alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nellie Y. SMITH, Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.

No. 00-3842.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 5, 2001.

Filed July 9, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

1

. Larry G. Massanari is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

PER CURIAM.

Nellie Y. Smith appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny her supplemental security income benefits. Smith alleges disability since February 1996 from hip, leg, and head injuries sustained in a fall, plus anxiety and depression. After a hearing, the administrative law judge found that Smith was not disabled based on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (Grids) because, absent her drug and alcohol abuse, she has the physical residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform the full range of sedentary work and the mental RFC to perform unskilled work. Smith sought judicial review, and the district court in a thorough opinion concluded that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record viewed as a whole.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm. *See Rehder v. Apfel,**483205 F.3d 1056, 1059 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review). The ALJ properly applied the regulations regarding drug addiction and alcoholism and properly placed on Smith the burden of proving that her substance abuse is not a contributing factor material to disability. *See*20 C.F.R. § 416.935(b); *Mittlestedt v. Apfel,*204 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings that Smith’s mental and physical impairments are not disabling absent her drug and alcohol abuse. The ALJ did not improperly discount the opinion of a treating physician, ignore Smith’s reliance on low ratings on the global-assessment-of-functioning scale in February and September 1996, nor improperly use the Grids. *See*20 C.F.R. § 416.969a(b) (when impairment and related symptoms, such as pain, impose only exertional limitations and claimant’s specific vocational profile is listed, Grids will be applied to determine disability status).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

2

. The HONORABLE ROBERT E. LARSEN, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Exhibit 3.3

#### STATE OF DELAWARECERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION

| | First: | That at the annual meeting of the stockholders of SysComm International Corporationresolutions
were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said
corporation. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:
|- | ------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | Resolved,that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the
Article thereof numbered FIRSTso that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | The name of the Corporation is InfoTech USA, Inc.
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------

| | Second: | That  thereafter,  such meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held,
              at which  meeting the  necessary  number of shares as required by statute  were voted in favor of the
              amendment.
|- | ------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Third: | That said  amendment  was duly adopted in  accordance  with the  provisions of Section 242 of the
              General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
|- | ------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Fourth: | That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of said amendment.
|- | ------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By: | /s/ J. ROBERT PATTERSON
| | --- | -----------------------

| | Name:   J. Robert Patterson
Title:   Vice President
| | ---------------------------------------------------

| | STATE OF DELAWARE
SECRETARY OF STATEDIVISION OF CORPORATIONSFILED 09:00 AM 04/09/2003030233596  2139479
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Zhengdong Zhu, Chief Executive Officer of China Distance Education Holdings Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form
20-F for the year ended September 30, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.

Date: February 28, 2012



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Zhengdong Zhu      
|Name:  |  | Zhengdong Zhu          
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21569]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #18179 and #18180; Vermont Disaster Number VT-
00049]


Administrative Disaster Declaration of a Rural Area for the State 
of Vermont

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Administrative disaster 
declaration of a rural area for the State of Vermont dated 09/14/2023.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.
    Incident Period: 07/07/2023 through 07/21/2023.

DATES: Issued on 09/25/2023.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/13/2023.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/14/2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Administrator's disaster 
declaration of a rural area for the State of Vermont, dated 09/14/2023, 
is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster 
as beginning 07/07/2023 and continuing through 07/21/2023.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Isabella Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-21569 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
From: roundl76@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31:33 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,

Ben Cuthbertson

Modesto, CA 95356
No. P67/127.

#### B. Shackman & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 65/11519 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ace Importing Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 226, Abstract 67488), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CURT F. HANSFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1846-MAT

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

ANSWER

Respondent has filed a motion for an extension of time to file an answer to petitioner’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Having considered the motion

and the balance of the record, the court does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Respondent’s motion for an extension of time is the first such motion submitted

by respondent. Respondent cites difficulty in obtaining the state court record as the reason for the

extension. Thus, the motion is not for purposes of delay nor does it appear to prejudice petitioner

in any way. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file an answer (Dkt. #8)

is GRANTED.

(2) Respondent shall file the answer no later than February 3, 2006. Respondent shall

file the answer and a copy thereof with the Clerk of Court, and serve a copy of all documents upon

petitioner. As part of the answer, respondent shall state (a) whether petitioner has exhausted

Case 2:05-cv-01846-JLR Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

PAGE -2

available state remedies, (b) whether there is any issue of abuse or delay under Rule 9, (c) whether

an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and (d) whether the petition is timely. Respondent shall not

file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing cause as to why an answer

is inadequate.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7, and the page limits

set forth in subsection (e)(3) of that rule shall apply. Accordingly, on the face of the answer,

respondent shall note it for consideration on the fourth Friday after filing. Petitioner may

file and serve a response no later than the Monday immediately preceding the Friday designated

for consideration of the matter, and respondent may file and serve a reply no later than the Friday

designated for consideration of the matter.

(4) The Clerk shall forward copies of this Order to petitioner, respondent and the

Honorable James L. Robart.

DATED this 9th day of January , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01846-JLR Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

May 24, 1966

No. P66/69.

protests 63/20895, etc. (New York).

#### Nisonger Corp. and Trans-World Shpg. Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of spark plugs, not dedicated to use in automobiles or any other vehicle or machine, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Spark Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2379), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Theclays of Arkansas**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:351
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958166
 
July 27, 2018
EQC HEARING RECORD 

Title 129 

Rehearing 

December 1, 2011 
/' 

ORDER 

The following hearings are scheduled to be held before the Environmental 

Quality Council beginning at 9:00 a.m. Central Time, December 1, 2011, at The 

Cornhusker Hotel, 333 South 13th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska: 

1. Public Hearing on Amendment of Title 117, Surface Water Quality Standards. 

2. Public Hearing on Amendment of Title 195, Rules and Regulations Pertaining to 

Chemigation. 

3. Public Hearing on Amendment of Title 133, Litter Reduction and Recycling Grant 

Program. 

4. Public Hearing on Litter Reduction and Recycling Grant Program, 2012 Funding 

Percentage Allocations. 

5. Public Hearing on Amendment of Title 129, Nebraska Air Quality Regulations 

(rehearing from June 23, 2011). 

6. Public Hearing on Amendment of Title 129, Nebraska Air Quality Regulations. 

It is necessary that a hearing officer be appointed to conduct this hearing. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT Tom Lamberson be appointed as the Hearing Officer. 

~~/L~/~~~ 

Mark Whitehead, Chair 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL 

EXHIBIT 

I
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 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

 JUAN VASQUEZ-SANTIAGO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 05-5303RJB

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY 

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and Request for

Certificate of Appealability, Dkt. 15. Petitioner requests a certificate of appealability in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and now argues that his appointed defense attorney’s conduct collectively

denied him effective assistance of counsel. Dkt. 15 at 1-2. The Court has carefully reviewed the

request and the record herein and has determined that a certificate of appealability should not issue.

The district court should grant an application for a certificate of appealability only if the

petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(3). To obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a habeas petitioner

must make a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether, or agree that, the petition should

have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) (quoting

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). 

Case 3:05-cv-05303-RJB Document 18 Filed 05/10/06 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 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Page 2

The Court has previously and thoroughly considered counsel’s performance and finds that

Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(3). Moreover, reasonable jurists would not debate the resolution of his claims, and all of the

issues presented in his original habeas corpus petition do not deserve encouragement to proceed

further. This Court thoroughly reviewed the petition and the record and found no basis for relief. 

Similarly, the Court finds that the claims do not warrant further proceedings. As the Court found,

reasonable decisions of trial strategy, properly elicited guilty pleas, and properly applied sentencing

guidelines do not merit habeas relief, nor do they deserve encouragement for further review. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s Application for a Certificate of

Appealability, Dkt. 22, is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to

all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 10th day of May, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05303-RJB Document 18 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

April 25, 1967

No. P67/124.

#### U.S. Asiatic Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/23991, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), and that the items of merchandise market “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 63379.

protest 58/18026 (Los Angeles).

#### Zacho *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 13.2



Certification



In connection with the annual report of
China Mass Media Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Julie Zhili Sun, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:



(1).	the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 30, 2012



|By:      /s/ Julie Zhili Sun   
|-------------------------------
|Name: Julie Zhili Sun          
|Title:  Chief Financial Officer









The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EERE Information Center Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Small Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards Notice of Public Meeting and Data Availability This page presents meeting materials and information on how to submit comments for the public meeting on energy conservation standards for small electric motors.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering potential standards for certain single-phase and polyphase small electric motors, which would achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and receive comments about the classes of small electric motors under consideration, the analyses performed to evaluate efficiency standards, potential efficiency standard levels, and other issues affecting this rulemaking.
The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader

. 

### Meeting Materials Notice of Public Meeting and Data Availability, Federal Register, 73 FR 79723, December 30, 2008 ( PDF 64 KB ) Preliminary Technical Support Document Agenda ( PDF 88 KB ) Presentations ( PDF 1.1 MB ) Supplemental Slides on Scaling Relationships ( PDF 119 KB ) Modified LCC and NIA Graphs (Coming soon)



### How to Submit Comments You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or by courier. Wherever possible, comments in the electronic format should carry the electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted electronically must be authenticated by submitting a signed original paper document.

E-mail: small_electric_motors_std.rulemaking@hq.doe.gov

. Include Docket Number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards DATE: January 30, 2009

TIME: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST

LOCATION: U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Room 1E-245 Washington, DC 20585 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Small Electric Motors... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

1 of 2 2/20/2009 9:13 A MU.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Mailstop EE-2J Washington, DC 20585
Please include a signed original.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 586-2945
Please include a signed original.

Comments should clearly identify docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 . The deadline for submitting comments is March 2, 2009

. 

### Contact Information James Raba Project Manager (202) 586-8654

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy| USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 02/05/2009 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Small Electric Motors... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

2 of 2 2/20/2009 9:13 A M
No. 69708.

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23751, etc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass nutcrackers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Henry A. Wess, Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 115, C.D. 2446), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 62801.

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/3648, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed