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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-54-2023]

On October 19, 2023, Helena Industries, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 26X, in Cordele, Georgia.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (88 FR 73309, October 25, 2023). On February 16, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: February 16, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-03566 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1791 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1791

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2011

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 
South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee 
                Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United 
States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Alto Lee Adams, 
Sr., United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                                    AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                         CONSULTING ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT

1.   Amendment.  Cognigen  Networks,  Inc.  ("Cognigen") and  Telecommunications
     Consultancy, Ltd. ("CTC") hereby agree that the paragraph entitled "Term of
     Consulting Engagement" in the Consulting Engagement Agreement ("Agreement")
     dated  September  9, 2002,  between CTC and  Cognigen is amended to read as
     follows:

     "This Agreement will continue in effect unless earlier terminated  pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement. The Clint or CTC may terminate this Agreement at
any time,  with or without cause,  effective 15 days after giving written notice
to other of the termination  hereof.  The Client's  obligations  hereunder shall
survive termination under this Agreement."

2.   Except as changed  herein,  the  Agreement  shall  remain in full force and
     effect.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  CTC and Cognigen  caused this amendment to be signed as of
the 9th day of September 2004.

COMBINED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANCY, LTD.

/s/    Peter Tilyou
-------------------
Peter Tilyou
Managing Director

COGNIGEN NETWORKS, INC.

/s/   Thomas S. Smith
---------------------
Thomas S. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7506
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNY R. GULLETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-17) Submitted: March 19, 2003 Decided: May 15, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cheryl J. Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Michael L. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Denny Ray Gullett appeals from the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his motion for a new trial based on his allegation of newly discovered evidence that a prosecutorial expert witness falsely testified about his academic credentials. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Gullett failed to make the requisite showing to warrant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. SeeUnited States v. Chavis , 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Wallace , 528 F.2d 863, 866 (4th Cir. 1976) (applying test set forth in Larrison v. United States , 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Gullett’s motion for a new trial. 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
#### Albert HALEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28303.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM: Deb Bartram, ERG

DATE: September 30, 2015

SUBJECT: Evaluation of Flow Correlation

ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of 

Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) for development of effluent limitations guidelines 

and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. 

In public comments received from the Utility Water Act Group (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-4655-

A1), the commenter asserts that pollutant concentrations are correlated with transport water flow 

rates. EPA evaluated all datasets in which both sample-specific flow and effluent pollutant 

concentration were available, including FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water, and fly ash 

transport water, and found that none of these assumptions were valid.

The attached plots present depictions of the wastewater flow versus pollutant concentration for the 

following wastestreams and pollutants:

 Fly ash transport water (data available for Frank E Ratts and John Amos power 

plants)

o Arsenic

o Cadmium;

o Aluminum;

 Bottom ash transport water (data available for Frank E Ratts plant)

o Arsenic;

o Cadmium;

 FGD Wastewater – Chemical precipitation effluent (data available for Keystone, 

Allen, Belews Creek, Hatfield’s Ferry, Miami Fort, and Pleasant Prairie power 

plants)

o Arsenic

o Mercury;

o Selenium;

o Nitrate-nitrite;

 FGD Wastewater – Biological treatment effluent (data available for Allen and 

Belews Creek power plants)

o Selenium; and

o Nitrate-nitrite.
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 2

As shown in these plots, there is no discernible relationship between wastewater flow and pollutant 

concentration based on the available data. Although pollutant concentrations may be correlated 

with transport water flow rates at specific plants, or for specific periods of time, EPA found that 

there was no overall correlation when reviewing the full dataset available.

In addition, the commenter did not provide any data to support their assertions. This is surprising as 

the commenter submitted several datasets from multiple plants related to bottom ash transport 

water, but neglected to provide sample-specific flow rates to allow for evaluation of their assertion.
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 3
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 4
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 5
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 6
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 7
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 8
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 9
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 10
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 11
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 12
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 13
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 14
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 15
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RUDI BERNARD SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CR-88-200, CA-96-887-2)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudi Bernard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Michelle Lecocq, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to reconsider the denial of

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no

reversible error. The district court dismissed the case after Appellant failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation. We note that Appellant’s Rule 59 motion could

not be construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s report

because they were not filed within the time period set for filing

such objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Smith, Nos. CR-88-200; CA-96-887-2 (S.D.W. Va., Feb. 4 &

27, 1997). 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6065** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARCELLUS LEWIS DANCY, III, a/k/a Sugar Bear , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00042

- RBS

- TEM

- 1 )

Submitted : May 5, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marcellus Lewis Dancy, III, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marcellus Lewis Dancy, III, appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 7 82 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidel ines Manual (201 4 ). A dis trict court’ s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de

novo. United States v. Mu nn , 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dancy’s motion. The court plainly understood its authority to reduce Dancy’s sentence pursuant to Amendment 782, see Un ited States v.
Stewart , 595 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2010); USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s., but declined to do so based on the facts and circumstances of Dancy’s case, with which it was abundantly familiar. See United States v. Smalls , 720 F.3d 193, 196

- 97 ( 4th Cir. 2013). Moreover, despite Dancy’s claim to the contrary, it is well settled that the district court is not required to provide individualized reasoning when deciding a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion , see United States v. Legree , 205 F.3d 724, 728

- 29 (4th Cir. 2000), and the record does not support Dancy’s argument that the court failed to consider the relevant 183 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors. See Smalls , 720 F.3d at 195

- 97. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judg ment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                     Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research—Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) Site Visit Ohio State University (DMR) (#1203).                

*Date and Time:*                     May 23, 2024; 7:30 a.m.-6:45 p.m.; May 24, 2024; 8:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m.                

*Place:*                     Ohio State University, 191 West Soodruff Ave., Columbus, OH 43210.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Part-Open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Dr. Serdar Ogut, Program Director, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 703-292-4429.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     NSF site visit to conduct a review during year 4 of the award period as stipulated in the cooperative agreement.                

*Agenda:*                     To conduct an in depth evaluation of performance, to assess progress towards goals, and to provide recommendations.                

## Thursday, May 23, 2024

7:30 a.m.-12:05 p.m.—Executive Sessions (Closed)

12:05 p.m.-1:00 p.m.—Lunch (Open)

1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.—Executive Sessions (Closed)

2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.—Facilities Overview and Lab Tour (Closed)

3:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m.—Poster Session (Open)

5:00 p.m.-6:45 p.m.—Executive Sessions (Closed)

## Friday, May 24, 2024

8:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m.—Executive Sessions (Closed)

*Reason for Closing:*                     The program being reviewed during the site visit will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the program. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

Dated: February 14, 2024.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-03419 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
# FILED
October 8, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON SEPTEMBER 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) NO. 02C01-9612-CC-00461 Appellee, ) ) BENTON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JULIAN

P. GUINN, JUDGE LESTER LEE DOYLE, ) ) (DUI 2 nd , DORL) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPEL LEE : GUY T. WILKINSON JOHN KNOX WAL KUP District Public Defender Attorney General and Repor ter 24 th Judicial District 117 Forrest Avenue Nort h JANIS L. TUR NER P. O. Box 663 Assistant Attorney Gener al Camden, TN 38320 Criminal Justice Div ision 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 G. ROBERT RADFORD District Attorney General TODD A. ROSE Assistant District A

ttorney General P. O. Box 94 Paris, TN 38242

OPINION FI LED:

AFFIRMED PU RSUANT TO R ULE 20 JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE2 O P I N I O N The defendant, Lester Lee Doyle, w as convicted by a Benton County jur y of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, and dr iving on a revoke

d license. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the evi dence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jur y’s verdict. We affirm the convic tion. On November 14, 1995, at about 11:00 p .m., the a rre sting officer observed defendant cross t he high way ce nter li ne two t imes and run off t he road once. The officer stopped the defendant. Defendant had a strong odor of alc ohol about him and
was un able to properly perform the field sobriety tests. Two other officers test ifie d that defendant was drunk. Defendant refused the breathalyser test. The revoked status of his driver’s

license was stipula

ted. Defendant admitted to having three beers, but said that he was not i mpaired. Defendant testified that his weav ing was probably due

to a low tire, and he felt he had passed the field sobriety tests. The wrecker driver who towed the car said he had not noticed whether the tire w as flat before he towed it, but he noticed the tire w as flat the next morning. After thoroughly reviewing the reco rd, the briefs, and the law gov erning the issue presented by the defendant, we conclude that the evidence is su fficient to support the finding by the trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that no
error of law requiring a rev

ersal of the judgment is apparent. Accor dingly, pursuant to Rule 20 of

the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE CONCUR:

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2013

NO. 03-12-00131-CV

Cassandra Donetta Medrano, Appellant

v.

Lydia Serna Zapata, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on January 31, 2012. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s order. The appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### Saledad (Charlie) GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27920.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1956.

Blanchard & Clifford, Lubbock, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $600.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION1

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Helen S. Kim, President and Chief Executive Officer of Kosan Biosciences Incorporated (the Company), and Gary
S. Titus, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of May 9, 2008



/s/ Helen S. KimHelen S. KimPresident and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Gary S. TitusGary S. TitusSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




|1 | This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Kosan Biosciences Incorporated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kosan Biosciences Incorporated and will be retained by Kosan Biosciences Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.