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

[Federal Register: September 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 189)]
[Notices]               
[Page 60493]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30se10-125]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 
Advisory Circular 120-79A, Developing and Implementing an Air 
Carrier Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance and availability of 
Advisory Circular (AC) 120-79A, ``Developing and Implementing an Air 
Carrier Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System''. This new 
advisory circular (AC) updates AC 120-79 originally issued on April 21, 
2003. This new AC provides information on methods of developing and 
implementing a Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) 
required for commercial operators and air carriers certificated under 
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 119 and 
conducting operations under either 14 CFR part 121 or 135. A CASS is a 
system that air carriers and commercial operators use to monitor, 
analyze, and optimize the performance and effectiveness of their air 
carrier maintenance programs.

DATES: The Office of the Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1 
issued Advisory Circular 120-79A, Developing and Implementing an Air 
Carrier Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System on September 7, 
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell S. Unangst, Jr., Technical 
Advisor, Airworthiness, AFS-305, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight Standards Service, 125B Summer 
Lake Drive, West Columbia, SC 29170; telephone (803) 451-2666; 
facsimile (803) 253-3999, e-mail russell.unangst@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    How To Obtain Copies: You can read or download this AC from the 
Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov or http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/ under the ``Advisory Circular'' 
hyperlink. In approximately 6-8 weeks from the date of issuance, you 
may obtain paper copies of this AC from the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, SVC-121.23, Ardmore 
East Business Center, 3341Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785. Telephone: 
301-322-4961. Fax: 301-386-5394.
    You can also order paper copies of this publication from DOT's On 
Line Publications Web site at http://isddc.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 24, 2010.
Steven W. Douglas,
Deputy Division Manager, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight 
Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-24542 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40423

Conference Calendar

 

BERNARD VINCENT MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-61

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bernard Vincent Montgomery, federal prisoner # 53653-146,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition challenging the validity of his convictions for

methamphetamine manufacture, importation, and distribution. He

asserts that his sentence is invalid in light of Jones v. United

States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999). Because Montgomery is challenging

the method by which his sentence was calculated, rather than the

execution of his sentence, the district court correctly construed
No. 03-40423

-2-

his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Jeffers v.

Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

1001 (2001). Montgomery has not established that his Jones claim

satisfies the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under

the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Jones, 526 U.S. at

251 n.11; see also Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Tex.,

305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct.

1374 (2003); In re Tatum, 233 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 2000). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1  CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  I, John Wilson, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Sprott Physical Gold Trust (the Trust);  2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Trusts other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Trust and have:  a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Trust, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c)evaluated the effectiveness of the Trusts disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d)disclosed in this report any change in the Trusts internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trusts internal control over financial reporting.  5. The Trusts other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Trusts auditors and the audit committee of the Trusts board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Trusts ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Trusts internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 31, 2014  /s/   JOHN WILSONJohn   WilsonPrincipal   Executive Officer
#### Robert GOING, Petitioner, v. MARKHAM BROTHERS & COMPANY, et al., Respondents.

No. 42768.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
1The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3712

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jason B. Eckart, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 28, 2000

 Filed: April 3, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jason Eckart pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit mail theft, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1708. The district court1 denied his request for a two-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and sentenced him to six months

imprisonment and two years supervised release. The court noted that it would have

imposed the same sentence even if it had granted Eckart’s request for an acceptance-of-
-2-

responsibility reduction. Eckart appeals, arguing that the court erred in denying the

requested reduction.

If Eckart had received an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, his resulting

Guidelines range would have been zero-to-six months, rather than six-to-twelve

months. Because the district court stated at sentencing that it would have imposed the

same six-month prison term under either range, we need not consider the merits of

Eckart’s acceptance-of-responsibility argument. See United States v. Riascos, 944

F.2d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1991) (no need for remand if sentencing ranges overlap and

district court notes that it would impose same sentence under either range, because

sentence would be unaffected).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6)

Oct - Dec

2007 Actual 91 87 (14) 73 (18) 57

Jan - Mar

2008 Actual 187 191 (15) 176 (11) 46

Apr - Jun

2008 Actual (74) (45) (22) (66) 7 53

Jul - Sep

2008 Actual 179 527 (30) 497 318 372

Oct - Dec

2008 Actual 556 569 (18) 551 (5) 367

Jan - Mar

2009 Actual 565 481 (14) 467 (98) 269

Apr - Jun

2009 Actual 278 343 (17) 327 49 318

Jul - Sep

2009 Actual 415 393 (20) 372 (43) 275

Oct - Dec

2009 Actual 340 260 (3) 258 (82) 194

Jan - Mar

2010 Actual 446 483 (12) 471 25 219

Apr - Jun

2010 Actual 263 344 (10) 334 71 290

Jul - Sep

2010 Actual 362 396 (14) 382 20 310

Oct - Dec

2010 Actual 326 363 (4) 359 33 343

Jan - Mar

2011 Actual 470 265 (20) 245 (225) 118

Apr - Jun

2011 Actual 149 190 (22) 167 19 137

Jul - Sep August 1, 2011 331 331 (26) 304 (27) 110

2011 Actual 342 286 (23) 264 (79) 58

Memo: Forecast Revision 11 (44) 3 (41) (52) (52)

Oct - Dec August 1, 2011 282 285 (12) 272 (10) 100

2011 October 31, 2011 301 305 (2) 303 2 60

Memo: Forecast Revision 19 21 10 31 12 (40)

Jan - Mar

2012 October 31, 2011 530 541 (12) 530 0 60

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEPlCY REGION IX 75 HawthorneStreet San Francisco,CA 94105


## MAR 2 5 2011 Robert D. Fletcher Deputy ExecutiveOfficer CaliforniaAir Resources Board 

### P. 0. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

L 

### On March 2,2011,the California 

### Air Resources Board submittedrevir;io71:s to 

### the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials snb:rnitted ~witl~ the followingrule and found that it fulfillsthe completenesscriteria

### in 40 CFM 

### Part 

### 5

### 1, Appendix V.



### This addresses all revisions in this submittal. 

### In the coming monthis \or 

### \.rill review the 

### complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act secli I I 

### I [!I 1 

### 1. APCDIAQMD South Coast



### Questions regarding our completenessreview should be directed ho Cyn':. 

### 1:iaGI. 

### Allen at (415)947-4120.

Deborah Jordan Director,Air Division Rule #

1315



### cc: Dr. Barry Wallerstein Executive Officer South Coast AQMD ........... Rule Title
....... Federal New SourceReview Tracking System 

# 1

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager Rule Evaluation Section Stationary Source DivisionEPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V Key: C = Complete I 

### = Incomplete N/A 

### = Not Applicable To Rule 

### 0 = Material Missing Submittal Date District Name Date Reviewed EPA Reviewer 

### March 2,2011 

### South Coast AQMD 03/23/2011 

### C.G. Allen

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1)


# I (dl) Copy of actual rulelplan 

### X 

# I 

# I I (a) Submittal letter from Governorldesicmee

(b) Evidence of adoption (c) StatelDistrict legal authority to adopt 

# 1 (d2) Rule changes indicated by underlinelcross-out 

# I NIA 

# I X X X


# I (f) Copy of public notice

(e) Proof that action met procedural requirements 

### X (g) Certificationthat hearingfulfilled public notice (h) Public comments & agency response 

### X X TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

(a) Regulated pollutants identified (b) Affected sources & attainment status identified 

### X X (c) Rulelplanemissions impact (d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration 

# I (g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements 

# I X 

# I NIA N/A (e) Modeling support as appropriate (f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions (i) Justificationfor deviation from EPA policy NIA NIA NIA

Notes:

OVERALL COMPLETENESS 

### C
Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6)

Oct - Dec

2006 Actual 70 46 2 48 (21) 31

Jan - Mar

2007 Actual 159 126 9 134 (25) 6

Apr - Jun

2007 Actual (153) (139) 5 (133) 19 25

Jul - Sep

2007 Actual 35 116 (31) 85 50 75

Oct - Dec

2007 Actual 91 126 (53) 73 (18) 57

Jan - Mar

2008 Actual 187 244 (68) 176 (11) 46

Apr - Jun

2008 Actual (74) 13 (80) (66) 7 53

Jul - Sep

2008 Actual 179 530 (33) 497 318 372

Oct - Dec

2008 Actual 556 569 (18) 551 (5) 367

Jan - Mar

2009 Actual 565 481 (14) 467 (98) 269

Apr - Jun

2009 Actual 278 343 (17) 327 49 318

Jul - Sep

2009 Actual 415 393 (20) 372 (43) 275

Oct - Dec

2009 Actual 340 260 (3) 258 (82) 194

Jan - Mar

2010 Actual 446 483 (12) 471 25 219

Apr - Jun

2010 Actual 263 344 (10) 334 71 290

Jul - Sep

2010 Actual 362 396 (14) 382 20 310

Oct - Dec

2010 Actual 326 363 (4) 359 33 343

Jan - Mar

2011 Actual 470 265 (20) 245 (225) 118

Apr - Jun

2011 Actual 149 190 (22) 167 19 137

Jul - Sep

2011 Actual 342 286 (23) 264 (79) 58

Oct - Dec

2011 Actual 284 310 2 312 28 86

Jan - Mar

2012 Actual 440 401 (3) 398 (42) 43

Apr - Jun

2012 Actual 129 172 5 177 48 91

Jul - Sep

2012 Actual 234 264 (36) 228 (6) 85

Oct - Dec

2012 Actual 291 297 1 298 7 93

Jan - Mar

2013 Actual 354 349 (8) 341 (14) 79

Apr - Jun

2013 Actual (73) (11) (7) (18) 56 135

Jul - Sep

2013 Actual 205 197 (38) 159 (46) 88

Oct - Dec

2013 Actual 179 264 (11) 253 74 162

Jan - Mar February 3, 2014 305 284 (11) 273 (32) 130

2014 Actual 275 265 (10) 254 (20) 142

Forecast Revisions (31) (19) 1 (19) 12 12

Apr - Jun February 3, 2014 (67) (40) (7) (47) 20 150

2014 April 28, 2014 (65) (78) 0 (78) (12) 130

Forecast Revisions 1 (38) 7 (31) (32) (20)

Jul - Sep

2014 April 28, 2014 158 169 (11) 158 0 130

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
#### Robert Lee CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2523.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 31, 1969.

Philip S. Shailer, Public Defender, and Robert E. Huebner, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove and J. Terrell Williams, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record' on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the defendant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1164

_____________________________

KENNETH DAVID CROMARTIE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

September 26, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Nicholas MORLEY, Appellant, v. Liza MORLEY, Appellee.

Nos. 69-61, 69-62.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 4, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1969.

Irving Cypen, Miami, and Arnold Nevins; Miami Beach, for appellant.

Dunn & Johnson, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Novack v. Novack, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So.2d 513.
Guidelines Regarding Civil Settlement Agreement

April 4, 2012 

On March 12, 2012, the United States Government (United States), many State Attorneys 

General, and various mortgage servicers entered into civil settlements agreements (Settlements) 

pursuant to which they settled certain claims related to previous mortgage servicing activity. On 

April 4, 2012, these were signed by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. 

In addition to monetary penalties, the mortgage servicers each agreed to perform Consumer 

Redress Activities. In connection with the Settlements, the Department of the Treasury is hereby 

issuing guidelines regarding which Consumer Redress Activities may be considered “qualified 

loss mitigation plan[s]” for purposes of Section 201 of the Helping Families Save Their Homes 

Act of 2009 (HFSTHA).

As part of HSFTHA, Congress amended the Truth in Lending Act to provide that servicers who 

modify and refinance mortgage loans under “qualified loss mitigation plans” are deemed to have 

satisfied certain duties to investors and trustees. Treasury has determined that each residential 

loan modification, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure transaction, short sale, refinancing, or principal 

reduction transaction identified in the Settlements, including those specific to individual servicer 

settlements, is a “qualified loss mitigation plan” as defined in HFSTHA.

These guidelines, however, do not purport to assert that such qualified loss mitigation plans 

provide automatic protection under HFSTHA. In addition to entering into the qualified loss 

mitigation plans, mortgage servicers must satisfy the requirements of HFSTHA, including the 

following:

 The mortgage must have been originated before May 20, 2009;

 Default on the payment of such mortgage has occurred, is imminent, or is reasonably 

foreseeable;

 The mortgagor occupies the property securing the mortgage as his or her principal 

residence;

 The servicer reasonably determines, consistent with these guidelines, that the application 

of the qualified loss mitigation plan will likely provide an anticipated recovery on the 

outstanding principal mortgage debt that will exceed the anticipated recovery through

foreclosure; and

 The qualified loss mitigation plan must be implemented before December 31, 2012

(unless such date is extended further).

These guidelines are issued under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA).
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 

September 19, 2023 

Dear Members of the Treasury Advisory Committee on Racial Equity: 

Welcome back to the Treasury Department for the fourth meeting of the Treasury Advisory 

Committee on Racial Equity. The work of this Committee not only furthers our commitment to 

racial equity: It is also essential to building a strong economy. Investing in people and places that 

have been left behind opens up new avenues for economic growth, benefiting all of us. Since I am 

unable to attend today, I would like to take the opportunity to underscore some of Treasury's recent 

work and to thank you for your significant efforts over the past nine months. 

In June, I spoke at the Essence Festival; Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo addressed the board of

the Black Economic Alliance; and we hosted the Department's first-ever Latino Economic 

Summit. At each event, we took the opportunity to highlight investments in Community 

Development Financial Institutions (CDFls) and Minority Depository Institutions (MDls); results 

of the Department's COVID relief efforts; and improvements at the Internal Revenue Service that 

will ensure all families receive the tax credits and deductions for which they are eligible. The 

Department also released two fact sheets on how our policies and programs advance economic 

opportunity for all Americans, including Black and Latino neighborhoods and businesses, as well 

as a first-of-its-kind report discussing how labor unions reduce racial wage gaps.

Our commitment to racial equity also informs our ongoing work on one of the Department's and 

Administration's greatest priorities: implementing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Last month, 

we released proposed regulations for the prevailing wage and apprenticeship provisions of the 

IRA, which will help support good-paying jobs across the country. We also announced final rules

for the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program, also known as 48(e). This program 

provides a significant incentive on top of the existing 30% Investment Tax Credit to drive the 

deployment of renewable energy technology to benefit low-income households and communities. 

While there is clearly more work to do, early indicators show that more than 65% of IRA-related 

investments have been in counties with above-average child poverty, and more than 80% have 

been in counties with lower-than-average college graduation rates. 

We have also continued effortsto spur private sector investments that align with federal programs. 

The Economic Opportunity Coalition-a group of private sector companies and foundationsrecently met its goal of securing $1 billion in committed deposits into CDFls and MDis, which 

will enhance the impact of federal investments.
#### Lonnie A. MARION, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44611.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 18, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
812 A.2d 291

#### In the Matter of the APPLICATION OF Jennifer Marie ALONSO for Admission to the Bar of Maryland.

Misc. No. 7,

Sept. Term, 2002.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 11, 2002.

Norman L. Smith, Baltimore, for appellant.

Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER. WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.

*137
      *ORDER*

The Court having considered the adverse recommendation of the Character Committee for the Seventh Appellate Circuit and the favorable recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners, concerning Jennifer Marie Alonso’s application for admission to the Bar of Maryland, and the oral argument of applicant’s counsel presented at a hearing held before this Court on December 10, 2002, it is this 11th day of December, 2002

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the favorable recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners be, and it is hereby, accepted, and the adverse recommendation of the Character Committee be, and it is hereby, rejected and it is further

ORDERED, that the applicant, Jennifer Marie Alonso, upon taking the oath prescribed by the statute, be admitted to the practice of law in this State, subject only to the filing of an updating oath.