alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harold J. GARTNER, Appellant, v. Robert L. WINTER, Trustee, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-664.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1973.

Donald S. Rose, Miami, for appellant.

Markus, Winter & Spitale and Frederick O. Scheske, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal brought by Harold J. Gartner from an order of the trial court which denied appellant’s motion to intervene in a creditor’s action. The order entered by the court below will be affirmed because appellant seeks to relitigate in a subsequent suit between the same parties issues that have previously been determined in an earlier lawsuit. Field v. Field, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 640; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40, cert. den. 344 U.S. 878, 73 S.Ct. 165, 97 L.Ed. 680; Nelson v. Rever, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 879; Bardwell v. Langston, Fla.App.1971, 244 So.2d 742.

Affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13267

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:03-cr-00065-PGB-GJK-9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN C. PATTERSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 20, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

John C. Patterson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his “Motion to Compel for Specific Performance of Plea 

Agreement or Withdraw[a]l of Guilty Plea,” which he filed under the Mandamus 

Case: 14-13267 Date Filed: 02/20/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Patterson claimed that the government breached a plea 

agreement he signed in 2003. The district court denied relief, concluding that 

Patterson was not entitled to mandamus because he had an adequate alternative 

remedy to pursue his claim.

1

 We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a writ of 

mandamus. See In re Stewart, 641 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

Mandamus is appropriate only if, among other things, no other adequate remedy is 

available. Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 

Patterson had several remedies. He could have raised his breach-of-pleaagreement claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 

1104–05 (11th Cir. 2004). Or he could have raised it in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion. See United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (per 

curiam). He did neither. For that reason, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying mandamus. 

AFFIRMED.

 1 The district court alternatively construed Patterson’s filing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and 

dismissed it as successive. Patterson has neither obtained a certificate of appealability on this 

issue nor argued that it was error. We thus consider only the district court’s dismissal under 

§ 1361.

Case: 14-13267 Date Filed: 02/20/2015 Page: 2 of 2
#### John TEMPLE and others not named but made parties as members of a class, Appellant, v. GREATER MIAMI JEWISH CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-348.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 1, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(d)


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director of United
Dominion Industries Limited hereby constitutes and appoints Richard L. Magee and
William Dries and each of them singly, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and
agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his
name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of United Dominion Industries Limited for the year ended December 31,
1999, and any or all amendments and supplements thereto, and to file the same
with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York Stock Exchange, the Toronto
Stock Exchange and any Canadian securities commissions, granting unto said
attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

  /s/ P. A. Crossgrove
-----------------------------------------
      P. A. Crossgrove, Director



    February 11, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of The Singing Machine Company, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffrey Barocas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: January 3, 2005               /s/ Jeffrey Barocas
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Jeffrey Barocas
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2014404EN.01000301.xml

| 14.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 404/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 404/3

---

Corrigendum to Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 280 of 22 August 2014
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 280 of 22 August 2014

2014/C 404/03

On page 65, aid number SA.39103 (2014/X):

for:

for

| ‘Member State | Latvia |
| --- | --- |
| Member State reference number | |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Latvia
  Article 107(3)(a)’ |

‘Member State

Latvia

Member State reference number

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Latvia

Article 107(3)(a)’

read:

read

| ‘Member State | Lithuania |
| --- | --- |
| Member State reference number | |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Lithuania
  Article 107(3)(a)’ |

‘Member State

Lithuania

Member State reference number

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Lithuania

Article 107(3)(a)’

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Annual Report on Form 10-K Equivalent of Birds Eye
Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 25, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Dennis M. Mullen, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

      Date: March 20, 2006             /s/ Dennis M. Mullen
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Principal Executive Officer
                                       (as of the date of filing of such Report)

                                       9
Exhibit 32.1 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacyclics,Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Miller, M.D., President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to   906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.   1350), that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
 

/S/    RICHARD A. MILLER, M.D.

Richard A. Miller, M.D. 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

April 29, 2008

 

 
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacyclics,Inc, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the "Report"), I, Leiv Lea, Vice President, Finance andAdministration and Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,certify, pursuant to   906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.   1350),that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
 

/S/   LEIV LEA	 

Leiv Lea 

Vice President, Finance and Administration
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TERRENCE K. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff,


### v. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) Civil Case No. 07-1471 (RJL) ) ) ) ) 

### ORDER

### ~ For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this

## ~ day of September, 2010, it is hereby 

### ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton 

### [#17] is 

### GRANTED; and it is further 

### ORDERED thatjudgmentbe entered for the defendant on all counts in the Complaint. 

### SO ORDERED.**~**

# ~~ United States District Judge

12
262 La. 133

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bobby HARRIS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52502.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 30, 1972.

In re: Bobby Harris applying for writ of certiorari and writ of habeas corpus.

Writs refused. In view of the written opinion of the trial court after an evidenti-ary hearing, the ruling is correct. Applicant is not entitled to the relief sought.
#### Stephen McARTHUR, Appellant, v. Leroy MILLER, Appellee.

No. 71-607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 7, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### In the Matter of the Succession of Marie Scioneaux BASKIN.

No. 60690.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1977.

In re: E. J. Scioneaux, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 349 So.2d 931.

Denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00385

- CR

Chico Warn

- Her DYKE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR1065

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1.

SIGNED July 23, 2014.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William M. REED v. Hon. Charles R. WARD, Judge, Section “A”.

No. 60867.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 28, 1977.

In re: William M. Reed applying for remedial writs.

Writ denied. Considering the return of . the trial court that bail has been fixed as requested, the application is moot.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
of Security Capital Group Incorporated:

We consent to the use of our report dated January 31, 1998, except as to Note 13
which is as of March 6, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Security Capital
Pacific Trust as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of
earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and the related schedule, in the
December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Security Capital Group
Incorporated. Further, we consent to the incorporation by reference of the
aforementioned report into the registration statements filed by Security Capital
Group Incorporated on Form S-8 No's. 333-38521, 333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527,
333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-38539 and 333-48167.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 25, 1998
#### In re Harold Augustus TRAMMELL v. STATE. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 647.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 31, 1974.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner, the State.

No brief for respondent.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

Petition of the State by its Attorney General for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Trammell v. State, 52 Ala.App. 89, 289 So.2d 656.

Writ denied.

HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, Mc-CALL and JONES, JJ.,- concur.
**EXHIBIT 23**.**1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (No.333-103489, 333-111997, 333-56438, 333-87223) ofVeritas DGC Inc. of our report dated October 4, 2006 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.
|                                |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|                           |
| Houston, Texas                 |
| October 4, 2006                |

 

1

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

URIEL RAFAEL RAMIREZ-SOSA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72739

Agency No. A029-555-568

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Uriel Rafael Ramirez-Sosa, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

OCT 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72739

review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see

Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

Ramirez-Sosa contends the IJ violated due process by not providing him

with a copy of the 1991 order granting him suspension of deportation. Contrary to

Ramirez-Sosa’s contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that

[he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210

F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Ramirez-Sosa failed to

demonstrate that correcting the IJ’s alleged error may have affected the outcome of

the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process

challenge). 

We lack jurisdiction to review Ramirez-Sosa’s challenge to his charge of

removability because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678

(9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Trueluck, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 224]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered March 9, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second *337degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8V3 to 25 years, I2V2 to 25 years, and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation remarks attacking the credibility of defendant’s postarrest exculpatory statements drew reasonable inferences from the evidence and were responsive to the defense summation *(see, People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133, *lv denied*91 NY2d 976). Nothing in the challenged remarks could have misled the jury as to the burden of proof, particularly in light of the court’s detailed instructions on that subject, and the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to expand on these instructions. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments concerning the People’s summation.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T HAYDEN NESB ITT, Jr., Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. FR ANC ISC O JAC QUEZ, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15354

D.C . No. 2:09-c v-02821-GEB
GGH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia G a rland E. B urre ll, Jr., Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and SC HR OEDER and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. R obe rt Ha

y de n Ne sbitt, Jr. a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha be a s pe tition brought unde

r 28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

n d we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED FEB 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe n a l ty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA), ha be a s re lie f is only

ava ila ble if a sta te c ourt’ s ruling wa s “ c ontra ry to, or involve d
an unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of,” Supre m e C ourt la wtha t wa s “ c le arly

e sta blishe d”
at the tim e the sta

te c o urt a djudic ate d the c la im on the m e rits. 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d)(1); G re e nev . Fishe r , 132 S.C t. 38, 43-44 (2011). The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de nia l of Ne sbitt’ s due proc e ss c la im wa s not unre a sona

ble or c ontra

ry to fe de ra l la

w. First, Ne sbitt’ s c la i m

tha t the tria l
c ourt e rre d by

ta king judic ia l notic e of a

probation re port from

his juve nile c a se file wa s proc e dura lly de fa ulte d. Se e C

ole man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). This c ourt ha s he ld tha t C a lifornia c onsiste ntly

a pplie s its
c onte m p orane ous obje c tion rulewhe n a pa rty fa i ls to obje c t to thea dm ission of
e vide nc e , m ak ing it a

n inde pe nde nt a

nd a de quat e sta

te ground. Fairbank

v . Ay e rs , 650 F.3d 1243, 1256 (9th C ir. 2011). Se c ond, e ve n if Ne s bitt ha d tim e ly obje c te d , the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l wa s not unre a sona ble in de te rm ining tha

t he c ould not e sta blish pre j u dic e be c a

use the tria l c ourt did not c le a rly re ly on the c onte nts of the re port. W e de c line to e xpa

nd the c e rtific at e of a

ppe a l a bility to e n c om pa s s Ne sbitt’ s unc e rtifie d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c l a im

be c a use no “ substa

ntia l showing of the de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right” ha s be e n m a de with re spe c t to this c la im . 28

2U.S.C . § 2253(c )(2); se e Slac k v . Mc Danie l , 529 U.S. 473, 483–85 (2000). Give n the n ature of the c ha

rge d offe nse s a

nd the se riousne ss of his c rim ina l history , Ne sbitt c a

nnot de m onstra

te that a ny a lle ge d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e re s ulte d in pre j udic e . 1 Se e Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). AFFIRM E D.

1 Appe l la nt’ s R e que st for Judic i a l Notic e is DENIED. 3
Beverly Eaves Perdue 

Governor 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

Director 

July 30, 2012 

Dee Freeman 

Secretary 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revisions for Deferral of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Bioenergy 

Sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Greenhouse Gases 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

Please find enclosed North Carolina's submittal of its final permanent rule adopting the deferral of 

carbon dioxide (C02) emissions from bioenergy under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule for 

greenhouse gases. On May 10, 2012, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted permanent 

rule amendments to 15A NCAC 02D .0544 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for 

Greenhouse Gases. This rule was the subject of a public hearing held on March 14, 2012 and was approved by 

the State Rules Review Commission at its June 20, 2012 meeting. The rule became effective July 1, 2012. 

Enclosed is the hearing record for this public hearing and a copy of the rule for which approval is 

requested. The hard copy of the rule and hearing record is identical to the .pdf file recorded on the CD. Please 

proceed to approve the aforementioned rule as part of the federally-approved State Implementation Plan. 

If you need additional information or have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Ms. 

Joelle Burleson of my staff at (919)707-8720 or joelle.burleson @ncdenr.gov. 

;;; ~ 4 < ~·~ 

Enclosures 

SCH/jb 

c: Nacosta Ward 

Lynorae Benjamin 

Sushma Masemore 

Hearing Record File 

~~Sheila C. Holman 

1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 

217 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603 

Phone: 919-707-8401 I FAX 919-715-0718 I Internet: www.ncair.org 

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 

N~rth Carolina 

)Vaturall!l
0 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866 

Section 6(a)(3)(E) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to identify for the public, in 

a complete, clear, and simple manner, those changes in a regulatory action 

made at the suggestion or recommendation of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. 

Title of Rulemaking: 

Regulatory Identification Number: 

/ 

OIRA did not review the rulemaking document. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, but did not 

suggest or recommend any changes. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, and we have 

documented the changes we made at OIRA 's suggestion or 

recommendation in an attachment to this sheet. 

ysl Date 1 ' 

Attachment