alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 245.301 Process for denying certification. ( a ) A railroad shall notify a candidate for certification or recertification of information known to the railroad that forms the basis for denying the person certification and provide the person a reasonable opportunity to explain or rebut that adverse information in writing prior to denying certification. A railroad shall provide the dispatcher candidate with any documents or records, including written statements, related to failure to meet a requirement of this part which support its pending denial decision.
( b ) If a railroad denies a person certification or recertification, it shall issue a decision that complies with all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) It must be in writing.
( 2 ) It must explain the basis for the railroad's denial decision.
( 3 ) It must address any explanation or rebuttal information that the certification candidate provided pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
( 4 ) It must include the date of the railroad's decision.
( 5 ) It must be served on the candidate no later than 10 days after the railroad's decision.
( c ) A railroad shall not deny the person's certification for failing to comply with a railroad operating rule or practice which constitutes a violation under § 245.303(e)(1) through (6) if sufficient evidence exists to establish that an intervening cause prevented or materially impaired the dispatcher's ability to comply with that railroad operating rule or practice.
§ 268.5 Federal funding sources for the Maglev Deployment Program. ( a ) *Federal Maglev Funds.* Section 322 of Title 23 provides for the following funds for the Maglev Deployment Program: ( 1 ) *Contract authority.* Fifty-five million has been made available for the Maglev Deployment Program as contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001; this would be used to fund the competition in all its phases and could also be used for final design, engineering, and construction activities of the selected project. Of the $55 million, the Congress has made available up to $15 million for Fiscal Year 1999, up to $15 million for Fiscal Year 2000, and $25 million for Fiscal Year 2001.
( 2 ) *Authorization for appropriations.* Nine hundred fifty million, also from the Highway Trust Fund, has been authorized to be appropriated for the Maglev Deployment Program for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003. Of the $950 million, $200 million is authorized to be appropriated for each of Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, $250 million for Fiscal Year 2002, and $300 million for Fiscal Year 2003. Any decision to proceed with possible Federal funding of the construction of a Maglev system will be contingent upon the receipt of appropriations, and upon completion of appropriate environmental documentation.
( b ) *Other Federal funds.* Section 322 of Title 23 provides that the portion of the Maglev project not covered by Federal Maglev Funds may be covered by any non-Federal funding sources—including private (debt and/or equity), State, local, regional, and other public or public/private entities—as well as by Federally-provided STP and CMAQ funds, and by other forms of financial assistance made available under title 23 and TEA 21, such as loans and loan guarantees.
( c ) *Costs Incurred in Advance of Cooperative Agreement.* Certain costs incurred in advance of the execution of a cooperative agreement between FRA and the grantee for pre-construction planning but after enactment of TEA 21 (June 9, 1998) will be eligible for reimbursement, but such costs are allowable only to the extent that they are otherwise allowable under the terms of a fully executed cooperative agreement.
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 Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
 ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535. Key to “Reason for Delay” 1. Awaiting additional information from applicant. 2. Extensive public comment under review. 3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis. 4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special permit applications. Meaning of Application Number Suffixes N—New application. M—Modification request. PM—Party to application with modification request. Issued in Washington, DC, on September 12, 2007. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.
 Application 
                                 No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion**MODIFICATION TO SPECIAL PERMITS**10481-M
M-1 Engineering Limited, Bradford, West Yorkshire
4
10-31-200714167-M
Trinityrail, Dallas, TX
1,3,4
0-31-2007**New Special Permit Applications**14385-N
Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Kansas City, MO
4
10-31-200714442-N
Trinityrail, Dallas, TX
4
10-31-200714483-N
WEW Wsterwaelder Eisenwerk, Weitefeld, Germany
4
10-31-200714500-N
Northwest Respiratory Services, St. Paul, MN
4
10-31-2007( print page 53288)14492-N
Tankbouw Rootselaar B.V., The Netherlands
4
10-31-200714457-N
Amtrol Alfa Metalomecanica SA, Portugal
4
10-31-200714436-N
BNSF Railway Company, Topeka, KS
4
10-31-200714402-N
Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE
14
12-31-2007


[FR Doc. 07-4612 Filed 9-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28243-28244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0099; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-11]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Cocoa Beach, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the legal description of a 
final rule; technical amendment, published in the Federal Register on 
April 11, 2012 that amends Class D airspace at Cocoa Beach, FL.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of 
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

[[Page 28244]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    Federal Register Docket No. FAA-2012-0099, Airspace Docket No. 12-
ASO-11, published on April 11, 2012 (77 FR 21662), amends Class D 
airspace at Cape Canaveral Skid Strip, Cocoa Beach, FL. A typographical 
error was made in the regulatory text, stating the radius of controlled 
airspace at Cape Canaveral Skid Strip to be 4.4 miles, instead of 4.5 
miles. This action corrects this error. Class D airspace designations 
are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 74009.V, dated August 9, 
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by 
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in 
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the radius 
of the controlled Class D airspace area for Cape Canaveral Skid Strip, 
Cocoa Beach, FL, as published in the Federal Register of April 11, 2012 
(77 FR 21662) (FR Doc. 2012-8558) is corrected as follows:

ASO FL D Cocoa Beach, FL [Corrected]

Cape Canaveral Skid Strip, FL

    On page 21663, column 3, line 4 of the legal description, remove 
``within a 4.4-mile radius of the Cape Canaveral Skid Strip, and insert 
``within a 4.5-mile radius of the Cape Canaveral Skid Strip.''

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 30, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-11399 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          20,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       864,964
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, November 1, 1995 (138), Para 138.6 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1833]
[Page 1823]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.138.6  providing for the consideration of h.r. 1833

  Mrs. WALHOLDTZ, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 251):

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1833) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to ban partial-birth abortions. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  On motion of Mrs. WALDHOLTZ, the previous question was ordered on the 
resolution to its adoption or rejection.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to said resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HANSEN, announced that the nays had it.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
not present and not voting.
  A quorum not being present,
  The roll was called under clause 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by 
electronic device.

Yeas

237

When there appeared

Nays

190
```
From: dbrast@svn.net [mailto:dbrast@svn.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:47 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I 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). 

This rule 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, 

Dave Brast 

P.O. Box 484 

Inverness, CA 94937
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

|Dated:  August 13, 2010 | /s/ John H. Castle                                                                         
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | John H. Castle
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer                           
|                        |                                                                                            
|                        |                                                                                            
|                        |                                                                                            
|                        |                                                                                            
|Dated:  August 13, 2010 | /s/ Danice L. Chartrand                                                                    
|                        | Danice L. Chartrand
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

|A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSALINA VELASQUEZ GARFIAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73974

Agency No. A095-295-918

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Rosalina Velasquez Garfias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

JUN 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that new evidence

regarding Garfias’s daughter was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v.

INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that Board’s denial of

motion to reopen shall be reversed only if “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law”).

To the extent Garfias challenges the Board’s refusal to reopen proceedings

sua sponte, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Ekimian v. INS,

303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN

PART.
Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  
    
    the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Thomas F. Motamed
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                                                               EXECUTION VERSION

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                                    WARRANTS

      THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO WARRANTS (this "AMENDMENT") is made and entered
into as of January 26, 2005, by and between NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), and TOUCAN CAPITAL FUND II, L.P. (the
"WARRANTHOLDER").

                                    RECITALS

      WHEREAS, in connection with the purchase of $1,300,000 in Series A
Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock of the Company as of the date hereof, the
parties hereto wish to enter into this Amendment to clarify the exercise prices
of Northwest Biotherapeutics Warrant BW-4, Northwest Biotherapeutics Warrant
BW-5, Northwest Biotherapeutics Warrant BW-6 and Northwest Biotherapeutics
Warrant BW-7 (collectively, the "WARRANTS"), each of which are held by the
Warrantholder.

                                    AGREEMENT

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.    Section 1(d) of each of the Warrants is hereby amended and restated in its
      entirety to read "(d) "EXERCISE PRICE" shall mean $0.04 per share (subject
      to adjustment pursuant to Section 5)."

2.    All other terms and conditions of the Warrants shall be unaffected hereby
      and shall remain in full force and effect.

3.    This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the internal
      substantive laws of the State of Delaware.

4.    This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, including
      facsimile counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all
      of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

<PAGE>

                                                               EXECUTION VERSION

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FIRST AMENDMENT
TO WARRANTS as of the date first above written.

                                            COMPANY:

                                            NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

                                            By:     /s/ Alton Boynton
                                                 --------------------
                                                 Alton L. Boynton
                                                 President

Agreed to and accepted as of the
date first written above:

TOUCAN CAPITAL FUND II, L.P.

By:   /s/ Linda Powers
    ------------------
Name: Linda F. Powers
Title: Managing Director
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--American Society of Mechanical Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 11, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (``ASME'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
additions or changes to its standards development activities. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, since March 23, 
2007, ASME has published several new standards, initiated several new 
standards activities, and revised several consensus committee charters 
within the general nature and scope of ASME's standards development 
activities, as specified in its original notification. More details 
regarding these changes can be found at http://www.asme.org.
    On September 15, 2004, ASME filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60895).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 10, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31855).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-4434 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M