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

                    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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - T-5-2006

On November 28, 2006, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board filed an application submitted by the Alliance Corridor, Inc., grantee of FTZ 196, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority within FTZ 196, at the mobile phone kitting facilities of Motorola, Inc., located in Fort Worth, Texas.

                    The application was processed in accordance with T/IM procedures, as authorized by FTZ Board Order 1347 (69 FR 52857, 8/30/04), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (71 FR 70947, 12/7/06). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval under T/IM procedures. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary in Board Order 1347, the application was approved, effective February 20, 2007, until February 20, 2008, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.                

Dated: February 22, 2007.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-3513 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
No. 47346.

#### Protest 677468-G of Pan American Commercial Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 43881 the tomatoes in question were held not subject to duty by virtue of the provisions of section 506 (2), Tariff Act of 1930. Protest sustained accordingly.
# SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 August 3, 2015 Scott Mathias Associate Dir ector Air Qua lity Polic y Divisi o n U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency Re sea rch Triangle Park, NC 277 1 I Re: Air Di spers ion Modeling of Geo rgi a Sulfur Dioxid e Pollution Dear Mr. Mathias: Air dispers ion modeling recently conducted by Wing r a Engineer ing, S.C. 011 behalf of the Sierra Club demonstrates that sui fur dioxide (""S02 ") e mission s fi·om Georgia Power's Scherer Plant in Georgia ha s caused downwind S0 2 ambient air concentrations t o exceed th e 75 part s per billion National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( .. NAAQS"). Enc losed, please find the result s o f the mode lin g analys is, a lo ng with the corresponding modeling input and output file s. We urge EP A to consider thi s infonnation as it undertake s area designations in Georg ia for the 20 10 revi se d primar y S02 NAAQS. Thi s infonnation is bein g p rovided to both EPA Re g ion 4 and to appropriate personnel at Georgia Department of Natural Resources. In the meantime , please l et me know if l can p rov id e a ny add itional informat ion. Tha nk you for you r attent ion t o a nd co ns ideration of thi s matter , and p lease do not hesit ate to contact me if yo u would like to discuss further.Mr . Scott Mathias ; \ u g ust 3, 20 15 Pa ge 2 Sincerely, 

### I

s / Diana Csank Diana Csa n k Staff Attorney S ien·a Club 50 F Street, NW , 8th Floo r Wash in gton, DC 2000 I (202) 548-4595 Diana. Csank @ s ierrac l ub.org
#### Maryland Coal and Coke Company *v.*James C. Davis, Director General of Railroads, Agent, Appellant.

*Coal*— Fuel *administration*— Director *general of railroads*— Sei*zure of coal*— Act *of Congress of August 10, 1917, c. 58, 40 St. L. 276*— Act *of Congress of February 20,1920, c. 91, 41 St. L. 456.*

In an action to recover damages for adjusted prices for coal seized by the Director General, suit, is properly brought under the Act of Congress of February 20, 1920, c. 91, 41 St. L. 456, against the Director General of Railroads, and not against the United States eo nomine.

Argued October 16, 1924.

Appeal, No. 65, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1919, No. *897y2,*in favor of plaintiff in the case of Maryland Coal and Coke Company v. James C. *318Davis, Director General of Railroads, Agent.

Before Orlad y, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit for price of coal seized under Lever Act. Before Finletter, J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was the judgment of the court.

*Francis B.*Biddle, of *Barnes, Biddle and Morris,*for appellant.

*Arthur S. Minster,*for appellee.

February 27, 1925:

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This action was brought by the plaintiff against James C. Davis, Director General of Railroads, Agent, to recover a balance alleged to be due for coal requisitioned by the Director General of Railroads, operating the Pennsylvania Railroad, in January, 1918. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in the court below and the defendant appeals.

The defendant contends that the court below was without jurisdiction; that the action would not lie against the Director General and should have been brought against the United States. This question has been decided adversely to the contention of the appellant by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: Newton Coal Co. v. Davis, Director General of Railroads, etc., 281 Pa. 74. The question whether the order of the United States Fuel Administration, of March 27,1918, fixing the price of coal, which had been sold and paid for at provisional prices subject to revision by the United States Fuel Administration, was retroactive, has been considered in an *319opinion this day filed in the case of this plaintiff v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. and decided adversely to the contention of the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.
No. 6719.

#### SUCCESSION OF MARGARET JUNG.

Syllabus.

d. An ex parte order, no matter what its form, is in no sense a . ' ■ ■ judgment, -and' an error in such order may be corrected by ; ' rule.

2.' A legacy of a house bearing certain designated municipal numbers is in the nature of a descriptive physical monument, equivalent to metes and bounds. ■ ,

Appeal from- the Civil District Court for the' Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 102,558. Honorable F.-. D. King, Judge.

E. M. Stafford, James B. Rosser, Jr., for appellant.

Woodville & Woodville, M.- S. Dreifus, attorneys.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the 'Court,'as follows:

Thirty years before this controversy arose Daniel Jung acquired two adjoining lots in the square bounded by Chippewa, Harmony, Pleasant and Annunciation Streets, numbered 14 and 15, adjoining each other and fronting •.each 30 feet on Annunciation Street by 120 feet in depth.

Upon these lots she built-a double cottage occupying the whole of lot 14 and part of lot 15 designated by the .municipal numbers 3208 .and 3210 Annunciation Street, and a single cottage occupying the; rest of lot 14, designated by the municipal number 3214 Annunciation Street.

At his death the property passed to his wife, and by her will she bequeathed to Frank Becker and his wife “the-property No. 3214 Annunciation St.,” and to Annie Becker, wife of Robert Migand, ‘ ‘the property Nos. 3208 and 3210 Annunciation Street.”

*457Opinion and decree, May 29th, 1916.

The executor of the will'.obtained an ex parte order (having the form but not the substance of a judgment) by which he had Mrs. Annie Becker, wife of Frank Migand, recognized as legatee of lot 15 as-above described, and Frank Becker and his wife as legatee of lot 14 as above described.

Thereupon Mrs. Migand took a rule upon the executor to have this order amended so as to correspond with the terms of the will and the physical facts as above set forth. The executor objects to the proceeding by rule.' But the .objection is wholly without merit. An ex pairte order, no matter what its form is, is in no sense of the word a judgment, and an error in such order may be properly corrected by rule. Succession of Thompson, 42 An., 118.

On the merits the case presents still less difficulty.

The precise point here presented .occurred in King vs. Hackett, *7*Ct. of Ap., p. 497: “The sale of property as a house bearing certain designated municipal numbers is in the nature of a descriptive physical monument, equivalent to metes and bounds.”

. We cannot distinguish between a description in a deed and a description in a will. On the contrary the description in a will must be more liberally construed.

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 7523

JAMAL NATHAN GETHERS,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19

- cv

- 00538

- LMB

- JFA)

Submitted: March 31, 2020 Decided: May 15, 2020

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed b y unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal Nathan Gethers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jamal Nathan Gethers seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as untimely and denying reconsideration. The orders are

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis

, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

– 74

(2017). But w hen the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565

U.S. 134, 140

– 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 4 73, 484 (2000)).

The district court found Gethers’s petition to be time barred. And Gethers’s

informal brief fails to show that this dispositive procedural ruling is debatable.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Total users

91.8K

4.8% from previous 31 days

Sessions

119.5K

11.0% from previous 31 days

30-day active users

169.9K

11.9% from previous 31 days

Jan 1, 2024 - Jan 31, 2024 ▼

FLETC All Website Data - ▼

Views Engagement rate

1. 285,683 55.29%

▼

1 - 1 / 1

< >

Pageviews and Engagement

new returning

25.1%

74.9%

New vs. Returned Visitors

google

(direct)

bing

dhs.gov

fletcprod.modolabs.n

sass.fletc.dhs.g

usajobs.gov

yahoo

duckduckgo

others

5.9%

22.9% 58.9%

Visits by Source

Average session duration Engaged sessions

1. 00:02:43 66,043

▼

1 - 1 / 1

< >

Session Details

FLETC.gov Web Performance Metrics

Page title Views

1. Training Catalog | Federal Law Enforcement

Training Centers

46

2. Frontpage | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

45

3. Glynco, Georgia | Federal Law Enforcement

Training Centers

18

4. Training | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

13

5. Programs | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

11

6. Careers and Internships | Federal Law

Enforcement Training Centers

10

7. Execution of a Search Warrant (I) (MP3) | Federal

Law Enforcement Training Centers

10

8. Criminal Investigator Training Program | Federal

Law Enforcement Training Centers

8

9. FY 2023 FLETC College Intern Program | Federal

Law Enforcement Training Centers

8

10. FedBizOpps | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

8

▼

1 - 100 / 125 < >

Top Overall Pages

Active users 30-day active users

1... 90,715 169,905

▼

1 - 1 / 1

< >

Active Users
System Error

Looker Studio has encountered a system error.

See details

Pageviews by Hour

Looker Studio has encountered a system error.

See details

Sessions by Device Category

System Error

Looker Studio has encountered a system error.

See details

Sessions and Pageviews by Source / Medium

FLETC.gov Web Performance Metrics
<PAGE>



                          Exhibit 32.1



                     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 the Quarterly Report of Warning Model Management,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10QSB/A for the period ending
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Rudolph,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Stanley Tepper, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

     (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
          result of operations of the Company.

/s/Michael Rudolph
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Rudolph, Chief Executive Officer,
President, Chief Accounting Officer and Director
November 24, 2003


                           26
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donovan Jones, Chief Executive Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the amended Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A
for the three months ended July 31, 2010, as filed 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

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Donovan
JonesDonovan JonesPresident and Chief Executive Officer

December 9, 2010

I, David Karp, Chief Financial Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the amended Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A
for the three months ended July 31, 2010, as filed 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

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ David
KarpDavid Karp Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

December 9, 2010

---
EXHIBIT 99.2

                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 the Quarterly Report Frontline Capital Group (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I James D. Burnham,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to ss.
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 as of June 30, 2002 (the last date of the period covered by
         the Report).


                     By: \s\ James D. Burnham
                         -------------------------------------------------------
                         James D. Burnham, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                         (Chief Accounting Officer)
No. 50442.

#### Protest 961673-G of Great Lakes Foundry Sand Co. (Rochester).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the witness for the plaintiff testified that he purchased the merchandise in question from the Canadian shipper, acting for the Great Lakes Foundry Sand Co., who paid for the merchandise in question; that the company has customers in various parts of the country and instructions were given the shippers to ship the material direct to the customers, but the Great Lakes Foundry Sand Co. retained ownership and control of the merchandise until it was delivered to the customer; that said company paid all of the duties, said duties being forwarded to V. J. Cronin, its customhouse broker; and that there was no difference in ordering, purchasing, importing, and shipping the merchandise concerning which the broker neglected to note on the entries the actual owner of the merchandise than the merchandise wherein the owner was noted on the entries. Plaintiff conceded that the owner’s declarations, customs Form 3347, as provided for in section 485 (d), were not filed with any of these entries by the plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that it having been established that it was the owner of the merchandise at the time of entry and that it paid the duties, it was the proper party plaintiff. Government contended that the plaintiff was not the proper party because no owner’s declarations were filed in accordance with section 485 (d) and moved to dismiss the protest. Section 485 (d) pertains to the liability for payment of additional or increased duties, and if an owner’s *257declaration is filed .within a stated period, a consignee is relieved from payment of such duties. The court held that said section is a protection and safeguard afforded persons or firms who are in the business of entering merchandise for various importers and that Congress did not insert the provision to act as a '‘catch” for unwary importers in order to deprive them of the right of redress against illegally collected duties, nor did it intend that the collector should so use it. It was further held that if the party plaintiff established that it was the importer, consignee, or agent of the person paying the charge or exaction complained about, under the law, it was the proper party plaintiff. The Government’s contention was therefore found untenable, and the motion to dismiss the protest, except as to entry 1253, was denied. In view of the holding in C. D. 685 and Abstract 49223, *supra,*judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff as to the merchandise covered by all the entries, except entry 1253, and the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries free of duty under paragraph 1775, Tariff Act of 1930, and make refund of duty accordingly.
Water Resources of Michigan

An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Survey of Flow Velocities in Detroit River, a Connecting Channel of the Great Lakes

US Geological Survey  Open-File Report 03-219

Prepared in cooperation with the  MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DETROIT WATER AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT,  and the AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Lansing, Michigan    March 2003

By: David J. Holtschlag and John   A. Koschik

----

Accessible Web version is available in Web (HTML)   format at: http://mi.water.usgs.gov/pubs/OF/OF03-219/OF03-219LW.php

Table of Contents including Figures, Tables, Appendices,   Conversion Factors and Datums: http://mi.water.usgs.gov/pubs/OF/OF03-219/OF03-219TOC.php

Abstract
Acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP) were used to survey flow velocities in Detroit River from July 8-19, 2002, as part of a study to assess the susceptibility of public water intakes to contaminants on the St. Clair-Detroit River Waterway.  More than 3.5 million point velocities were measured at 130 cross sections.  Cross sections were generally spaced about 1,800 ft apart along the river from the head of Detroit River at the outlet of Lake St. Clair to the mouth of Detroit River on Lake Erie.  Two transects were surveyed at each cross section, one in each direction across the river.  Along each transect, velocity profiles were generally obtained 0.8-2.2 ft apart.  At each velocity profile, average water velocity data were obtained at 1.64 ft intervals of depth.  The raw position and velocity data from the ADCP field survey were adjusted for local magnetic anomalies using global positioning system (GPS) measurements at the end points of the transects.  The adjusted velocity and ancillary data can be retrieved though the internet and extracted to column-oriented data files. 
Citation:
Holtschlag, David J.and John A. Koschik, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Survey of Flow Velocities in Detroit River, a Connecting Channel of the Great Lakes, Date Posted: August 12, 2003, US Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-219 [http://mi.water.usgs.gov/pubs/OF/OF03-219/index.php]

Back to USGS, WRD Michigan Home Page
U.S. Department of the Interior ||  U.S. Geological Survey| |Water Resources Division||  Michigan DistrictMaintainer:  Webmaster (gs-w-milns_webmaster@usgs.gov)Last modified: August 12 2003 11:10:48.Privacy Statement || Disclaimer|| FOIA || Accessibility URL Address: http://mi.water.usgs.gov