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

Blood Cell Transplant

Advanced Search

      - 
      - 
      - 
      - 

A-Z Index  |     					Questions?  |     					Order Publications

        - BC Home
        - Transplant Resources
        - Donor Information
        - Cord Blood Information
        - Research, Data, & Outcomes
        - About

***Expanding access to life-saving bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplants***

			Transplant Resources		

| - Understanding Transplantation as a Treatment Option
- Planning for a Transplant (BMT)
- Searching for a Marrow Donor or Cord Blood Unit
- Patient Support Resources for Transplantation
- Physician Resources for Transplantation  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

			Donor Information		

                      - The Need for More Marrow Donors
                      - Joining the Registry
                      - Donating Marrow

			Cord Blood Information		

                      - The Need for More Cord Blood Donations
                      - Options for Umbilical Cord Blood Banking and Donation 

			Research, Data, and Outcomes		

                      - Transplant Outcomes and Data
                      - Donor Registry Data
                      - Cord Blood Units for Research
                      - Citation Guidelines

			About the Program		

                      - Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation
                      - Legislation and Contracts
                      - Program Contractors
                      - Program Assessments
                      - Radiation Injury Treatment Network
                      - Website Content Inventory

People are asking...

                - What is a bone marrow transplant?
                - What are age requirements for a marrow donor?
                - Are there any risks to bone marrow donation?
                - What is peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) donation?
                - Are there risks to donating PBSC?
                - How do I donate my baby's umbilical cord blood?
                - What are the expected outcomes if I have a bone marrow or cord blood transplant?
                - Can patients meet or communicate with their marrow donor?

Ask Questions | 				Viewers & Players |                 Privacy Policy | 				Disclaimers | 				Accessibility |                 Freedom of Information Act | 				USA.gov |                 WhiteHouse.gov |                Recovery.gov
#### Joseph RICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 12, 1969.

Joseph Rice, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL, and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to. raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Silver Bow Antique Aviation(the 'Company"),
hereby certify, that to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: December 4, 2002

/s/Dempsey Mork
--------------------
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Gargas, Toni

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:05 AM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa

Cc: Tapp, Joshua; Kemp, Lachala Subject: FW: Follow up to call regarding SSM

For the Official Record:

The email below went to the State of Nebraska

– Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality on Friday, May 22,

2015.



### Toni Gargas Special Assistant Air and Waste Management Division/ Immediate Office

11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, Kansas 66219

Work: 913-551-7193

Cell: 816-308-5719

From: Weber, Rebecca

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:50 AM

To: Gargas, Toni
Subject: FW: Follow up to call regarding SSM

From: Weber, Rebecca

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:52 AM

To: 'shelley.schneider@nebraska.gov'

Subject: Follow up to call regarding SSM



### This message is a follow-up to my recent phone call notifying you about the final action the EPA

Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air po llution rules that apply to sources at all times, including when t he sources are operating during perio ds of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated in state im plementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this ac tion, the EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

Your state is not among those fo r which the EPA is issuing a SIP call to make changes to their SIPs

because the EPA has determined that the SIP provisions cited in t he petition for your state are

consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s current SSM Policy to the ext ent they are still part of your EPA–approved SIP.2 

### For more detail on the agency’s final action, we hav e posted a pre-publication version of the action

on our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urban air/sipstatus/emissions.html

.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with you to ensure that any future revisions to your SIP

are consistent with the Clean Air Ac t and the EPA’s SSM policy. If you or your staff have questions, please let us know.
EXHIBIT  32.02

                           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 AvStar Aviation Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  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  his  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:  August  19,  2010                            /s/  Robert  Wilson
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Robert  Wilson,
                                                     Chief  Financial  Officer
1 Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Ngo, Dan (FAA) Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:06 PM
To: 'fishfindersinc@gmail.com' Subject: Request for Information - FAA-2015-4845

Dear Mr. Lowe:

This letter is to inform you that we have rece ived and reviewed your reques t for an exemption under Section 333, Regulatory Docket No . FAA-2015-4845. Upon initial review , it was determined that more information was needed in order to move forward wit h your request. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your request.

 Please clarify the power source (i.e. battery/ gas/propane-powered) for th e aircraft below. The list represents an initial assessment of the aircraft that the FAA is unable to move forward with.

1. Aeroval Flexrotor

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov

. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by January 27, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

Regards,

Dan Ngo Office of Rulemaking, Aircra ft and Airport Rules Division Federal Aviation Administration
255 La. 815

#### James D. PELTIER v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50437.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1970.

In re: James D. Peltier applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 230 So.2d 591.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7245

TROY GOODMAN, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-04-719) Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: March 9, 2006 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Goodman, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Troy Goodman, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goodman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25290]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-177-0906]


Steuben Gas Storage Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 15, 1997, Steuben Gas Storage Company 
(Steuben) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to 
be effective November 1, 1997.
    Steuben states that the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A are 
being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order issued on June 
25, 1997 in the above Captioned docket. The filing incorporates 
modifications to the GISB standards as proposed by Order 587-C, 
effective November 1, 1997.
    Steuben states that copies of the filing were served upon the 
company's Jurisdictional customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25290 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ERIC HOUSTON, #10894-074,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:15cv10-RH/CAS

R. MATT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sought to initiate a civil rights action in this Court on

January 15, 2015. Plaintiff submitted a § 1983 complaint, doc. 1, and an in forma

pauperis motion, doc. 2. However, Plaintiff is a federal prisoner who is incarcerated in

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania as are all named Defendants in this case. Doc. 1 at 2. 

Although Plaintiff's complaint is nearly illegible, it must be presumed that the event or

issue Plaintiff intends to litigate took place in Pennsylvania. This Court does not have

jurisdiction over parties in Pennsylvania. The appropriate forum for this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 118(b) is in the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Lewisburg Division. 

Case 4:15-cv-00381-MWB-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

A federal district court has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer a

case to another district or division "in which it could have been brought." The Court may

also raise the issue of defective venue sua sponte. Lipofsky v. New York State Workers

Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating "a district court may raise on

its own motion an issue of defective venue or lack of personal jurisdiction; but the court

may not dismiss without first giving the parties an opportunity to present their views on

the issue.") 

In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), the

undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS transfer of this action to the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Lewisburg Division, for all further

proceedings, including review of the in forma pauperis motion, doc. 2.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 20, 2015.

 S/ Charles A. Stampelos 

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:15cv10-RH/CAS

Case 4:15-cv-00381-MWB-JVW Document 4 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

September 9, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1544.
    Form Number: IRS Form 11212.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Statement of Amendment of Employee Benefit Plan.
    Description: Form 11212 is part of a voluntary outreach program 
designed to ensure that retirement and pension plans are amended to 
conform to certain law changes. Completion of three questions on Form 
11212 indicates, but does not guarantee, that the plan document has 
been properly amended.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Individuals or 
households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,900.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one time).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 2,725 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24959 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 99.1

       Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
         By Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
       Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings


I, James A. Prestiano, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2002;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant is made known to me by others,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the registrant's board of directors:

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date:  November 13, 2002.






                                       /s/ James A. Prestiano
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       James A. Prestiano, President
Approved May 26, 1994

44 Canal Center Plaza ▪ Suite 310 ▪ Alexandria, Virgin ia 22314 ▪ Tel: (703) 684

- 0084 ▪ Fax: (703) 684

- 0427



### ANTITRUST GUIDELINES FOR NAIMA MEETINGS

DON'Ts

Do not, whether seriously or in jest, in fact or in appearance, discuss or exchange information regarding:

PRICES, INCLUDING:

 Individual company prices, price changes, pr ice differentials, pricing patterns or policies, terms and conditions of sale affecting price such as mark

- ups, discounts, allowances, credit terms, warranties, the content of labels, indemnification agreements, etc.

 Industry pric ing policies, price levels, price changes, pricing procedures, profit margins or other data that bear on price.

 Individual company data on costs, production, capacity, inventory, sales, profit margins or other data that bear on pr ice.

PRODUCTION, INCLUDING:

 Changes in industry production, capacity, inventories (including planned or anticipated changes);

and

 Individual company plans concerning the design, production, distribution or marketing of particular products or product features, including possible or proposed customers or territories;

MARKETING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING:

 Matters relating to dealing or not dealing with actual or potential individual su ppliers, customers, or competitors that might have the purpose or the effect of excluding them from any market, or any part thereof;

 Territorial restrictions, allocations of customers, restrictions on types of products or any othe r kind of market division; and

 Bids on contracts or procedures for responding to bids.