alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 400.60 Payment levels.

(a) Under the public/private RCA program, States and the local resettlement agencies contracted or awarded grants to administer the RCA program must make monthly cash assistance payments to eligible refugees that do not exceed the following payment ceilings, according to the number of persons in the family unit, except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. For family units greater than 4 persons, the payment ceiling may be increased by $70 for each additional person.

| Size of family unit | Monthly payment ceiling |
| --- | --- |
| 1 person | $335 |
| 2 persons | 450 |
| 3 persons | 570 |
| 4 persons | 685 |

(b) States and local resettlement agencies may not make payments to refugees that are lower than the State's TANF payment for the same sized family unit. In States that have TANF payment levels that are higher than the ceilings established in this section, States and local resettlement agencies must provide payment levels under the public/private RCA program that are comparable to the State's TANF payment levels.

(c) Income disregards and other incentives.

(1) States and local resettlement agencies may design an assistance program that combines RCA payments with income disregards or other incentives such as employment bonuses, or graduated payments in order to encourage early employment and self-sufficiency, as long as the total combined payments to a refugee do not exceed the ORR monthly ceilings established in this section multiplied by the allowable number of months of RCA eligibility.

(2) States that elect to exceed monthly payment ceilings in order to provide employment incentives must budget their resources to ensure that sufficient RCA funds are available to cover a refugee's cash assistance needs in the latter months of a refugee's eligibility period, if needed.

(d) If the Director determines that the payment ceilings need to be adjusted for inflation, the Director will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the new payment ceilings.
Exhibit 31.2


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, Sean Sobers, 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/ Sean SobersName:Sean SobersTitle:Chief Financial Officer
§ 681.26 How will the hearing be conducted and who has the burden of proof? ( a ) The ALJ conducts a hearing in order to determine whether a defendant is liable for a civil penalty, assessment, or both and, if so, the appropriate amount of the penalty and/or assessment. The hearing will be recorded and transcribed, and the transcript of testimony, exhibits admitted at the hearing, and all papers filed in the proceeding constitute the record for a decision by the ALJ.
( b ) NSF must prove a defendant's liability and any aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
( c ) A defendant must prove any affirmative defenses and any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           228,286
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    138,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      105,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 475,502
<PP&E>                                            50,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                    30,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   524,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             79,281
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                       9,131,316
<OTHER-SE>                                       436,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     524,513
<SALES>                                          943,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 943,288
<CGS>                                            441,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    441,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 220,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  281,012
<INCOME-TAX>                                      95,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              185,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     185,468
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1716 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction for 

real property taxes on the principal residences to all individuals whether 

or not they itemize other deductions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2009 

Mr. HILL (for himself, Mr. ADLER of New Jersey, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Mr. VISCLOSKY, and 

Mr. STUPAK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

deduction for real property taxes on the principal residences to all individuals whether or not they itemize 

other deductions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 The Act may be cited as the ‘‘Property Tax Relief 

5 Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1716 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXES ON PRIN2 CIPAL RESIDENCES ALLOWED TO ALL INDI3 VIDUALS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ITEMIZE 

4 OTHER DEDUCTIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 62 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross 

7 income) is amended by inserting after paragraph (21) the 

8 following new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(22) PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE REAL PROPERTY

10 TAXES.—The deduction allowed by section 164(a)(1) 

11 for State and local real property taxes on any resi12 dence allocable to the period during the taxable year 

13 that the residence is owned and used by the tax14 payer as the taxpayer’s principal residence (within 

15 the meaning of section 121).’’. 

16 (b) NO EFFECT ON COMPUTATION OF ALTERNATIVE

17 MINIMUM TAXABLE INCOME.—The last sentence of sub18 paragraph (A) of section 56(b)(1) of such Code is amend19 ed by inserting before the period ‘‘(other than the amount 

20 allowable under section 62(a)(22))’’. 

21 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 63(c) of 

22 such Code is amended— 

23 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking subparagraph 

24 (C) and redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 

25 subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively, and 


wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1716 IH

1 (2) by striking paragraph (7) and redesignating 

2 paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs (7) and (8), 

3 respectively. 

4 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
RECEIVED 

Joseph D. Barbera 

14706 NE Erickson Dr. 

La Center, WA 98629 

Tel: 360 263 5359 

OCT 0 2 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings 

Washington/ DC 

In the Matter of: Joseph D. Barbera 

FAA Case No. 2013NM090056 

FDMS No. FAA 2013-1083 

Judge Richard Goodwin 

Respondentrs Answer to Complaint 

1) On June 22"dr 2013, I did indeed operate an aircraft consisting mostly of helium 

balloons tied to a lawn chair. The flight did go higher than planned, but as there 

was no altimeter on board, and the flight was not tracked by radar, I cannot say 

how high the flight actually was, or if the 18,000 flight level was actually 

breeched. Therefore, I deny Section II, paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2) If indeed I had broken the 18,000 foot level, then this would be true. However, 

as I have stated in paragraph 11 there is no proof that this actually occurred. 

Therefore, I deny Section II, paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

3) If indeed I had broken the 18,000 foot level/ then this would be true. However, 

as I have stated in paragraph 11 there is no proof that this actually occurred. 

Therefore, I deny Section II, paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

Jose 

1 
Service List 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington D.C. 20591 

David Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave., SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

washington, DC 20590 

2
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50194 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMOS ELLIOTT, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 94-CR-171-1

- - - - - - - - - -

November 30, 1995

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Amos Elliott, Jr., has appealed the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting his convictions for theft of government money

and money laundering. Elliott argues that his convictions should

be reversed because there is insufficient evidence that he stole

money from the Government. We have reviewed the briefs and the

record and discern no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.
§ 75.374 Opportunities to object, hearings, and appeals. ( a ) Upon taking any remedy for non-compliance, the HHS awarding agency must provide the non-Federal entity an opportunity to object and provide information and documentation challenging the suspension or termination action, in accordance with written processes and procedures published by the HHS awarding agency. The HHS awarding agency or pass-through entity must comply with any requirements for hearings, appeals or other administrative proceedings to which the non-Federal entity is entitled under any statute or regulation applicable to the action involved.
( b ) See also: ( 1 ) 42 CFR part 50, subpart D for the Public Health Service Appeals Procedures,
( 2 ) 45 CFR part 16 for the Procedures of the Departmental Appeals Board, and
( 3 ) 45 CFR part 95, subpart A for the time limits for states to file claims.
( 4 ) 45 CFR part 95, subpart E for the State cost allocation plan disapprovals.
#### Mariet T. FORD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cheryl PLILER, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 02-16911.

D.C. No. CV-01-00840-LKK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 10, 2004.

Decided May 14, 2004.

*767Mariet T. Ford, CSPSOL — California State Prison (Solano), Vacaville, CA, Lindsay Anne Weston, Esq., Davis, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Justain P. Riley, DAG, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Mariet Ford (“Ford”), a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Ford was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder and one count of arson in the deaths of his pregnant wife, their three-year-old son, and their unborn son. Shortly after he was convicted, Ford learned of evidence tending to exculpate him and moved the state trial court for a new trial. The trial court denied Ford’s motion and sentenced him to a term of 45-years-to-life. The state appellate courts affirmed the trial court’s decision. Ford then filed a federal habeas petition claiming, among other things, that the denial of the motion for a new trial violated his due process rights. The district court rejected Ford’s claims and he filed this timely appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition de novo. *See Powell v. Lambert,*357 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir.2004). Because Ford’s petition was filed after April 24, 1996, it is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. *See Koerner v. Grigas,*328 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir.2003). Under AEDPA, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication of a petitioner’s claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Ford argues that the California courts deprived him of his right to present evidence that would have raised a reasonable doubt about his guilt, but he has not identified any Supreme Court precedent that required the state trial court to grant him a new trial under the circumstances of this case. Moreover, to the extent that Ford’s claim could be viewed as one of actual innocence, the newly-discovered evidence he presented to the state courts was not so compelling as might warrant habeas relief. *Cf. Herrera v. Collins,*506 U.S. 390, 417, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993) (assuming, in a capital case, that a “truly persuasive demonstration of ‘actual innocence’ ” would render the defendant’s execution unconstitutional and warrant habeas relief).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 500.1 Appearance and representation. ( a ) An individual may appear in his or her own behalf, or may be represented by an attorney at law admitted to practice in any State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia.
( b ) A member of a partnership may represent the partnership.
( c ) A bona fide officer of a corporation, trust or association may represent the corporation, trust or association.
( d ) An officer or employee of the United States Department of Justice, when designated by the Attorney General of the United States, may represent the United States in a claim proceeding.
( e ) In cases falling within the purview of subchapter B of this chapter, persons designated by veterans', service, and other organizations to appear before the Commission in a representative capacity on behalf of claimants will be deemed duly authorized to practice before the Commission if the designating organization has received a letter of accreditation from the Commission. Petitions for accreditation must be in writing, executed by duly authorized officer or officers, and addressed to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, Washington, DC 20579. Upon receipt of a petition setting forth pertinent facts as to the organization's history, purpose, number of posts or chapters and their locations, approximate number of paid-up memberships, statements that the organization will not charge any fee for services rendered by its designees in behalf of claimants and that it will not refuse on the grounds of non-membership to represent any claimant who applies for representation if the claimant has an apparently valid claim, accompanied by a copy of the organization's constitution, or charter, by-laws, and its latest financial statement, the Commission in its discretion will consider and in appropriate cases issue or deny letters of accreditation.
( f ) A claimant may not be represented before the Commission except as authorized in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
§ 611.7 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) *Periodic compliance reviews.* The responsible Foundation official shall from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with this part.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any person who believes himself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by this part may by himself or by a representative file with the responsible Foundation official a written complaint. A complaint must be filed not later than 90 days from the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the responsible Foundation official.
( c ) *Investigations.* The responsible Foundation official will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this part. The investigation should include, where appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with this part.
( d ) *Resolution of matters.* ( 1 ) If an investigation pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section indicates a failure to comply with this regulation, the responsible Foundation official will so inform the recipient and the matter will be resolved by informal means whenever possible. If it has been determined that the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, action will be taken as provided for in § 611.8.
( 2 ) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section the responsible Foundation official will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
( e ) *Intimidatory or retaliatory acts prohibited.* No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 601 of the Act or this part, or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part. The identity of complainants shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of this part, including the conduct of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising thereunder.