alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
All times reflect Central Time

8:30 a.m. Call to Order / Roll Call / Welcome Matthew Kerrigan, GIAC Chair

 8:40 a.m. Greetings Melissa Bailey, Associate Administrator, AMS

8:50 a.m. FGIS Program Updates Arthur Neal, FGIS Deputy Administrator

Denise Ruggles, Executive Program Analyst

Karla Whalen, Director, Quality Assurance and Compliance Division

Anthony Goodeman, Director, Field Management Division

Byron Reilly, Director, International Affairs Division

Dr. Ed Jhee, Director, Technology and Science Division

10:00 a.m. Break

10:15 a.m. Discuss Industry Issues: GIAC

• Grading Soybeans of Other Colors

• Accessing Real-time Shuttle Train Data

• Grain Inspection Advisory Committee Alternates

• FDA / FGIS MOU

• FGIS Technology Review Process

11:30 a.m. Lunch

June 22-23, 2022 - In Person & Virtual - National Grain Center, Kansas City, Missouri

Wednesday - June 22
1:00 p.m. Discuss Industry Issues: GIAC

• Grading Soybeans of Other Colors

• Accessing Real-time Shuttle Train Data

• Grain Inspection Advisory Committee Alternates

• FDA / FGIS MOU

• FGIS Technology Review Process

3:45 p.m. Public Comments (If allotted time is not fully utilized, the GIAC will resume the agenda after the last public comment)

4:30 p.m. Wrap-up Discussions on Industry Issues GIAC

5:00 p.m. Adjourn Matthew Kerrigan

8:30 a.m. Call to Order Matthew Kerrigan

8:40 a.m. Public Comments (If allotted time is not fully utilized, the GIAC will resume the agenda after the last public comment)

9:00 a.m. Discuss Recommendations Matthew Kerrigan

10:00 a.m. Finalize Recommendations

10:45 a.m. Break

11:00 a.m. Officer Elections GIAC

11:30 a.m. Discuss Agenda Items for Next Meeting Matthew Kerrigan

11:45 a.m. Closing Remarks Arthur Neal

Matthew Kerrigan

12:00 p.m. Meeting Adjourns

Thursday - June 23

Wednesday - June 22
U.S. Department

of Transportation Fecleral Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, D.C. 20591

JUt 

### 28 2015 Mr. Richard 

### 1.Newman

.PO Box 25054 Seattle, 

## VV1\ 98165 RE: Title 

### 14Code ofFederal Regulations Section 61.56(c), Flight Review Dear Mr. Newman: This is in response to your request for alegal interpretation dated June 8, 2015. You have requested an interpretation ofthe requirements for aflight review under 

### §61.56, in particular how it applies when acertificated pilot istraining for an additional category orclass rating. In answer to your first question, whether two authorized instructors can administer the flight review, one instructor giving the ground training and the second instructor giving the flight training portion ofthe flight review, 

### § 61.56 does not saythat the flight review must be given by a single instructor. Further, 

### §61.215 states, "(a) aperson who holds abasic ground instructor rating is authorized to provide

- (2) ground training required for a sport pilot, recreational pilot, and private pilot flight review." Also, 

### §61.2 15(b)(2) provides that aperson who holds an advanced ground instructor rating is authorized to provide, "(2) the ground training required for any flight review except for the training required for an instrument rating." Itis permissible for a flight review to be given by two instructors, but each instructor must provide alogbook endorsement certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the portion ofthe review that the instructor gave to the person. Your second question concerns a certificated pilot in powered aircraft who does not have a current flight review. The pilot is training to add a glider category rating to his pilot certificate. Per 

### §61.56( c), the pilot in question must have acurrent flight review to perform solo flights in a glider during training. Section 61.56(g) provides an exception for student pilots, provided the student pilot istraining for acertificate and has acurrent solo flight endorsement as required under 

### § 61.87. 1\pilot who holds ahigher level pilot certificate must comply with the flight review requirements in 

### §61.56(c) before acting as pilot in command of any aircraft. The question ofwhether acertificated pilot needs acurrent flight review to perform solo flights in another category or class of aircraft is discussed inthe Letter ofInterpretation to Daniel Beard, January 9, 2015, acopy ofwhich is enclosed with this response.Ihope this response has been helpful to you. Ifyou have additional questions or need further

assistance, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Neal O'Hara, an attorney inthe Regulations Division ofthe Office ofthe Chief Counsel, and was coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division ofthe Flight Standards Service. Sincerely,

Lorelei Peter Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations Enclosure
Own this business? 

Edit Company Info

Exxon Mobil Corp, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxonmobil Production 

FM 1795 Road 

Hawkins, TX 75765 map 

Website: View Details

Phone: (903) 769-5380 

Exxon Mobil Corp in Hawkins, TX is a private company categorized under Oil and Gas Producers. Register for free to see additional 

information such as annual revenue and employment figures. 

About Exxon Mobil Corp 

Is this your company? Claim This Profile

Exxon Mobil Corp Business Information 

Exxon Mobil Corp also does business as Exxonmobil Production, Exxon 

Mobil Corporation . 

Location Type Branch

Annual Sales (Estimated) View Details

Employees (Estimated) 50 to 99 

SIC Code View Details

NAICS Code 211111, Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas 

Extraction

Products, Services 

and Brands Information not found 

State of Incorporation Information not found

Years in Business Information not found

Business Categories 

Oil & Gas Producers in Hawkins, TX

Crude Petroleum/Natural Gas Production

Crude Petroleum & Natural Gas Extraction 

View newly formed U.S. businesses

Company Contacts 

Is this your company? Claim This Profile

Tommy Harmon

Manager

Search for more contacts

Exxon Mobil Corp (Exxon Mobil Corporation) - Hawkins, Texas (TX) | Company Profile Page 1 of 1

http://www.manta.com/c/mmcckrf/exxon-mobil-corp 4/29/2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-4754
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES C. PAYNE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge; Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-90-280) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kor nbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Charles C. Payne appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to continue his hearing for revocation of supervised release. We affirm.We review a district court's denial of a motion for continuance for an abuse of discretion. To warrant reversal of such a denial, an appellant must establish both that the district court abused its discretion and that he or she was prejudiced thereby. United States v. Bakker , 925 F.2d 728, 735 (4th Cir. 1991). Payne has established neither and accordingly we affirm the district court's denial of his motion for continuance. 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 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of Brightwood Capital Corporation
I (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Russell Zomback, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Russell Zomback   | 
|--------------------- | 
|Name: Russell Zomback | 
|Date: March 21, 2023  |
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 574 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 574

   Designating July 13, 2018, as Collector Car Appreciation Day and 
recognizing that the collection and restoration of historic and classic 
cars is an important part of preserving the technological achievements 
              and cultural heritage of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2018

     Mr. Burr (for himself and Mr. Tester) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Designating July 13, 2018, as Collector Car Appreciation Day and 
recognizing that the collection and restoration of historic and classic 
cars is an important part of preserving the technological achievements 
              and cultural heritage of the United States.

Whereas many people in the United States maintain classic automobiles as a 
        pastime and do so with great passion and as a means of individual 
        expression;
Whereas the Senate recognizes the effect that the more than 100-year history of 
        the automobile has had on the economic progress of the United States and 
        supports wholeheartedly all activities involved in the restoration and 
        exhibition of classic automobiles;
Whereas the collection, restoration, and preservation of automobiles is an 
        activity shared across generations and across all segments of society;
Whereas thousands of local car clubs and related businesses have been 
        instrumental in preserving a historic part of the heritage of the United 
        States by encouraging the restoration and exhibition of such vintage 
        works of art;
Whereas automotive restoration provides well-paying, high-skilled jobs for 
        people in all 50 States; and
Whereas automobiles have provided the inspiration for music, photography, 
        cinema, fashion, and other artistic pursuits that have become part of 
        the popular culture of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates July 13, 2018, as ``Collector Car 
        Appreciation Day'';
            (2) recognizes that the collection and restoration of 
        historic and classic cars is an important part of preserving 
        the technological achievements and cultural heritage of the 
        United States; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to engage in 
        events and commemorations of Collector Car Appreciation Day 
        that create opportunities for collector car owners to educate 
        young people about the importance of preserving the cultural 
        heritage of the United States, including through the collection 
        and restoration of collector cars.
                                 <all>
```
**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of INverso Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

(a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 

and 

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

INverso Corp.

Date: January 26, 2005 

By:   /s/   Serge Atlan 

    Serge Atlan

    Chairman

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

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Motion Granted and Order filed December 18 , 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00896

- CV

____________ CITY OF HOUSTON ET AL
. , Appellant s

V.
HOUSTON MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE P ENSION SYSTEM , Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 35252



### ORDER This appeal is related to a previous appeal in this court , City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employee Pen sion Sys. , No. 14

- 15

- 00865

- CV. The parties have filed a joint motion to transfer the record in the previous appeal to the current appeal. A court of appeals has the power to take judicial notice of its own files in the same or related proceedings. Turner v . State , 733 S.W.2d 218, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Accordingly, we GRANT the parties’ joint motion and ORDER the clerk of this court to tran sfer the clerk’s record in 14

- 15

- 00865

- CV in to this case.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Jewell
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  M ICHAEL A. A DENIYI , Petitioner,

v. U.S. I MMIGRATION & N ATURALIZATION S ERVICE ; J OHN A SHCROFT , Attorney No. 02-1865



#  General, Respondents. A MERICAN I MMIGRATION L AW F OUNDATION ("AILF"), Amicus Supporting Petitioner. 

# 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A-91-206-109) Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: April 25, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELJim Tom Haynes, CAMERON & HORNBOSTEL, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anthony P. Nicastro, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Mary A. Kenney, Nadine K. Wettstein, Beth Werlin, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Michael A. Adeniyi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions this Court for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appealsaffirming the Immigration Judge’s decision finding Adeniyi deportable, denying the relief of suspension of deportation, and granting voluntary departure. Adeniyi’s case, which commenced with the issuance of an Order to Show Cause in March 1997, is governed by the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. We find thatAdeniyi is an alien who is deportable due to his conviction of possession of more than sixteen ounces of marijuana and that we thus do not have jurisdiction to consider his petition for review. See Hall v. INS , 167 F.3d 852, 854-56 (4th Cir. 1999); IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G); Immigration and Nationality Act § 241(a)(2)(B). Nevertheless, Adeniyi advances a due process challenge to the Board’s use of its summary affirmance procedure under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (2002), contending that the Board failed to follow its own regulation with regard to the issuance of the summary affirmance.Assuming, without deciding, that we retain jurisdiction to review substantial constitutional questions in this context, see Ramtulla v. Ashcroft , 301 F.3d 202, 203-04 (4th Cir. 2002), we find that Adeniyi’s challenge does not qualify as such. See Albathani v. INS , 318 F.3d 365, 375-79 (1st Cir. 2003). 2 A DENIYI v. INSAccordingly, we dismiss Adeniyi’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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

3 A DENIYI v. INS
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 662 

Designating September 2018 as ‘‘Campus Fire Safety Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. CARPER) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2018 as ‘‘Campus Fire Safety 

Month’’. 

Whereas campus-related housing fires at colleges in Illinois, 

Indiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, 

Washington, D.C., and other States have tragically cut 

short the lives of several young people; 

Whereas, since January 2000, at least 175 people, including 

students, parents, and children, have died in campus-related fires; 

Whereas approximately 87 percent of those deaths occurred 

in off-campus residences; 

Whereas a majority of college students in the United States 

live in an off-campus residence; 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 662 ATS 

Whereas many fatal fires have occurred in a building in 

which the occupants had compromised or disabled the 

fire safety systems; 

Whereas automatic fire alarm systems and smoke alarms provide the early warning of a fire that is necessary for occupants of a building and the fire department to take appropriate action; 

Whereas automatic fire sprinkler systems are a highly effective method of controlling or extinguishing a fire in its 

early stages, thus protecting the lives of the building occupants; 

Whereas many college students live in an off-campus residence, fraternity or sorority housing, or a residence hall 

that is not adequately protected by an automatic fire 

sprinkler system and an automatic fire alarm system or 

adequate smoke alarm; 

Whereas fire safety education is an effective method of reducing the occurrence of fires and the resulting loss of life 

and property damage; 

Whereas college students do not routinely receive effective 

fire safety education while in college; 

Whereas educating young people in the United States about 

the importance of fire safety is vital to help ensure that 

young people engage in fire-safe behavior during college 

and after college; and 

Whereas developing a generation of adults who practice fire 

safety may significantly reduce future loss of life from 

fires: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 662 ATS 

1 (1) designates September 2018 as ‘‘Campus 

2 Fire Safety Month’’; and 

3 (2) encourages administrators of institutions of 

4 higher education and municipalities across the 

5 United States— 

6 (A) to provide educational programs about 

7 fire safety to all college students in September 

8 and throughout the school year; 

9 (B) to evaluate the level of fire safety 

10 being provided in both on-campus and off-cam11 pus student housing; and 

12 (C) to ensure fire-safe living environments 

13 through fire safety education, installation of fire 

14 suppression and detection systems and smoke 

15 alarms, and the development and enforcement 

16 of applicable codes relating to fire safety. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

2

Mendoza also admitted using a 1993 Cadillac Eldorado in the commission of

a controlled-substance offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853, and to violating the

terms of supervised release on a previous conviction. The district court ordered

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1491

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Raymond Mendoza, also known as *

Raymond Otero, also known as 619, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 26, 2007

Filed: December 7, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Mendoza challenges the 110-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing in excess of 5 grams of actual

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii).2

 Mendoza’s
forfeiture of the Cadillac and sentenced Mendoza to a consecutive 24-month term of

imprisonment. The revocation sentence is not at issue in this appeal.

-2-

counsel has sought permission to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by failing to

sentence Mendoza to the statutory minimum of 60 months.

We conclude that Mendoza’s sentence, which was at the bottom of the properly

calculated advisory Guidelines range, is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127

S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007).

The district court expressly considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and

ruled out a sentence below the Guidelines range because of Mendoza’s prior felony

convictions, the dangers of methamphetamine, and the need to deter him from further

criminal behavior. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(B). Nothing in the record

suggests that the district court misapplied the relevant factors. See Harris, 493 F.3d

at 932-33. After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s request to withdraw.

______________________________