alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6076

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEVEN P. LAWSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (7:00-cr-00955-MBS; 7:05-cv-01301-MBS)

Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: October 16, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven P. Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Steven P. Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Lawson 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
# EUR-Lex - 52003XC0625(03) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52003XC0625(03)

**Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 148 , 25/06/2003 P. 0008 - 0008 *

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2003/C 148/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision: 2.4.2003

Member State: Italy (Abruzzi)

Aid No: NN 148/02

Title: Aid for carriers

Objective: Income aid for workers employed by carriers operating on the markets in fishery products and affected by the suspension of fishing during biological rest or technical closure periods

Legal basis: Article 20 of Regional Law No 7 of 10 May 2002

Budget: EUR 100000 for 2002

Aid intensity or amount: Aid to cover 80 % of average income for the months of the year preceding the temporary suspension of fishing

Duration: Five years

Other information: Annual report

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/ secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

Date of adoption of the decision: 9.4.2003

Member State: Italy

Aid No: N 263/A/01

Title: Measures taken in Sicily to assist the fishing industry

Objective: To develop the fishing industry and aquaculture

Legal basis: Law of 23 December 2000 of the Region of Sicily; Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector

Budget: EUR 18 million

Aid intensity or amount: Within the limits of the amounts laid down in Article 7 of and Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999

Duration: 2001 to 2006

Other information: Annual report

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/ secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Datakey, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Timothy L. Russell, Chief Executive
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 results of operations of the
Company. Date: August 9, 2004Signature:

    /s/ Timothy L. RussellTimothy L. RussellChief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-20457 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

SHAWN PEARSON and 

DWAYNE DUPREE 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY (ECF #106) 

In this criminal case, the government seeks to admit expert testimony from Special 

Agent Joseph Jensen concerning the location of certain cell phones. On September 22, 

2016, Defendant Shawn Pearson (“Pearson”) filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony 

(the “Motion”). (See ECF #106.) Defendant Dwayne Dupree joined the Motion. (See ECF 

#107). The Court held a Daubert hearing on January 27, 2017 (the “Daubert Hearing”). 

For the reasons stated on the record at the Daubert Hearing, the Motion is DENIED. 

Special Agent Jensen may offer his proposed opinion testimony subject to the limitations 

and in the manner stated by Court at the Daubert Hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 30, 2017 

2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP Doc # 119 Filed 01/30/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 488
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or 

counsel of record on January 30, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP Doc # 119 Filed 01/30/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 489
§ 32.55-45 Venting of cofferdams and void spaces of tank vessels constructed on or after November 10, 1936—TB/ALL. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, on all tank vessels, the construction or conversion of which was started on or after November 10, 1936, cofferdams and void spaces shall be provided with gooseneck vents fitted with a flame screen or pressure-vacuum relief valves. The diameter of a vent shall be not less than 21 ⁄ 2 inches.
( b ) On unmanned tank barges not fitted with fixed bilge systems in the cofferdams and void spaces, vents for cofferdams and void spaces will not be required.
Exhibit 23.02
                                                    CIPS
   

















                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                  _________________________________________
                   


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report included in and incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K, into Central Illinois Public Service Company's
previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 33-29384, 33-31475,
33-59674, 33-45506 and 33-56063 and CIPSCO Incorporated's previously
filed Registration Statement File No. 33-32936.



                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Chicago, Illinois,
March 4, 1996
| 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, 2011    |   | /s/  Michael C. Burer |   |
|                                         |   | Michael C. Burer           |   |
|                                         |   | Chief Financial Officer    |   |
|                                         |   |                       |   |
§ 213.3 Application. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to all standard gage track in the general railroad system of transportation.
( b ) This part does not apply to track: ( 1 ) Located inside an installation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation (i.e., a plant railroad). As used in this part, a plant railroad means a plant or installation that owns or leases a locomotive, uses that locomotive to switch cars throughout the plant or installation, and is moving goods solely for use in the facility's own industrial processes. The plant or installation could include track immediately adjacent to the plant or installation if the plant railroad leases the track from the general system railroad and the lease provides for (and actual practice entails) the exclusive use of that track by the plant railroad and the general system railroad for purposes of moving only cars shipped to or from the plant. A plant or installation that operates a locomotive to switch or move cars for other entities, even if solely within the confines of the plant or installation, rather than for its own purposes or industrial processes, will not be considered a plant railroad because the performance of such activity makes the operation part of the general railroad system of transportation. Similarly, this exclusion does not apply to track over which a general system railroad operates, even if that track is located within a plant railroad;
( 2 ) Used exclusively for tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations that are not part of the general railroad system of transportation. As used in this part, tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations that are not part of the general railroad system of transportation means a tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operation conducted only on track used exclusively for that purpose (i.e., there is no freight, intercity passenger, or commuter passenger railroad operation on the track); or
( 3 ) Used exclusively for rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.
[63 FR 34029, June 22, 1998, as amended at 79 FR 4256, Jan. 24, 2014]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2214

To amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the social security offset

applicable to certain annuities for surviving spouses paid under the

Survivor Benefit Plan for retired members of the Armed Forces to

the extent that such offset is due to the integration with social security

benefits when the surviving spouse reaches 62 years of age.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 4, 1995

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the social

security offset applicable to certain annuities for surviving spouses paid under the Survivor Benefit Plan for

retired members of the Armed Forces to the extent that

such offset is due to the integration with social security

benefits when the surviving spouse reaches 62 years of

age.

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 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Survivors Eq5 uity Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 2214 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSET

2 UNDER MILITARY SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN.

3 (a) TERMINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSET.—

4 Section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, is amend5 ed—

6 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking all that fol7 lows ‘‘shall be’’ and inserting ‘‘the amount equal to

8 55 percent of the base amount.’’;

9 (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking all that fol10 lows ‘‘shall be’’ and inserting ‘‘the amount equal to

11 a percentage of the base amount that—

12 ‘‘(A) is less than 55 percent; and

13 ‘‘(B) is determined under subsection (f).’’;

14 (3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking all that fol15 lows ‘‘shall be’’ and inserting ‘‘the amount equal to

16 55 percent of the retired pay to which the member

17 or former member would have been entitled if the

18 member or former member had been entitled to that

19 pay based upon his years of active service when he

20 died.’’; and

21 (4) by striking subsection (e).

22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (f) of

23 such section is amended by striking ‘‘(a)(2), (b)(2), or

24 (e)(2)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)(2) or (b)(2)’’.

25 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 1451 of title 10,

26 United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), shall
3

•HR 2214 IH

1 apply to payments of annuities for months that begin after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (d) RECOMPUTATION OF EXISTING ANNUITIES.—In

4 the case of a person who is a beneficiary under the Survi5 vor Benefit Plan established by subchapter II of chapter

6 73 of such title on the date of the enactment of this Act,

7 the Secretary of Defense shall recompute the amount of

8 such person’s annuity to reflect the amendments made by

9 subsection (a).

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 44486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3858]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Oregon; Wallowa-Whitman National 
Forest Travel Management Plan

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2007, the USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forest, published a Notice of Intent in Federal Register (72 
FR 24558) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 
Forest Travel Management Plan. On June 1, 2007, a Revised Notice of 
Intent was published in Federal Register (72 FR 30540) extending the 
scoping period for receiving comments on the proposed action from June 
30, 2007, to August 17, 2007. The Notice of Intent is being revised a 
second time to further extend the scoping period until November 16, 
2007.

DATES: Written comments concerning the proposed action should be 
received by November 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Whitlock, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La Grande Ranger District, 
3502 Highway 30, LaGrande, OR, 97850, Phone: (541) 962-8501.

    Dated: August 2, 2007.
Steven A. Ellis,
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-3858 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 7, 1995 (111), Para 111.20 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.111.20  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mrs. SCHROEDER:

       Page 94, after line 3, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 8107. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 3 percent.

It was decided in the

Yeas

124

negative

Nays

296
```
§ 209.11 Request for confidential treatment. ( a ) This section governs the procedures for requesting confidential treatment of any document filed with or otherwise provided to FRA in connection with its enforcement of statutes or FRA regulations related to railroad safety. For purposes of this section, “enforcement” shall include receipt of documents required to be submitted by FRA regulations, and all investigative and compliance activities, in addition to the development of violation reports and recommendations for prosecution.
( b ) A request for confidential treatment with respect to a document or portion thereof may be made on the basis that the information is— ( 1 ) Exempt from the mandatory disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552);
( 2 ) Required to be held in confidence by 18 U.S.C. 1905; or
( 3 ) Otherwise exempt by law from public disclosure.
( c ) Any document containing information for which confidential treatment is requested shall be accompanied at the time of filing by a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed.
( d ) Any document containing any information for which confidential treatment is requested shall be marked “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” in bold letters. If confidentiality is requested as to the entire document, or if it is claimed that nonconfidential information in the document is not reasonably segregable from confidential information, the accompanying statement of justification shall so indicate. If confidentiality is requested as to a portion of the document, then the person filing the document shall file together with the document a second copy of the document from which the information for which confidential treatment is requested has been deleted. If the person filing a document of which only a portion is requested to be held in confidence does not submit a second copy of the document with the confidential information deleted. FRA may assume that there is no objection to public disclosure of the document in its entirety.
( e ) FRA retains the right to make its own determination with regard to any claim of confidentiality. Notice of a decision by the FRA to deny a claim, in whole or in part, and an opportunity to respond shall be given to a person claiming confidentiality of information no less than five days prior to its public disclosure.
[42 FR 56742, Oct. 28, 1977, as amended at 70 FR 11094, Mar. 7, 2005]
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending February 18, 2012

----

Testimony and Statements            European Financial Situation -- statement by Steven B. Kamin, director, Division of International Finance, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on the economic situation in Europe and the Federal Reserve's response.            -Published, February 16, 2012            Bank Holding Companies            Capital One Financial Corporation, McLean, Virginia -- (1) request to acquire ING Bank, fsb, Wilmington, Delaware, and indirectly acquire ShareBuilder Advisors, LLC, Seattle, Washington, and ING Direct Investing, Inc., and (2) request by ING Groep N.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, for a determination that it would not be deemed to control Capital One.            -Approved, February 14, 2012            Forms            Forms -- initial Board review to revise without extension the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing information collection  (FR Y-14A/Q/M).            -Proposed, February 14, 2012            Personnel            Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation -- appointment of Todd Vermilyea as senior associate director.            -Approved, February 14, 2012                        Office of Inspector General -- appointment of J. Anthony Ogden as deputy inspector general.            -Approved, January 30, 2012            (A/C)          Enforcement            Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Franklin, Tennessee -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.            -Announced, February 14, 2012                        Enforcement Actions -- issuance of consent orders of assessment of civil money penalties related to sanctions against five banking organizations (Bank of America Corporation; Citigroup Inc.; Ally Financial, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; and Wells Fargo & Company) for unsafe and unsound processes and practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and processing.            -Announced, February 13, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
From: rrawli@comcast.net [mailto:rrawli@comcast.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:48 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

R__ Rawli 

4925 Carole Dr. NE. 

Olympia, WA 98516
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 21, 1995 (119), Para 119.22 Message from the President]
[Page 1449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.119.22  message from the president

  A message in writing from the President of the United States was 
communicated to the House by Mr. Edwin Thomas, one of his secretaries.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 190

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 190 appear at 78 FR 58908, Sept. 25, 2013.

#### § 190.319 Petitions for extension of time to comment.

A petition for extension of the time to submit comments must be submitted to PHMSA in accordance with § 190.309 and received by PHMSA not later than 10 days before expiration of the time stated in the notice. The filing of the petition does not automatically extend the time for petitioner's comments. A petition is granted only if the petitioner shows good cause for the extension, and if the extension is consistent with the public interest. If an extension is granted, it is granted to all persons, and it is published in the Federal Register.

[Amdt. 190-16, 78 FR 58914, Sept. 25, 2013]