alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 30.15 Suspension or revocation of eligibility for loans and loan guarantees, licenses, permits, or privileges. ( a ) ( 1 ) Unless waived by the Secretary, financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, or loan insurance shall not be extended to any person delinquent on a non-tax debt owed to the United States. This prohibition does not apply to disaster loans. Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts are not considered to be loans.
( 2 ) The authority to waive the application of this section may be delegated to the Chief Financial Officer and re-delegated only to the Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
( 3 ) States that manage Federal activities, pursuant to approval from the Secretary, should ensure that appropriate steps are taken to safeguard against issuing licenses, permits, or other privileges to debtors who fail to pay their debts to the Federal Government.
( b ) The Secretary will report to Treasury any surety that fails to honor its obligations under 31 U.S.C. 9305.
( c ) In non-bankruptcy cases, when seeking to collect statutory penalties, forfeitures, or other types of claims, the Secretary may suspend or revoke licenses, permits, or other privileges of a delinquent debtor if the failure to pay the debt is found to be inexcusable or willful. Such suspension or revocation will extend to programs or activities administered by the States on behalf of the Federal Government, to the extent that they affect the Federal Government's ability to collect money or funds owed by debtors.
( d ) Where there is reason to believe that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, before taking any action to suspend or revoke under paragraph (c) of this section, the Office of the General Counsel should be contacted for legal advice concerning the impact of the Bankruptcy Code, particularly 11 U.S.C. 362 and 525, which may restrict such action.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****United States--east coast,Massachusetts, Fall River Harbor [electronic resource].**
 
2000|2006|
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:13227/

Item Number: 0191-B-13 (online)

CGP systemNumber:000847437
August 16, 2018
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 2166

CRISTINA GILLASPIE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; SPECIAL AGENT DOYLE MULLIS; SPECIAL AGENT ANTHONY LUCKMAN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:21

- cv - 01935

- DCN )

Submitted : June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: R. Britton Kelly, Peter Phillips, KELLY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assista nt Attorney General, David H. Estes, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Joshua M. Koppel, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D

. C

. , for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2166 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIA M: Cristina Gillaspie appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and drop parties in Gillaspie’s action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 to 26 80 , the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 706, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

. Upon review of the arguments pressed on appeal in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities , we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gillaspie v. United States , No. 2:21

- cv 01935

- DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 7 , 2022). 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2166 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
From: Leah Kelly <lkelly@environmentalintegrity.org>

To: David Talley/R3/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/09/2011 12:39 PM

Subject: Information Request: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0623; FRL-9448-1

Dear Mr. Talley,

I am writing on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). Thank you for the 

opportunity to seek further information on EPA’s proposed approval of a Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, as set forth in Federal Register Vol. 76 No. 150 page 

47090 (August 4, 2011) (Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0623; FRL-9448-1). EIP 

intends to submit comments on the proposed SIP revision by the September 6, 2011 comment 

deadline. 

EPA enclosed with its January 3, 2011 letter to the Maryland Department of the Environment 

(MDE) a memorandum setting forth issues to be addressed at a January 7, 2011 meeting among 

EPA, MDE and the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC). In that memorandum, EPA 

stated that the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued to Energy 

Answers must be made federally enforceable. EPA also requested that MDE submit the Energy 

Answers CPCN for inclusion into the SIP after correcting deficiencies with respect to modeling 

for the new ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. I have 

attached a copy of the EPA memorandum for your convenience and because only the first page 

of the memorandum is posted online as part of the docket for the proposed SIP revision. 

Could you please let me know whether the Energy Answers CPCN has been submitted to EPA 

for inclusion into the Maryland SIP, or whether any steps have been taken toward its submittal? 

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you very much 

for your help. 

Best regards,

Leah Kelly

Attorney*

Environmental Integrity Project

1 Thomas Circle, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 263-4448 Office

(202) 296-8822 Fax

lkelly@environmentalintegrity.org

*Licensed to practice law in Florida, New York and Massachusetts

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION / WORK PRODUCT: The information 

transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is 
addressed, and may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client 

communications and/or confidential attorney work product. If you receive 

this message in error, please send a reply e-mail to the sender and delete 

the material from any and all computers. Unintended transmissions shall 

not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege.
Date of 

report 

1970 

May 13 

13 

13 

~:rutttr nf tqr luitr~ itatrs 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

F S {Convened January 3, 1969 

IRST ESSION . Adjourned December 23, 1969 

S S { Convened January 19, 1970 

ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V ALEo, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Thursday, May 14, 1970 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Name ofnomlnee Office Predeceesor 

No. No. 

U.S. PATENT OFFICE 

62 74 Robert Gottschalk, of New First Assistant Commis- Edwin L. Reynolds, 

Jersey. sioner of Patents. resigned. 

63 87 Lutrelle F. Parker, of An examiner in chief, James L. Brewrink, 

Virginia. U.S. Patent Office. resigned. 

U.S. MARSHAL 

64 97 Donald D. Hill, of Cali- U.S. marshal for the Wayne B. Colburn, 

fornia. southern district of resigned. 

California for the term 

of 4 years. 

37-022--70--No.172 

U.S, GOVEPNME'HT PRINTING OFFICEt ti70
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )
) A17-07
Audit Division Recommendation )
Memorandum on Hall for Congress )
CERTIFICATION

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election
Commission, do hereby certify that on March 27, 2019, the Commission
decided by a vote of 4-0 to approve the Audit Division Recommendation
Memorandum on Hall for Congress, as recommended in the Memorandum from
the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated December 18, 2018.

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted

affirmatively for the decision.

Attest:
p> ag,
MNurepn 27,2019 \OmanIAZ: <
Date Dayna C. Brown

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
---

Exhibit 23-2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, DC
20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-163643) regarding the registration
of 10,000,000 shares of common stock issuable pursuant to the 2010 Stock
Incentive Plan of Royal Mines And Minerals Corp. (the "Company") of our report
dated July 29, 2011 relating to the April 30, 2011 audited financial statements
of the Company which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for that
period.

De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC

/s/ De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC Henderson,
NV
July 29, 2011

---
9255074

FOURTH SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL APPLICATION UNDER 49 U.S.C.§ 47134 FOR

PRIVATIZATION OF CHICAGO MIDWAY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

The City of Chicago (the “City”) hereby supplements the Final Application, filed October

14, 2008 (“Final Application”), along with the first Supplement submitted on October 15, 2008,

the second Supplement submitted on March 5, 2009 and the third Supplement submitted on

January 29, 2010.

The City continues its deliberations and will report by July 31, 2010 on further

developments.

The date of this Supplement is April 30, 2010.
Presidential Documents

76571 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 245 

Thursday, December 21, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2007–8 of December 14, 2006 

Determination Pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of the Migration 

and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as Amended 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act 

of 1962, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1), I hereby determine that it is 

important to the national interest that up to $5.215 million be made available 

from the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the 

purpose of meeting unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs resulting 

from conflicts in Somalia and Sri Lanka. These funds may be used, as 

appropriate, to provide contributions to international, governmental, and 

nongovernmental organizations and, as necessary, for administrative expenses 

of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. 

You are authorized and directed to inform the appropriate committees of 

the Congress of this determination and the obligation of funds under this 

authority and to publish this determination in the Federal Register. 

GWBOLD.EPS 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 14, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–9836 

Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with MISCELLANEOUS
§ 30.28 Scope and application. ( a ) *Scope.* The standards set forth in this subpart apply to the suspension or termination of collection activity pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711 on debts that do not exceed $100,000, or such other amount as the Attorney General may direct, exclusive of interest, penalties, and administrative costs, after deducting the amount of partial payments or collections, if any. Prior to referring a debt to Justice for litigation, the Secretary may suspend or terminate collection under this subpart with respect to debts arising out of activities of, or referred or transferred for collection services to, the Department.
( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) If, after deducting the amount of partial payments or collections, the principal amount of the debt exceeds $100,000, or such other amount as the Attorney General may direct, exclusive of interest, penalties, and administrative costs, the authority to suspend or terminate rests solely with Justice.
( 2 ) If the Secretary believes that suspension or termination of any debt in excess of $100,000 may be appropriate, the Secretary shall refer the debt to the Civil Division or other appropriate litigating division in Justice, using the CCLR. The referral will specify the reasons for the Secretary's recommendation. If, prior to referral to Justice, the Secretary determines that a debt is plainly erroneous or clearly without merit, the Secretary may terminate collection activity regardless of the amount involved without obtaining Justice concurrence.
Argued May 29,

decided June 4,

rehearing denied August 13, 1912.

#### RANDALL *v.*CITY OF SALEM.

[123 Pac. 1099.]

From Marion: William Galloway, Judge.

This is a suit by Byron T. Randall against the City of Salem. The circuit court decreed the assessments under one ordinance valid, and those under the other void, and both parties appeal therefrom.

Modified.

For plaintiff-appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. Frank Holmes.*

For defendant-respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. Grant Corby,*City Attorney.

Mr. Justice Bean

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit to enjoin the collection of certain assessments levied by Ordinances 821 and 876 of the City of Salem. The trial court sustained the assessment made by the first ordinance, and declared that made by the latter to be void.

The assessments were made upon plaintiff’s property under the same ordinances and proceedings as those referred to in the case of *Jones*v. *City of Salem*(123 Pac. 1096), wherein an opinion has this day been ren*510dered. It is unnecessary to consider any questions other than, those involved in the above case, and in that of *Rogers*v. *Salem*(122 Pac. 308).

The decree of the lower court will therefore be modified, and the assessments levied under Ordinances 821 and 876 of the City of Salem will be annulled.

Modified.

Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Burnett took no part in the consideration of this case.
No. 2689 and 2690.

#### Clem Wells *v.*The State.

1. Local Option Law.—This court held in Suhlett’s case, 23 Texas Court of Appeals, 309, that the local option law as adopted in Rockwall county, Texas, in January, 1877, was absolutely void, because it was adopted at an election held under an order of the commissioners court of said Rock-wall county issued at a meeting of said court subsequent to its first meeting after the petition for such election was filed in said court. This conviction having been had for a violation of the local option law as adopted at said election, it is an absolute nullity.

2. Same.—It is a settled rule in this State that “the repeal of the local option law by the prescribed mode, pending an appeal from a conviction for its violation while in force, annuls the conviction.’’ This conviction, under this rule, would be a nullity.

Appeal from the County Court of Rockwall. Tried below before the Hon. A. R. Hartman, County Judge.

The opinion states the nature of the cases. The penalties assessed were fines of two hundred dollars in each case.

*W. C. Jones*and *Wade & Hefner,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

These two appeals are from judgments of conviction for violations of “the local option law,” supposed to have been adopted in Rockwall county at an election held the sixth of January, 1877. These convictions were had in the county court, on the eighth and ninth days of March, 1887, respectively. Subsequently thereto, to wit, on the twenty-third day of April, 1887, this court, in the case of Ex parte Sublett, declared the local option law, as adopted in said county January 6, 1877, absolutely void, for a failure of compliance in its adoption with the mandatory provisions of the local option statutes. (23 Texas Ct. App., 309.)

It is further made to appear in the transcript of the record, in these cases, by the certificate of the county judge of said county, that, since the Sublett decision, supra, declaring the old law of *2311877 absolutely void, the citizens of Rockwall county, at an election held the fourth day of June, 1887, to determine the question anew, defeated local option in said county, the majority against prohibition being one hundred and sixteen votes. In Whisenhunt v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 491, it was held to be a settled rule “that the repeal of the local option law by the prescribed mode, pending an appeal from a conviction for its violation while in force, annuls the conviction.”

Opinion delivered November 9, 1887.

In view of the status of these cases, considered in reference to these decisions, the Assistant Attorney General confesses errors, and the judgments are reversed and the prosecutions are dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
1TheBayArea’sExtraordinaryGlobalBusinessBaseUnderscoresTheNeedforConvenientAccesstotheWorld’sThirdLargestEconomyDocket DOT-OST2010-0018Exhibit SF-1Source:AnalysisbySanFranciscoInternationalAirport,asof2011NumberofFirst/BusinessPassengerstoTokyo,2011ShareofFirst/BusinessClassbookingsSFO‐Tokyo13.5%x230,918passengers;shareofFirst/BusinessClassbookingsSEA‐Tokyo9.2%x85,386passengers.Sources:ShareestimatefromMIDT2011;passengersfromUA‐106.In2011,NearlyFourTimesasManyTravelersFlewFirst/BusinessClasstoTokyofromSanFranciscoasfromSeattle22Docket DOT-OST2010-0018Exhibit SF-231,1747,85605,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000SFO SEAPercentofBookingsinFirst/BusinesstoTokyo,2011Source:MIDT2011SanFranciscoHasaMuchHigherProportionofFirst/BusinessClassTravelerstoTokyothanDoesLosAngelesorSeattle33Docket DOT-OST2010-0018Exhibit SF-313.5%10.2%9.2%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%SFO LAX SEAPercentofBookingsinFirst/BusinessandPremiumEconomytoTokyo,2011Source:MIDT2011SanFranciscoHasaHigherProportionofFirst/Business/PremiumEconomyClassTravelerstoTokyothanDoesLosAngelesortheMuchSmallerSeattleMarket44Docket DOT-OST2010-0018Exhibit SF-413.5%9.2%10.2%31.7%30.7%22.4%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%SFO SEA LAXPremiumEconomyFirst&Business5ExportstoJapanbyAir– 2011ValueinDollars($Billions)California’sAirExportstoJapanAreManyTimestheValueandWeightofThosefromtheStateofWashingtonDocket DOT-OST2010-0018Exhibit SF-5ExportstoJapanbyAir– 2011MetricTons(000s)$7.70$0.550123456789California Washington

$ Billions79.99.90102030405060708090California Washington

Metric Tons (000s)Source:U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,ForeignTradeStatistics20116TheFlightTimeDifferencesBetweenSeattle‐TokyoandSanFranciscoTokyoAreMinimalTue,Sep112:10PMDeltaAirLines155SeattleSEA4:35PMTokyoNRTnon‐stop10hr25minReturnTue,Sep184:10PMDeltaAirLines156TokyoNRT9:15AMSeattleSEAnon‐stop9hr5minUnitedAirlines837SanFranciscoSFO2:20PMTokyoNRTnon‐stop10hr58minReturnTue,Sep184:00PMUnitedAirlines838TokyoNRT9:01AMSanFranciscoSFOnon‐stop9hr1minDocket DOT-OST2010-0018Exhibit SF-6Source:Orbitz,accessedSeptember4,20127United’sSFOHubOffersFarMoreOn‐LineConnectionsthantheOtherApplicantsNumberofOn‐LineConnectingMarketsinU.S.,Caribbean,Canada,andLatinAmericaSource:OAGSeptember2012Docket DOT-OST2010-0018Exhibit SF-775387201020304050607080UA‐SFO AA‐LAX DL‐SEA HA‐KOA

# Exhibit A

San Francisco International Airport Letters in Support
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40432 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Israel De Jesus Ortiz**

**- Melendez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CR

- 718

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Israel De Jesus Ortiz

- Melendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ortiz

- Melendez has not filed a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 12, 2021 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 21-40432 Document: 00516091689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2021No. 21

- 40432

2 response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-40432 Document: 00516091689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2021
§ 283.4 If a State wants to be considered for bonus eligibility, what birth data must it submit? ( a ) To be considered for a bonus, the State must have submitted data on out-of-wedlock births as follows: ( 1 ) The State must have submitted to NCHS the final vital statistics data files for all births occurring in the State. These files must show, among other elements, the total number of live births and the total number of out-of-wedlock live births occurring in the State. These data must conform to the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program contract for all years in the calculation period. This contract specifies, among other things, the guidelines and time-lines for submitting vital statistics data files; and
( 2 ) The State must have submitted these data for the most recent two years for which NCHS reports final data, as well as for the previous two years.
( b ) If a State has changed its method of determining marital status for the purposes of these data, the State also must have met the following requirements: ( 1 ) The State has identified all years for which the method of determining marital status is different from that used for the previous year;
( 2 ) For those years identified under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the State has either: ( i ) Replicated as closely as possible a consistent method for determining marital status at the time of birth, and the State has reported to NCHS the resulting alternative number of out-of-wedlock births; or
( ii ) If NCHS agrees that such replication is not methodologically feasible, the State may chose to accept an NCHS estimate of what the alternative number would be;
( 3 ) The State has submitted documentation to NCHS on what changes occurred in the determination of marital status for those years and, if appropriate, how it determined the alternative number of out-of-wedlock births for the State; and
( 4 ) For methodological changes that were implemented prior to 1998 and applicable to data collected for the bonus period, the State has submitted the information described in paragraphs (b)(1), (2) and (3) of this section within two months after April 14, 1999. For such changes implemented during or after 1998, the State must submit such information either by the end of calendar year 1999 or according to the same deadline that applies to its vital statistics data for that year, whichever is later.