alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 618.525 Fringe benefits. ( a ) *“Fringe benefits” defined.* For purposes of these Title IX regulations, *fringe benefits* means: Any medical, hospital, accident, life insurance, or retirement benefit, service, policy or plan, any profit-sharing or bonus plan, leave, and any other benefit or service of employment not subject to the provision of § 618.515.
( b ) *Prohibitions.* A recipient shall not: ( 1 ) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
( 2 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan that does not provide for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex and for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
( 3 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or that otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
#### § 81.43 Reduction of time to file documents.

For good cause, the reviewing authority or the presiding officer, with respect to matters pending before them, may reduce any time limit prescribed by the rules in this part, except as provided by law or in part 80 of this title.
#### §§ 606.12-606.29 [Reserved]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6890** 

JEFFERSON ELIE , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00222

- JBF

- TEM )

Submitted : October 4, 2011 Decided: October 25, 2011

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jefferson Elie, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jefferson Elie seeks to appeal the district court ’ s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2011) . The magis trate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Elie that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Elie has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. *

We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

* In any event, the district court’s conclusion that Elie’s petition was untimely is correct, and thus independe ntly supports dismissal of this appeal

.3 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

###### 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 Cancer Institute Initial Review Group, Subcommittee J—Population and Patient-Oriented Training.                    

*Date:*                         February 19-20, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Westin Arlington Gateway, 801 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ilda M McKenna, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Research Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard Room 8111, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-7481,                         *mckennai@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

Dated: December 21, 2006.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-9952 Filed 12-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust
            2006-BC3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as
            a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and
            other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
            period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
            periodic reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
            agreement(s) in all material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
            instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
            disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS 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, 2005 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 Officer
November 2, 2005 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 



---

---
# CE2010045EN.01010401.xml

| 23.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 45/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 45/104

---

Tax exemptions applicable to the permanent introduction from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (codified version) *

P6_TA(2008)0591

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council directive on tax exemptions applicable to the permanent introduction from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (codified version) (COM(2008)0376 — C6-0290/2008 — 2008/0120(CNS))

(2010/C 45 E/27)

(Consultation procedure — codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0376), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0376),

| — | having regard to Article 93 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0290/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 93 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0290/2008),

| — | having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

| — | having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0466/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0466/2008),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
#### Western Union Telegraph Company *v.*Ryan.

Cobb, P. J.

1. Where one makes an assignment of his entire salary, earned and to be earned, for a named period, in a given employment in which he is engaged, it is not necessary for the assignee thereof to go into a *192court of equity in order to recover the amount of such salary, for such period, from the assignor’s employer. Resox-t to a court of equity is only necessary -when the assignment is of a part, instead of the whole of the salai-y. *First National Bank*v. *Hartman Steel Co.,*87 *Ga.*435; *Walton*v. *Horkan,*112 *Ga.*814; *Rivers*v. *Wright,*117 *Ga.*81. The assignment involved in this ease was executed prior to the act of August 15, 1904. Acts 1904, p. 79.

Submitted March 3,

Decided August 9, 1906.

Certiorari. Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton superior court-March 15, 1905.

*Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & McDaniel*and *Jackson & Orme,*for plaintiff in error. *B. B. Blackburn,*contra.

2. Where an allegation of fact upon which an assignment of error in a petition for certiorari is based is not vex-ified by the answer to the writ,, such assignment of error can not be considered by the reviewing court.

3. Even if an assignment of the character indicated in the first headnote-was made as part of a contract for a usux-ious loan of money and as security for such loan, and was therefore void, tlie right to set up the usux-y and have the assignment declared void would rest only with theassignoi-, his personal representatives and privies; and the pex-son owing the salary assigned, when sued therefor by the assignee, could not do so. *Zellner*v. *Mobley,*84 *Ga.*746; *Scott*v. *Williams,*100 *Ga.*540. Especially is this true when the assignor was made a party defendant to-such suit and duly served as such, and took no steps to have the assignment declared void. See *Gilmore*v. *Bangs,*55 *Ga.*403, 405.

4. Even if it were shown, in such a suit, that tlie assignment was made-for the purpose above indicated, evidence offered by the employer of the-assignor merely for the purpose of showing that he had been notified by the assignor that, he had been discharged in bankruptcy from the-debt which the assignment was made to secure would be inadmissible.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent,. and Lumpkin, J., disqualified.*
Aircraft Information

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+

Type: Quad-Copter

Weight: 1242g (Including payload)

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

Type: Quad-Copter

Weight: 1280g (Including payload)

DJI Inspire 1

Type: Quad-Copter

Weight: 2935g (Including payload)
#### § 630.100 What does this part do?

This part carries out the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* as amended) that applies to grants. It also applies the provisions of the Act to cooperative agreements and other financial assistance awards, as a matter of Federal Government policy.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11354

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

COLBY JONES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-58-1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Colby Jones appeals the 151-month within-guidelines sentence imposed 

following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 

50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Jones contends that the district court 

erred in calculating his criminal history score. Citing to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c), 

he asserts that the one criminal history point for his 2011 five-day sentence for 

the Texas offense evading arrest was erroneously assessed.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11354 Document: 00514492169 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2018
No. 16-11354

2

Because Jones did not object in the district court to his criminal history 

score, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 

F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). In calculating criminal history, sentences for 

misdemeanor and petty offenses are counted, except as provided in 

§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (2). § 4A1.2(c). Sentences for offenses listed under 

§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and “offenses similar to them, by whatever name they are known” 

are counted only when the sentence imposed “was a term of probation of more 

than one year or a term of imprisonment of at least [30] days” or when “the 

prior offense was similar to an instant offense.” § 4A1.2(c)(1)(A), (B). One of 

the offenses listed in § 4A1.2(c)(1) is resisting arrest. § 4A1.2(c)(1).

Jones received one criminal history point for the five-day sentence 

imposed for his 2011 conviction of the Texas misdemeanor offense of evading 

arrest. The Texas offense of evading arrest is similar to the crime of resisting 

arrest as set forth in § 4A1.2(c), and the district court committed clear or 

obvious error by assessing the criminal history point. See United States v. 

Moore, 997 F.2d 30, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1993). Without that criminal history point, 

Jones would have had seven criminal history points, and his Category IV 

criminal history score and guidelines range would have remained unchanged. 

Because he was sentenced within the correct guidelines range and because the 

district court indicated that a sentence at the top of that range was 

appropriate, Jones fails to make a showing that the error affected his 

substantial rights. See United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 

2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11354 Document: 00514492169 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2018
§ 503.9 Fees. Fees to be charged, if any, to any individual for making copies of that individual's record excluding the cost of any search for and review of the record will be as follows: ( a ) Photocopy reproductions: each copy $0.15.
( b ) Where the Commission undertakes to perform for a requester, or any other person, services which are clearly not required to be performed under the Privacy Act, either voluntarily or because those services are required by some other law, the question of charging fees for those services will be determined by the official or designee authorized to release the information, under the Federal user charge statute, 31 U.S.C. 583a, any other applicable law, and the provisions of § 502.13 of part 502 of this chapter.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Application to Amend

Section 333 Exemption No.13911

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-4394

February 26, 2015 

Petitioner: 

Mid Columbian U.A.V. Solutions

Ian Napier

2242 Firerock Avenue.

Richland WA 99352

Phone: 509 727 4952

Email: iankarrie@gmail.com

Website: www.mcuavs.com

To whom it may concern,

By letter from the FAA dated December 9 2015, an exemption was granted to Mid Columbian UAV Solutions for 

relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 13911 Regulatory Docket No. FAA2015-4394.

Mid Columbian UAV Solutions hereby request that the exemption so granted be amended to include the following 

aircraft. 

DJI Phantom 3, DJI S900, DJI Matrice M 100, DJI S1000, DJI Inspire 1, Freefly CineStar 6 and Freefly CineStar 8.

Mid Columbian UAV Solutions also request FAA to update their records to reflect the correct name of the company 

as Mid Columbia UAV Solutions (as original application states) and not as Mid Columbian UAV Solutions.

I. Description of Proposed Operations 

Mid-Columbia UAV Solutions seeks to amend its Exemption to add the aircraft listed above for use in support of its 

aerial data collection activities. 

II. The Proposed UAS Operations Meet the Requirements of Section 333 of the Reform Act 

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and Operational Capability 

The FAA has already ruled that the listed aircraft meet all of the criteria set forth in Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Accordingly, all of the requirements to operate these vehicles been 

satisfied and the petition is suitable for a summary grant. 
● DJI Phantom 3: Exemption No. 11783 to Precision Design and Drafting Inc. Docket No. FAA–2015-0280

● DJI S900: Exemption No. 12640 to Revolution UAS, LLC, Docket No. FAA-2015-2422

● DJI S1000: Exemption No. 13405 to Skydrone UAVS Inc., Docket No. FAA–2015–3164 

● DJI Matrice M 100: Exemption No. 11814 to Alert5 International LLC, Docket No. FAA-2015-1142

● DJI Inspire 1: Exemption No. 14215 to Inspired Aerials LLC, Docket No. FAA-2015-4828

● Freefly CineStar 6: Exemption No. 12092 to GravityShots.com Inc, Docket No. FAA–2015–0729

● Freefly CineStar 8: Exemption No. 12092 to GravityShots.com Inc, Docket No. FAA–2015–0729

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption seeking the addition of supplementary UAS models that have 

already been approved for other operators, Mid Columbia UAV Solutions respectfully submits that good cause 

exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. 

III. The Requested Amendment is in the Public Interest 

The above listed UAS offer substantial safety benefits for aerial data collection over conventional operations using 

helicopters or fixed wing aircraft. 

If you have any questions regarding this amendment, or require any additional information to process this Petition, 

please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Very Truly Yours, 

Ian Napier

Mid Columbia UAV Solutions