alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

32 CFR Part 806

[Docket ID: USAF-2017-HQ-0001]
RIN 0701-AA76


Air Force Freedom of Information Act Program

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule removes the Department of the Air Force's 
regulation concerning the Freedom of Information Act program. On 
February 6, 2018, the DoD published a revised FOIA program rule as a 
result of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. When the DoD FOIA program 
rule was revised, it included DoD component information and removed the 
requirement for component supplementary rules. The DoD now has one DoD-
level rule for the FOIA program at 32 CFR part 286 that contains all 
the codified information required for the Department. Therefore, this 
part can be removed from the CFR.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 7, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bao-Anh Trinh at 703-614-8500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been determined that publication of 
this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, 
and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing the Air 
Force's internal policies and procedures that are publically available 
on the Air Force's website.
    The Department of the Air Force's internal guidance concerning the 
implementation of the FOIA within the Department of the Air Force will 
continue to be published in Air Force Manual 33-302 (available at 
http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/publication/dodm5400.07_afman33-302/dodm5400.07_afman33-302.pdf).
    This rule is one of 14 separate DoD FOIA rules. With the 
finalization of the DoD-level FOIA rule at 32 CFR part 286, the 
Department is eliminating the need for this separate FOIA rule and 
reducing costs to the public as explained in the preamble of the DoD-
level FOIA rule published at 83 FR 5196-5197.
    This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' therefore, E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' does not apply.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 806

    Freedom of information.

PART 806--[REMOVED]

0
Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 806 is 
removed.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-12237 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7801

CLARENCE JUNIOR JAMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. M. JABE, Chief Warden (A-Unit); RON

ANGELIO, Head Doc; G. L. BASS, Warden,

Assistant (A-Unit),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-95-935-2)

Submitted: April 16, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Junior James, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), without prejudice. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for

general relief and affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

James v. Jabe, No. CA-95-935-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
      23.1











**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








To
      the
      Board of Directors


NaturalNano,
      Inc.








We
      hereby
      consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Numbers 333-132607 on
      Form
      S-8 of our report dated March 29, 2007 on the consolidated balance sheets of
      NaturalNano, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the
      related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash
      flows for the years then ended, which appear in the December 31, 2006 Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB of NaturalNano, Inc.







**GOLDSTEIN
      GOLUB KESSLER LLP**


New
      York,
      New York





March
      29,
      2007
# 3DR X8-M Specifications

Autopilot: 3DR Pixhawk V2.4.5
Firmware: ArduCopter 3.2
GPS: 3DR u-blox GPS with Compass (LEA-6H module, 5 Hz update) Telemetry radio: 3DR Radio v2 (915 mHz or 433 mHz)
Motors: SunnySky V2216-12 800 kV II
Frame: X Propellers: APC 11X4.7 SFP (4), APC 11X4.7 SF (4) Battery: 4S 10000 mAh 10C lithium polymer Aircraft weight (with battery): 7.7 lbs (3.5 kg)
Aircraft dimensions: 13.7 in x 20.1 in x 11.8 in (35 cm x 51 cm x 30 cm)
Case dimensions: 60.7 in x 14.5 in x 15.5 in (154 cm x 37 cm x 39 cm)

Payload capacity: .4 lbs (200 g) Radio range: .6 miles* (1 km) Flight time: 14 min* Maximum operational wind speed: 25 mph (11 m/s) Landing accuracy: 8.2 ft (2.5 m) Recommended flight speed: 11 mph (5 m/s)

Camera: Canon SX260 12.1 megapixel
Camera software: 3DR EAI 1.0 Area coverage (single flight): 25 acres* (0.1 km 2 ) Orthomosaic accuracy: 3-16 ft (1-5 m) Ground sampling distance: .7 inches per pixel* (2 cm per pixel) Image processing software: Pix4Dmapper LT 3DR Edition (Windows only)

*Figures reflect estimated values at ideal operating conditions. Environmental conditions can affect flight time, range, area coverage, and ground sampling distance. v3
**Exhibit 32.1**     The following is the certification required pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.     In connection with the annual report of CardiogenesisCorporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the SEC on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph R.Kletzel, II, interim Chief Executive Officer, interim ChiefOperating Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Joseph R.    Kletzel, II           Joseph R. Kletzel, II *Interim Chief Executive Officer,* *Interim Chief Operating Officer, and* *Chairman of the Board*August 21, 2006     The following is the certification required pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.     In connection with the annual report of CardiogenesisCorporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the SEC on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, William R. AbbottChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ William R. Abbott           William R. Abbott *Chief Financial Officer*August 21, 2006     The certifications set forth above shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Company.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40790

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN MANUEL CASAS-GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-01-CR-155-1

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent appellant

Juan Manuel Casas-Garza (Casas) has moved for leave to withdraw

and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Casas has not filed a response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Paccione, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 617]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered November 3, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to two consecutive one-year terms of imprisonment, to run consecutively with a previously-imposed federal sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the one-year terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As the People correctly concede, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2), the sentences imposed upon the defendant on each of the two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree must run concurrently with each other, since the guns and ammunition found during a search of his home were discovered at the same time and in the same location *(see, People v Albritton,*204 AD2d 651; *People v Rogers,*111 AD2d 665, 666). However, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in directing that the sentences run consecutively *568with a previously-imposed federal sentence *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [4]; *People v Troia,*96 AD2d 954).

Moreover, relitigation of the issue of whether the guns and ammunition found during the search of the defendant’s home should have been suppressed is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. That issue was previously determined in *People v Paccione*(259 AD2d 563), in which this Court modified an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to provide that those branches of the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence which were to suppress the guns and ammunition should have been denied *(see, People v Carroll,*200 AD2d 630, 631). Florio, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1316-1317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-497]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-008]


Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes 
From Taiwan; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit for the preliminary results of the administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from Taiwan. The review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United

[[Page 1317]]

States and the period May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Heaney or Linda Ludwig, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group 
III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4475 or 482-3833, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the 
time limits mandated by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (245 days 
from the last day of the anniversary month for preliminary 
determinations, 120 additional days for final determinations), pursuant 
to Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of 
the preliminary results until June 2, 1997. See Memorandum to the file 
dated December 13, 1996.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)).

    Dated: December 19, 1996.
Ronald L. MacDonald,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III.
[FR Doc. 97-497 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**CRAIG CARTER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 362 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 10th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
UNITED STATE&OF:)\MERICA . - . ORIGINAL

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION . OFFICE OF ADMINISJ'i4l'IYE LAW JUnGES 

, .. : !:", • 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McW ANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 

a limited partnership, ) 

Respondents. ) 

------------------------------~) 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION OF 

DANA KEPNER COMPANY, INC. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On April 2, 2012, Dana Kepner Company, Inc. ("Dana Kepner") filed its second 

unopposed motion to extend the time for Dana Kepner to move to limit or quash the Subpoena 

Duces Tecum ("Subpoena") served on it by Complaint Counsel on March 16, 2012 ("Second 

Unopposed Motion"). 

By Order dated March 28,2012, Dana Kepner was previously granted an extension of 

time to move to limit or quash the Subpoena through April 3, 2012. 

In support ofits motion, Dana Kepner states that the parties continue to be engaged in 

negotiations to try to reach an agreement about the Subpoena. Dana Kepner further states that 

Complaint Counsel does not oppose this second extension oftime for Dana Kepner to file a 

Motion to Limit or Quash the Subpoena through AprilS, 2012, while the parties negotiate in 

good faith the scope ofthe Subpoena. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Second Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It 

is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for Dana Kepner to file any motion to limit or quash the 

Subpoena shall be AprilS, 2012. 

ORDERED: 


Date: April 3, 2012
# table 2018
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                       617
<INVENTORY>                                         24
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,019
<PP&E>                                           3,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,651
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,494
<CGS>                                            4,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (29)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    547
<INCOME-TAX>                                       208
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                339
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       339
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7461 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7461

To authorize appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
         construction and maintenance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2020

   Mr. Levin of California introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
         construction and maintenance, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs $3,396,000,000 to carry out subsection 
(b). Amounts appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain 
available for obligation or expenditure without fiscal year limitation.
    (b) Use of Amounts.--The amount authorized to be appropriated under 
subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as 
follows:
            (1) $750,000,000 for minor construction.
            (2) $750,000,000 for non-recurring maintenance.
            (3) $1,350,000,000 for major construction projects that are 
        partially funded for fiscal year 2021.
            (4) $546,000,000 for grants under subchapter III of chapter 
        81 of title 38, United States Code.
    (c) Contracting Goals.--The contracting goals under section 15(g) 
(1) and (2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) shall apply to a 
contract entered into using amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
this section and used pursuant to subsection (b) (1) and (2).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32(b)

                          Section 906 Certification
                                    of
                             Mark E. Maddocks

     I certify that the Quarterly Report of Dataram Corporation with
which this Certification is furnished fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the periodic report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Dataram Corporation.



March 8, 2005                      MARK E. MADDOCKS

                                   _______________________

                                   Mark E. Maddocks
                                   Vice President, Finance and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
No. 10420.

#### Hubbell *v.*Agnew.

Decided April 7, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Trumbull county.

*Mr. J. O. Leslie*and *Mr. L. F. Hunter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Cable & Parmenter*and *Mr. W. H. Smiley,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
i 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
 ORIGINAL 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

., In the Matter of 

McWANE, INC., 

a corporation, and 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

a limited partnership, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER SETTING CLOSING ARGUMENTS 

Closing arguments are scheduled for January 24,2013 at 1 :00 p.m., in courtroom 532, 

Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Pursuant 

to Commission Rule 3.41 (b)(6), closing arguments shall be limited to no more than two hours 

per side. Counsel are instructed that they shall not present any confidential or in camera 

information in closing arguments. 

I 

i ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chapp I 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: December 19,2012
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3468

___________

Jack Casey Sisemore, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

T. C. Outlaw, Warden, FCI - Forrest *

City, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 22, 2010 

Filed: February 3, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Jack Sisemore appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition. After careful de novo review, see Mitchell v. U.S. Parole

Comm’n, 538 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we conclude that dismissal

was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a)
-2-

(sentence to term of imprisonment commences on date defendant is received in

custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of

sentence at, official detention facility at which sentence is to be served); United States

v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 331-35 (1992) (after district court sentences federal offender,

Attorney General, through Bureau of Prisons, has responsibility for administering

sentence, including awarding credit for time served on federal sentence); Fegans v.

United States, 506 F.3d 1101, 1103 (8th Cir. 2007) (18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) provides

Bureau of Prisons with broad discretion to choose location of inmate’s imprisonment);

Coloma v. Holder, 445 F.3d 1282, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (district

court’s order that prison term should run concurrently with prison term already being

served did not mean the two sentences had the same starting date; federal sentence

cannot commence prior to date it is pronounced, even if made concurrent with

sentence already being served).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
#### Glen KNOUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-206.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; William Clayton Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.