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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 228 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 518
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 228

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2022

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           September 28, 2022

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, as the ``Norma Comnick 
                        Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NORMA COMNICK POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Norma Comnick Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Norma 
Comnick Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 518

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 228

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, as the ``Norma Comnick 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 28, 2022

                       Reported without amendment
```
---

Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm

The Board of Directors of Bridgeport Ventures Inc.

We consent to the use of our report dated July 25, 2011 with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Bridgeport Ventures Inc. (An
Exploration Stage Enterprise) as at April 30, 2011 and 2010 and the
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, shareholders
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended April 30,
2011, included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended April
30, 2011.

/s/ McGovern, Hurley, Cunningham, LLP

Chartered AccountantsLicensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Canada

July 25, 2011

---
## Draft Proposal CB-15

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Continuous Air Barriers (CB-15)

Objective: Clarify the language pertaining to the sealing of penetrations in the building

envelope.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Renumber and revise Section C402.4.2 as follows:

C402.4.2 Air barrier penetrations. (move as a new item 3 to C402.4.1.1 Air barrier construction)

3. Penetrations of the air barrier and paths of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed or otherwise sealed in

a manner compatible with the construction materials and location. Joints and seals associated with

penetrations shall be sealed in the same manner or taped or covered with moisture vapor-permeable

wrapping material. Sealing materials shall be appropr iate to the construction materials being sealed. The

join ts and seals and shall be securely installed in or on the joint for its entire length around the penetration

so as not to dislodge, loosen or otherwise impair its ability to resist positive and negative pressure from

wind, stack effect and mechanical ventilation.

Reason: Clarification and to increase simplicity of the code. The provisions of C402.4.2 are currently out

of place. They have the same standing in the order of the code as C402.4.1 yet are actually a

component of the air barrier provisions. They are more appropriately located as a part of the code text

addressing air barrier construction. In addition, the present item 2 is duplicated by C402.4.2 to a large

degree so the text has been revised to focus on penetrations.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. BRAD LAMAR SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:04-cr-000982-TLW-1; 4:06-cv-02101-TLW)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brad Lamar Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brad Lamar Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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
Request for Information Action Training Systems, Inc. (FAA-2015-3002) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Avila Jr: 

 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3002). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

 

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, 

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from 

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

 

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 November 13, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 267-2999 .

 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 7:48 AM 

To: GeorgeA@action-training.com
Transaction Summary

The U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to make a loan totaling $195 million to Mesa

Airlines, Inc. (the Company). Treasury originally agreed to make a loan of up to $200 million to 

the Company, and the Company elected to draw a total of $195 million. The Company is a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Mesa Air Group, Inc., with approximately 3,540 U.S. employees in 

March 2020.

Treasury made the loan pursuant to section 4003(b)(1) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The loan is secured by aircraft, engines, accounts receivable,

tooling inventory, simulators, and ground service equipment. The loan has an interest rate equal

to LIBOR plus 3.5% and matures on October 30, 2025. The Company elected to draw $43

million at close and $152 million on November 13, 2020. The loan proceeds will be used to 

provide liquidity to continue the Company’s operations. The transaction agreement includes 

covenants by the Company to comply with certain restrictions on employee compensation, stock 

repurchases, dividends, and reductions in employment levels, as required by the CARES Act. 

Treasury will receive warrants to purchase common stock equal to 10% of the total loan amount 

drawn.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William M. RHODES.

No. 53921.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 17, 1973.

In re: William M. Rhodes applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction. However, the right to make a showing of a denial of a speedy trial, on proper motion in the trial court, is reserved at a pretrial hearing.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The defendant has made a full showing entitling him to writ relief under our statutes.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion that the writ should be granted and an evidentiary hearing ordered immediately on the allegation that his Nov. 1972 motion for speedy trial has been ignored. This court has apparently overlooked the copy of the Motion to Dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute which is included in the return to the application before us and upon which the trial court has apparently not acted.
#### Lori HOCKRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant —Appellee.

No. 00-56277.

D.C. No. CV-99-13386-MC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 14, 2002.

Decided July 25, 2002.

Before KOZINSKI and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and CEBULL, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Richard F. Cebull, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

District courts have jurisdiction to review only “final decisions] of the Secretary made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), (h); *Evans v. Chater,*110 F.3d 1480, 1482 (9th Cir.1997). The Appeals Council's decision of November 3, 1999, “not to reopen a prior, final benefits decision ... is discretionary and not a final decision; therefore, it is not subject to judicial review.” *Evans,*110 F.3d at 1482.

We recognize an exception to this rule where a claimant raises a “colorable constitutional claim” alleging violation of his “due process right ... to a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” *Id.*at 1482-88 (internal quotation marks omitted). Hock-ridge argues that her due process rights were violated by: (1) the Commissioner’s decision not to reopen her first benefits application, even though she had requested reconsideration within twelve months of denial, *see*20 C.F.R. § 404.988(a); (2) the ALJ’s denial of her second application on the grounds of res judicata, despite her submission of additional medical evidence; and (3) the Commissioner’s failure, in the letters regarding her first application, to inform her of her rights to request reconsideration and to appeal, and of the ramifications of her failure to do so.

None of these claims is colorable because, upon review of the ALJ’s denial of her second application, the Appeals Council treated the second application as a timely request to reopen the first. Thus, Hockridge was given the opportunity to challenge the denial of her first application and to present additional evidence in support of her disability claim. She therefore had “a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” *Evans,*110 F.3d at 1482 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon the denial of her second benefits application, Hockridge requested a hearing before an ALJ, which the ALJ granted. The Appeals Council held that the ALJ should have dismissed the request for a hearing, and retroactively dismissed the request. The Appeals Council acted within the scope of its authority to “adopt, modify or reject” an ALJ decision, 20 C.F.R. § 404.979, and did so only after considering the additional evidence presented by Hockridge. Hockridge, once again, had “a meaningful opportunity to be

*108heard.” *Evans,*110 F.3d at 1482 (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.0 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of CPI
Corp., a Delaware corporation (the Company), do hereby certify that: (1)
The
 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended April 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q)
of the Company  fully  complies                      with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
The
information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,
 the financial  condition and the                      results of operations of the
Company.  /s/ David
      M. Meyer 
      
      David M. Meyer 
      Chairman of the Board of Directors
      and Member of the Office of the 
      Chief Executive 
      /s/ Jack Krings 
      
      Jack Krings 
      President and Chief Operating 
      Officer and Member of the Office 
      of the Chief Executive
    /s/ Gary W. Douglass
      
      
      Gary W. Douglass 
      Executive Vice President, Finance
      and Chief Financial Officer and 
      Member of the Office of the Chief
      Executive  This certification accompanies this
Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. Date: June 8, 2005
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officerof Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2005to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| *August 2, 2005* | * * |                    | By: | */s/James F. Conway III* |   |
|-----------------------|----------|-------------------------|-----|--------------------------|--------|
| Date                  |     | James F. Conway III     |
|                  |     | Chairman, President and |
|                  |     | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, norshall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
Exhibit 99.4





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE


ACT OF 1934





I, H. David Graves certify that:




1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of IMRIS Inc.;





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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.
The issuer's other certifying officer 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 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 issuer, 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) Intentionally omitted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a);





c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer'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 issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
The issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer's auditors and the audit and governance committee of the issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





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 issuer'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 issuer's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   February 28, 2011H. David GravesChief Executive Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

April 23, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14038

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-20679-CR-ASG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

STANFORD GREEN, 

a.k.a. Stanford Lundy Green, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 23, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stanford Green appeals his conviction for making or aiding and abetting a
2

false statement in connection with acquiring a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(a)(6), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argues that his conviction should be reversed

because the district court erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence of his prior

purchase of three firearms which occurred about 13 months prior to the crimes at

issue in this case and for which he was not charged. At the very least, Green

argues that a limiting instruction should have been given regarding the evidence of

this uncharged criminal conduct. 

We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 946 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, ___

U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1305 (2007) and we find none here. Evidence of the

September 2005 transaction was sufficiently intertwined with the events involved

in this trial that it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion in admitting

the evidence. Nor do we find any error in the failure to give a specific limiting

instruction, especially as Green failed to request such a limiting instruction. 

AFFIRMED.
[for public release] 

International Finance Corporation (IFC) 

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) 

Proposed IFC Investment in and Proposed MIGA Guarantees for Orion Uruguay 

United States Position 

Board Date: November 21, 2006 

The United States takes environmental and social safeguards very seriously. While we 

appreciate and respect differing views, we support the proposed IFC investment and 

MIGA guarantee for Orion Uruguay. 

The Orion Pulp Mill represents a major investment in Uruguay that will contribute 

significantly to the economy’s GDP and exports over the medium term. The project is 

expected to directly or indirectly create about 2,500 jobs in an area that has been 

economically depressed since a major meat packing plant closed in 1979. Furthermore, 

we were quite impressed by the comprehensive cumulative impact study reviewed by 

independent experts, which concludes that there should be no significant deterioration in 

the air and water quality in the area due to operation of the plant. 

We urge IFC and MIGA to work closely with Botnia to ensure that the project fulfills the 

cumulative impact study’s conclusions and that all mitigation measures anticipated in the 

cumulative impact study are implemented promptly, including in particular the specific 

actions, design measures and emergency plans articulated in Botnia’s Environmental and 

Social Action Plan.