entitled to two hours of free search time, up to 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent of other media) without charge, and you will not be charged for review time. We may charge for search time beyond the first two hours and for duplication beyond the first 100 pages (or its cost equivalent).
( d ) ( 1 ) If we fail to comply with the FOIA's time limits in which to respond to a request, we may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of the requester categories referenced in paragraph (b) of this section, may not charge duplication fees, except as described in (d)(2)-(4).
( 2 ) If we have determined that unusual circumstances as defined by the FOIA apply and we provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.
( 3 ) If we have determined that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, we may charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters described in paragraph (b) of this section, may charge duplication fees if the following steps are taken: we must have provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA and must have discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5. U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). If this exception is satisfied, we may charge all applicable fees incurred in the processing of the request.
( 4 ) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
§ 2540.204 What are the components of a National Service Criminal History Check? ( a ) Unless CNCS approves a waiver under § 2540.207, for each individual in a position specified in § 2540.201, grantees or subgrantees must, obtain: ( 1 ) A nationwide check of the National Sex Offender Public website through *NSOPW.gov;*
( 2 ) A check of the State criminal history record repository or agency-designated alternative for the individual's State of residence and State of service; and
( 3 ) A fingerprint-based check of the FBI criminal history record database through the State criminal history record repository or agency-approved vendor.
( b ) One way for grant recipients or subrecipients to obtain and document the required components of the National Service History Check is through the use of agency-approved vendors.
[86 FR 11147, Feb. 24, 2021]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6693

TERRENCE L. DURDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00888-GBL)

Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence L. Durden, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terrence L. Durden seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Durden has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
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

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the 12th meeting of the American Health Information Community Electronic Health Records Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). 

# DATES:

January 11, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. [Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building.]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​ehr_​main.html.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The workgroup will continue its discussion on the barriers and drivers of EHR adoption.

                    The meeting will be available via internet access. For additional information, go to                     *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​ehr_​instruct.html.*

Dated: December 14, 2006.

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 06-9807 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
(ORDER LIST: 551 U.S.)

FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2007

APPEAL -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

06-589 CHRISTIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF MAINE V. FEC, ET AL.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded

to the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia for further consideration in light of

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to

Life, Inc., 551 U.S. ___ (2007).
§ 2544.130 How will the Corporation determine whether to solicit or accept a donation? ( a ) The Corporation will solicit and accept a donation only for the purpose of furthering the mission and goals of the Corporation.
( b ) In order to be accepted, the donation must be economically advantageous to the Corporation, considering foreseeable expenditures for matters such as storage, transportation, maintenance, and distribution.
( c ) An official or employee of the Corporation will not solicit or accept a donation if the solicitation or acceptance would present a real or apparent conflict of interest. An apparent conflict of interest is presented if the solicitation or acceptance would raise a question in the mind of a reasonable person, with knowledge of the relevant facts, about the integrity of the Corporation's programs or operations.
( d ) The Corporation will determine whether a conflict of interest exists by considering any business relationship, financial interest, litigation, or other factors that may indicate such a conflict. Donations of property or voluntary services may not be solicited or accepted from a source which: ( 1 ) Is a party to a grant or contract with the Corporation or is seeking to do business with the Corporation;
( 2 ) Has pecuniary interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the Corporation; or
( 3 ) Is an organization a majority of whose members are described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
( e ) Any solicitation or offer of a donation that raises a question or concern of a potential, real, or apparent conflict of interest will be forwarded to the Corporation's Designated Ethics Official for an opinion.
December 14, 2011

**Note:** Subject: Cost estimates for MATS rule monitoring requirements. To: SPPD management and MATS rule writers From: Steffan Johnson , SPPD, MPG This is a note regarding the estimated costs of monitoring as required by the MATS rule. Cost estimates are generated from the CEMS cost model, 2007 version, publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html. The annual monitoring, reporting, and record
- keeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $157.5 million. This includes 698,907 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $49.0 million per year, and total non
- labor capital costs of $108.2 million per year. This estimate includes initial and annual performance tests, semiannual excess emission reports, developing a monitoring plan, notifications, and record
- keeping. Initial capital expenses to purchase monitoring equipment for affected units are estimated at a cost of $231.1 million. This includes 504,629 labor hours at a total labor cost of $35.0 million for planning, selection, purchase, installation, configuration, and certification of the new systems and total non
labor capital costs of 196.1 million. All burden estimates are in 2007 dollars and represent the most cost effective monitoring approach for affected facilities.
§ 501.4 Witnesses. ( a ) *Examination of witnesses.* Witnesses must appear in person and be examined orally under oath, except that for good cause shown, testimony may be taken by deposition.
( b ) *Witness fees and mileage.* Witnesses summoned by the Commission on its own behalf or on behalf of a claimant or interested party will be paid the same fees and mileage that are allowed and paid witnesses in the District Courts of the United States. Witness fees and mileage will be paid by the Commission or by the party at whose request the witness appears.
( c ) *Transcript of testimony.* Every person required to attend and testify will be entitled, upon payment of prescribed costs, to receive a copy of the recording of the testimony or a transcript of the recording. Every person required to submit documents or other evidence will be entitled to retain a copy thereof.
#### § 1326.80 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart:

*Payment or allotment.* The term “payment” or “allotment” means an amount provided under part B or C of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill or Rights Act of 2000. This term includes Federal funds provided under the Act irrespective of whether the State must match the Federal portion of the expenditure. This term shall include funds previously covered by the terms “Federal financial participation,” “the State's total allotment,” “further payments,” “payments,” “allotment” and “Federal funds.”

*Presiding officer.* The term “presiding officer” means anyone designated by the Secretary to conduct any hearing held under this subpart. The term includes the Secretary, or the Secretary's designee, if the Secretary or his or her designee presides over the hearing. For purposes of this subpart the Secretary's “designee” refers to a person, such as the Administrator of ACL, who has been delegated broad authority to carry out all or some of the authorizing statute. The term designee does not refer to a presiding officer designated only to conduct a particular hearing or hearings.
#### James M. Hamilton, Appellant, *v.*Frank V. Fleckenstein, Defendant, and William S. Morse et al., Respondents

*Hamilton*v. *Fleokenstein,*123 App. Div. 913, affirmed.

(Argued October 19, 1109;

decided November 9, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 13, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at Special Term in an action to foreclose a lien for money alleged to have been paid on a contract for the sale of real property.

*Hugh J. O’Brien*for appellant.

*Henry D. Shedd*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscook, JJ.
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 Annual Report of HK Battery Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jimmy Wang, 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 results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/Jimmy WangName:Jimmy WangTitle:Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)Date:June 20, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1684 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1684

     To preserve the rights granted under second amendment to the 
   Constitution in national parks and national wildlife refuge areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 2009

   Mr. Hastings of Washington (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. 
   Chaffetz, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Shuster, Mr. McClintock, Mr. 
Fleming, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Smith of 
    Nebraska, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Coffman of Colorado, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. 
  Lamborn, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Putnam) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To preserve the rights granted under second amendment to the 
   Constitution in national parks and national wildlife refuge areas.

    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 ``Preservation of the Second Amendment 
in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges Act''.

SEC. 2. FIREARMS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES.

    Except as provided in section 930 of title 18, United States Code, 
a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and 
operable firearms within a national park area or national wildlife 
refuge area in accordance with the laws of the State in which the 
national park area or national wildlife refuge area, or that portion 
thereof, is located.
                                 <all>
```
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on The Republican Party 

of Minnesota 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werdi, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on January 21,2011, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on The Republican Patty of Minnesota, as recommended in the 

Memorandum from the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated 

Januarys, 2011. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

ate bhawn w 

Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2007

DENNIS A. GIVENS,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SCOTT R. SMITH, individually and collectively; KEITH C. 

GAMBLE, individually and collectively; STEPHEN M. FOWLER, 

individually and collectively; D. LUKE FURBEE, individually 

and collectively; OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN, individually and 

collectively; OFFICER J. E. DEAN, individually and 

collectively; J. C. WEAVER, a/k/a Jack C. Weaver, 

individually and collectively; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE, 

individually and collectively; HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT, 

individually and collectively; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON, 

individually and collectively; KENNETH W. BLAKE, 

individually and collectively,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00145-FPS-JES)

Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis A. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee 

Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; 
2

Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, 

Wheeling, West Virginia; Stephen Mark Fowler, PULLIN, FOWLER, 

FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Kenneth 

Louis Hopper, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, 

Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean 

Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Dennis A. Givens appeals the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing Givens’ complaint in part and granting summary 

judgment in part. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Givens v. Weaver, No. 5:12-cv-00145-FPSJES (N.D.W. Va. July 1 & Aug. 27, 2014). We deny Givens’ motion 

for sanctions and to strike. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### John F. Kiley, Respondent, v. Llewllyn E. Jones, Appellant

*Kiley*v. *Jones,*127 App. Div. 947, affirmed.

(Argued October 12, 1909;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 11, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff in having been struck by an automobile through the negligence of defendant’s agents.

*J. L. Cheney*for appellant.

*C. E. Spencer*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hisoock and Chase, JJ
§ 287.140 With whom should the Tribe coordinate in the operation of its work activities and services? The administration of work activities and services provided under the NEW Program must ensure that appropriate coordination and cooperation is maintained with the following entities operating in the same service areas as the Tribe's NEW Program: ( a ) State, local and Tribal TANF agencies, and agencies operating employment and training programs;
( b ) Any other agency whose programs impact the service population of the NEW Program, including employment, training, placement, education, child care, and social programs.
§ 618.435 Employment assistance to students. ( a ) *Assistance by recipient in making available outside employment.* A recipient that assists any agency, organization, or person in making employment available to any of its students: ( 1 ) Shall assure itself that such employment is made available without discrimination on the basis of sex; and
( 2 ) Shall not render such services to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in its employment practices.
( b ) *Employment of students by recipients.* A recipient that employs any of its students shall not do so in a manner that violates §§ 618.500 through 618.550.
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 Annual Report of Emerald Acquisition Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhide
Jiang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the
      Company.







Date:
      March 31, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Zhide JiangZhide
      Jiang
              Chief
      Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ADRANCH, LLC

,

APPELLANT

,

V.

PEE WEE’S WELDING SERVICE

,

APPELLEE

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 115

- C V

Appeal from the

83rd District Court

o f Terrell C ounty, Texas

(TC# 3150

- A )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, ADRanch, LLC, has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal because the parties

have resolved their dispute. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a). We grant the motion and dis miss the

appeal. Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d).

November 8, 2017

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.