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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 71332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2011-OS-0121]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Notice to delete a System of Records; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: On November 14, 2011 (76 FR 70427), Department of Defense 
published a Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records notice (FR Doc. 
2011-29200). This notice had already been published in the Federal 
Register on August 22, 2011 (76 FR 52322, FR Doc. 2011-21286). The 
notice of November 14, 2011 published in error. This document withdraws 
that notice.

DATES: The notice published on November 14, 2011 (76 FR 70427) is 
withdrawn, effective November 17, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Siegel, (571) 372-0488.

    Dated: November 14, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-29710 Filed 11-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
256 La. 64

#### John E. ROBICHAUX et al. v. Louis HUPPENBAUER.

No. 50499.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: Louis Hupperbauer applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 231 So.2d 626.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

Granted. Limited to assignment of error number two.
#### Marvin MELTZER, Individually and as father and next friend of David Meltzer, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75-1423.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 25, 1977.

Jerome J. Bornstein, Orlando, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William M. Rowland, Jr., John W. Bowen, Orlando, Fla., for defendants-appellees.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion March 11, 1977, 5 Cir., 1977, 548 F.2d 559).

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, THORN-BERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50318 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus MARK ANTHONY EVANS, also known as Mark Evans, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-96-CR-2-1

-------------------- October 18, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mark Anthony Evans, federal prisoner #69117-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his Rule 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Evans argues that the Supreme Court decision in Jones v. United States , 526 U.S. 227 (1999), requires that drug quantity and its nature be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial and that Jones constitutes newly discovered evidence that requires a new trial
. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Evans’ motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidenceNo. 00-50318 -2- because Evans has not produced any new “evidence.” See United States v. Freeman , 77 F.3d 812, 815 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Alvarado , 898 F.2d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED.
June 15, 2015

Mr. Ted Collins 665 Ferguson Court Dixon, CA 95620

Dear Mr. Collins:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 8, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1244), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Injuries and Accident Causes in the Manufacture of Clay Construction Products

              																	McElroy, Frank S. (Frank Shafer)					,	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics					 and 	McCormack, George R. (George Robertson). 						*Injuries and Accident Causes in the Manufacture of Clay Construction Products : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1023*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1951,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4421,			accessed on September 6, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Jerry FRANKLIN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1319.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 9, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Karal B. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. *Speller v. State,*305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise, affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
No. 00-581.

#### CBS, Inc., et al. *v.*Bellas.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of ERISA Industry Committee et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
79–008 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–873 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 

COMMITTEE ON RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES 

JULY 24, 2018.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1020] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1020, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against any resolution reported from the 

Rules Committee through the legislative day of July 27, 2018 relating to a measure authorizing appropriations for the Department of 

Defense. 

Section 2 of the resolution provides that it shall be in order at 

any time on the legislative day of July 26, 2018, or July 27, 2018, 

for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 

rules relating to a measure authorizing appropriations for the Department of Defense. 

Section 3 of the resolution provides that the Committee on Appropriations may, at any time before 3 p.m. on Thursday, August 

2, 2018, file privileged reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019. 

Æ
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the                “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                August 14, 2006 | /s/                B. Amrey HardenB.                Amrey HardenChief                Executive Officer |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                                                                                   |
| Dated:                August 14, 2006 | /s/                Jerry K. WagesJerry                K. WagesChief                Financial Officer   |
#### John R. RHODES and Vendo International Limited, Appellants, v. Richard S. VAN CLEAVE, Appellee.

No. 69-639.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 11, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; James F. Minnet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46372-46373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23137]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY

Overseas Private Investment Corporation


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment Corporation, IDCA.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), Agencies are required to publish a Notice in the Federal 
Register notifying the public that the Agency is preparing an 
information collection request for OMB review and approval and to 
request public review and comment on the submission. Comments are being 
solicited on the need for the information, its practical utility, the 
accuracy of the Agency's burden estimate, and on ways to minimize the 
reporting burden, including automated collection techniques and uses of 
other forms of technology. The proposed form under review is summarized 
below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the subject form and the request for review 
prepared for submission to OMB may be obtained from the Agency 
Submitting Officer. Comments on the form should be submitted to the 
Agency Submitting Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Lena Paulsen, Manager, Information 
Center, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20527; 202/336-8565.

SUMMARY OF FORM UNDER REVIEW: 

    Type of Request: Revised form.
    Title: Application for Political Risk Investment Insurance--
Contractors and Exporters Program.
    Form Number: OPIC-81.

[[Page 46373]]

    Frequency of Use: Once per investor per project.
    Type of Respondents: Business or other institutions (except farms); 
individuals.
    Standard Industrial Classification Codes: All.
    Description of Affected Public: U.S. companies or citizens 
investing overseas.
    Reporting Hours: 4 hours per project.
    Number of Responses: 15 per year.
    Federal Cost: $300 per year.
    Authority for Information Collection: Sections 231, 234(a), 239(d), 
and 240A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
    Abstract (Needs and Uses): The application for the contractors and 
exporters program is the principal document used by OPIC to determine 
the investor's and project's eligibility, assess the environmental 
impact and developmental effects of the project, measure the economic 
effects for the United States and the host country economy, and collect 
information for underwriting analysis.

    Dated: August 26, 1997.
James R. Offutt,
Assistant General Counsel, Department of Legal Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-23137 Filed 8-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 13, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 13, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0186. MICHAEL RICKETTS v. WENDEL P. EL.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

23A02532
CERITIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  CERTIFICATION OF CUSTODIAN  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anza Innovations, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kevin A. Polis, Interim sole officer director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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.  Dated: December 11, 2003   /s/Kevin A. Polis Kevin A. Polis Interim sole officer director
Jeremiah W Oay) Nixon, Governor • Sara Parker Pauley, Director 

# T OF NATURAL RESOURCES

www.dnr. mo.gov 

### SEP 7 2016
Mr. Mark Hague Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region VII 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 6621 9 Dear Mr. Hague: This letter is to clarify what rule language my July 14, 2016 supplemental state implementation plan (SIP) submittal letter is requesting to withdraw. Regarding the August 8, 2011, SIP submittal, I am requesting to withdraw the phrase "including the revision published at 75 FR 31606-07 (effective August 2, 2010)" in rule 1 0 CSR 10-6.060, subsection (8)(A), so that subsection (8)(A) will read "
.... promulgated as ofJuly 1, 2009, are hereby incorporated
.... ". I am also requesting to withdraw the words "Except that:" in paragraph (2)(A)2. and withdraw subparagraphs (2)(A)2.A. and (2)(A)2.B. in rule 10 CSR 10­ 6.065. Regarding the August 31, 2012, SIP submittal, I am requesting to withdraw the sentence in subparagraph (2)(A)2.B. beginning with "For the purposes ofthis rule, prior to July 21, 2014,
...

.". (Note that entire subparagraph is being withdrawn/rom the August 8, 2011, SIP submittal) Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ifyou have any questions regarding this supplemental submittal information, please contact me at the department's Air Pollution Control Program, P.O
. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102, or by phone at (573) 751-4817. Sincerely, 

### AI/LUTION CONTROL PROGRAM

# ~M~r7**c/;?~** Director KLM:wgc


## o**R,c~ c1ed**  Pllper
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Troop Support employee featured in new video

By DLA Energy Public Affairs

[This is the last of a series of videos profiling Defense Logistics Agency acquisition professionals.]A new acquisition professionals video focusing on a DLA Troop Support employee was released on the organization’s YouTube and Facebook sites April 27. 

“Geek Squad of Acquisition” profiles Jose Pereira, a Troop Support quality assurance supervisor and is level III certified in production quality & manufacturing. 

As a former active duty service member, Pereira understands the importance of getting the right part at the right time to the military services.

The acquisition videos were created to increase recognition of the importance of education in the DLA acquisition community and to highlight the diversity in the 14 areas of the community.

To view the video, visit DLA’s YouTube page or Facebook page.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

acquisitionPeople and Culture
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June
16, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods referred to in the Form 10-Q.
 /s/ Alfred H. DrewesAlfred H. DrewesSenior Vice President andChief Financial OfficerJuly 24, 2007
1

Richmond, Jonah

From: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:02 PM

To: Richmond, Jonah

Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Smith, Peterj

Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead-Based Paint Program; Amendment to 

Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070-AK02)

Attachments: EO 12866 Interagency Comments Lead Rule.docx

Jonah,

Please find the attachment with the interagency reviewer comments on the Lead‐Based Paint Program; Amendment to

Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements final rule.  

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395‐1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1

1. Currently the proposal has three years for refresher training without a hands-on component for 

the training certification without any rationale for this selection. This reviewer urges the EPA to 

consider a five year interval for the for refresher training without a hands-on component for the 

final rule. This would be consistent with the other training certification intervals.

2. Did EPA get any specific comments on the alternative as proposed to require hands-on training 

every other time a refresher course is required? If so, who and what were the comments? 

3. What is the cost difference between the proposed rule’s requirement of allowing online training 

every time and the final rule’s requirement of only requiring online training every other time 

(every 3 or 5 years depending on hands-on or online)?