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

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41301-41302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15008]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-2097-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

[[Page 41302]]

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).
Filed 06/13/2016 Through 06/17/2016.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20160138, Draft, HUD, NY, Lambert Houses Redevelopment, Comment 
Period Ends: 08/08/2016, Contact: Aaron Werner, 212-863-5953, The City 
of New York--Department of Housing & Development is the lead agency for 
the above project.
EIS No. 20160139, Final, BLM, UT, Monument Butte Area Oil and Gas 
Development Project, Review Period Ends: 08/08/2016, Contact: Stephanie 
Howard 435-781-4469.
EIS No. 20160140, Final, AFS, MT, Flint Foothills Vegetation Management 
Project, Review Period Ends: 07/25/2016, Contact: Charlene Bucha Gentry 
406-859-3211.
EIS No. 20160141, Final Supplement, USACE, FHWA, VA, US Route 460, 
Review Period Ends: 07/25/2016, Contact: Edward Sundra (804) 775-3357, 
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration 
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are joint lead agencies for the 
above project.
EIS No. 20160142, Final, BLM, NV, Bald Mountain Mine North and South 
Operations Area Project, Review Period Ends: 07/25/2016, Contact: 
Stephanie Trujillo 775-289-1831.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160097, Draft, USFS, CO, Rico-West Dolores Roads and Trails 
Travel Management Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2016, Contact: 
Deborah Kill, 970-882-6822.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 05/06/2016; Extending Comment 
Period from 06/20/2016 to 07/15/2016.

    Dated: June 21, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-15008 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
From: ktguzman@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:18:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kathy Guzman

Granbury, TX 76049
No. 59215.

protests 218938-K and 233956-K (Pittsburgh).

#### Burt Gift Shop *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James E. ROGERS, a/k/a James Harley Rogers, a/k/a Ricky Duvall, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6471.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

James E. Rogers, Appellant pro se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James E. Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss his 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*
Phone Call For Catalyst Analysis Cost

Date: 9/26/11 Vendor: MEGTEC - http://www.megtec.com/index.php?language=en Debbie Devory 1 - 920 - 337 - 1479 Caller: Philip Crawford (ERG) Notes from Call: Ms. Devory indicated that costs for catalyst analysis vary based on type and size of structure. Ms. Devory stated that a typical performance analysis for 1/8, 1/4 bead or monolith catalyst ranges from approximately $700 -$1,000 dollars. She also noted that a conta mination analysis is an additional $300. Ms. Devory noted that larger RCO (regenerative catalytic oxidizer) and ceramic type catalysts performance tests can range from $1,500 - $2,500. Ms. Devory indicated that typical shutdowns of catalytic oxidizers re quired about 1 operating shift for sufficient cooling to collect a sample. She noted that larger units may take longer to cool.
No. 69712.

#### Norton & Ellis, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/1263, etc. (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of spindles and parts thereof, dedicated to use on twister and spinning frames employing the “Cotton System,” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Atkinson, Haserick & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 215, C.D. 2463), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3142

___________

Janice E. Buddemeier, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2004

Filed: April 22, 2004 

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Janice Buddemeier appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing her challenge

to the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We affirm.
-2-

The Commissioner denied Buddemeier benefits in 1986 because her condition

would not keep her from working for 12 consecutive months. In 1995, at

Buddemeier’s request, her case was reopened, but the Commissioner again denied

benefits. An administrative law judge found in 1999 that the case was improperly

reopened, and reinstated the 1986 denial as the final agency determination. When

Buddemeier sought judicial review, the district court found that it lacked jurisdiction

to hear the case.

Upon de novo review, see Boock v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 348, 351 & n.2 (8th Cir.

1995), we conclude dismissal was proper because the Commissioner’s refusal to

reconsider a previously denied claim is not a “final order” and is unreviewable absent

a constitutional violation, see Robertson v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 623, 625 (8th Cir.

1992) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ross G. Laing, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 319]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 22, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a warehouse worker for a food distribution company, was terminated from his employment after reporting to work late. The Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that claimant was terminated for misconduct. Claimant contends that the reason he was late to work was because he overslept and asserts that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Claimant admitted that he was late for work on the date at issue, and the record reflects that he had received prior warnings concerning his tardiness. Such behavior constitutes misconduct disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits *(see, Matter of Mosley [Hudacs],*207 AD2d 942; *Matter of Hahn [Hudacs],*206 AD2d 582). Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Before the Third Division,

September 20, 1966

No. P66/219. —

No. P66/220. —

No. P66/221.- —

#### Kotake Co., Limited, and American Customs Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 63/4921, etc. (Honolulu). Aloha Factors and American Customs Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 63/22249, etc. (Honolulu). Hadley’s Bakery, Inc., and American Customs Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 64/1903, etc. (Honolulu).

*809DoNloN, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of Iso peanuts, peanut crackers, and Japanese rice crackers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Hilo Rice Mill Co., Ltd., American Customs Brokerage Company et al.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 106, C.A.D. 866), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
SERVED: JANUARY 16, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NORTHEASTERN AVIATION CORP. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-1264 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012EA110030) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Peter Montemurro, General Manager 

Northeastern Aviation Corp., Respondent 

8200 Republic Airport, Suite 8 

Farmingdale, NY 11735 

TEL: 631-756-4600 

FAX: 631-756-0698 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-1264 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) on Form 20-F/A to the Annual
Report of DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report,” and as amended by the Amendment, the “Amended
Report”), the undersigned, in his capacity and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:




1. The
Amended 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 Amended Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.











Date:
June 24, 2010




/s/
      Kumar GursahaneyName:
      Kumar GursahaneyTitle: Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (PrincipalFinancial
      Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

WILLIAM R. BURKETT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

)

)

)

)

) C05-1856 RSM

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

 

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

)

) REASSIGNING and REFERRING CASE

This action has been reassigned to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United

States District Judge. All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause

number C05-1856 RSM and bear the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of

the document.

It appearing from the files and records herein that this is an appropriate

proceeding to refer to a full-time United States Magistrate Judge for the purposes

hereinafter set forth, pursuant to Local Rule MJR 4(A)(4) and as authorized by

Mathews, Secretary of HEW vs Weber, 432 US 261 (1976), now therefore,

Pursuant to the General Order entered by the Chief Judge on 30 April 2004, IT

IS ORDERED that the above entitled action is hereby referred to the Honorable James

P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, who is directed and empowered to 

Case 2:05-cv-01856-RSM Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated this 1st day of March, 2006

Bruce Rifkin, Clerk of Court

 /S/ PETER H. VOELKER

Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

review the administrative record, and to submit proposed findings and conclusions, and

recommended disposition. The procedure for review of those recommendations shall

be in accordance with FRCP 72(b) and with Local Rule MJR 4(c).

Case 2:05-cv-01856-RSM Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 66530.

#### Excelsior Pearl Works, Inc., and Chas. H. Asche *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/4319 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell disks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Charles A. Redden, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. ct. 241, C.D. 2181), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 15.3**

March 30, 2010 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F. Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We haveread Item 16F of the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the “Form 20-F”) for the year ended September 30, 2009, of China Distance Education Holdings Limited and are in agreement with the statements contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 ofItem 16F(a). We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant contained therein. 

Regarding theregistrant’s statement concerning the lack of internal control to prepare financial statements included in the 3rd paragraph of Item 16F(a) on page 104 of the Form 20-F, we had considered such matters in determining the nature, timing andextent of procedures performed in our audit of the registrant’s consolidated financial statements for the two years ended September 30, 2008. 

/s/ Ernst & Young Hua Ming
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 10, 2014

p1203

Order 

Clerk

December 10, 2014

149622

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND 

CONTRACTORS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149622

COA: 313684

Ingham CC: 12-000406-CZ

CITY OF LANSING,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether Attorney General, ex rel. Lennane v 

City of Detroit, 225 Mich 631 (1923), should be overruled; and (2) what authority, if any, 

enabled defendant to enact its prevailing wage ordinance. 

The Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council and the Michigan State 

AFL-CIO are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in 

the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission 

to file briefs amicus curiae.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Crystal J. JEFFERSON, a/k/a Sharon, Appellant.

No. 99-3100.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 13, 2001.

Before WILLIAMS, GINSBURG, and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court filed July 21, 1999, be affirmed. There was sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that appellant posed a danger to the police officers thereby justifying a no-knock entry to her apartment. *See United States v. Ramirez,*523 U.S. 65, 73, 118 S.Ct. 992, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998); *Richards v. Wisconsin,*520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). Accordingly, the district court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. The district court also properly denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct. *See United States v. Williams,*47 F.3d 658 (4th Cir.1995).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Advisory Committee on Aviation 

Consumer Protection 

Russell Hubbard, American Airlines

Aileen Cronin, Alaska Airlines

Kali Wilson-Beyah, Delta Airlines

Date: May 21, 2013
Regulatory Landscape
Airline Industry Regulation

• DOT

– Advertising and Marketing rules

• FAA

– Flight operations, safety, maintenance

• TSA

– Secure Flight

• CBP

– Advance Passenger Information System (APIS)
Legal Privacy Framework

• Financial

– Fair Credit Reporting Act, GLBA, SOX, etc.

• Medical

– HIPAA, HITECH, etc.

• Telecommunications & Marketing

– TCPA, TSR

• Online Activities

– CAN SPAM, COPPA, FRCA, etc. 

• International

– EU Privacy Directive, PIPEDA, etc.

• Other

– PCI, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, etc.
What Information is 

Collected and by Whom?
Data Collected by Airlines

• Full Name

• Date of Birth

• Redress Number

• Gender

• County of Citizenship

• Passport Number

• Address/email

• Payment card

• Phone

• Loyalty Program 

Number

• Known Traveler ID

• IP Address

• Flight Information

• Meal preference
Others Who Collect Data

• Air Carrier Web Sites and Call Centers

• Brick and Mortar Travel Agencies

• Online Travel Agencies

– e.g. Expedia, Orbitz, etc.

• Metasearch Engines

– e.g. Kayak.com, Fly.com

• General Search Engines

– e.g. Google, Bing
Data Shared with Third Parties

• TSA

• CBP

• DHS

• Business Partners/Vendors

– Credit card processors, partner airline, wheelchair 

vendors, etc.

• GDS
Emerging Travel Data Uses

• Google 

– Targeted ads based on Gmail scanning

– Cross-platform sharing 

• “Google Now” automatic digital boarding passes

• Mileage Account Aggregators

– AwardWallet, MilePort, MileWise and Superfly

• “Big Data” entrants in travel 

– Hopper and Boxever

• The Data Exchange

– “currently we are actively trading data in the 

Corporate Travel sector” email 4/22/13
Privacy & Security
Privacy

• Generally Accepted Privacy Principles:

– Management

– Notice

– Choice & Consent

– Collection

– Use, Retention, and Disposal

– Access

– Disclosure to Third Parties

– Security for Privacy

– Quality

– Monitoring and Enforcement
Technical Standards & Frameworks

• NIST

• COBIT

• PCI-DSS

• ISO 27001 and 27002

• SSAE 16, SOC Type 1 & 2
Security

• Encryption

• Vulnerability Management

• Patch Management

• PEN testing

• User provisioning

• Audits

• System Harding

• Monitoring & Logging

• Etc.