alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Mr. J. R . Stroble Manager, National TRU Program U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carl sbad, New Mexico 88221-3090 Dear Mr. St rob le: 

### SEP 1 0 2014 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

On November 12 ,2013 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) , requested as a Tier 1 (T1) change, for the U . S. Envi ronme ntal Protection Agency's approval to add the remote-handled (RH ) waste stream (ID-MFC - SOLI D-RH ) to the EPA-approved RH waste Summary Category Group S3000. With this letter EPA approves the requested T ier 1 (Tl) change to include four (4) conta iners ofthe above RH waste stream (also referred to as INL Lot SA) to the approved RH S3000 waste. We base our approval on the evaluation elem ents discussed in th e enclosed report (EPA A ir Docket No. A - 98-49; II -A4 -188). 

### I f yo u have any questions regarding this approval , please contac t Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422.

En(;losure cc: Electronic Distribut i on Joe Franco, CBFO Court Fesmire, CBFO No rma Castaneda, CBFO Tom Morgan, CBFO Mike Brown, CBFO QA Site Do cumen ts Sincerely ,



# ~?~ Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa . gov RecyclediRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recyc l ed Paper
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Tac Asset Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

October27, 2003
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LYNN D. REDEMAN,

Appellant,

v.

GE MONEY BANK and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Appellees.

No. 4D14-3262

[March 23, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Donald W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013CA017703-

XXXXMB (AG).

Ray Garcia of The Law Office of Ray Garcia, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias and Emily Rottmann of McGuire Woods LLP, 

Jacksonville, for appellee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Evergrene Partners Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 954 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2014)

STEVENSON, GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. LISA MARIE CASEY, a/k/a Lisa Marie Adams, a/k/a Lisa Marie Galliher, a/k/a Lisa Marie Graninger, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, SeniorDistrict Judge. (1:06-cr-00071-jct-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80057-jctmfu)

Submitted: January 7, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa Marie Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lisa Marie Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

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

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Casey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Casey’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06966]



[[Page 16440]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Apertus 
Pharmaceuticals

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.33(a) on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for 
hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: 
Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion 
Control (``Deputy Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 
20, 2014, Apertus Pharmaceuticals, 331 Consort Drive, St. Louis, 
Missouri 63011, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the 
following basic classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Controlled substance                       Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana (7360)...........................  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to divide the synthesized cannabidiol, with a 
portion going for sale as an API in nabiximol. The raw material will be 
used to synthesize dronabinol. Therefore, they anticipate consuming and 
purchasing small quantities of CS for generating data to support the 
Drug Master File with the FDA including validation batches, standards 
and stability studies.
    No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this 
registration.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-06966 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
November 22, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THERESA WASHINGTON-JARMON, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00861-CV V.

ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, OneWest 

Bank, FSB, signed July 30, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Theresa Washington-Jarmon, to pay all costs incurred in 

this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2016080EN.01000201.xml

| 2.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,05 % on 1 March 2016

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 March 2016

(2016/C 80/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0872 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4591 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77800 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3650 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0860 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4070 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,056 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3468 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4653 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2089 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5196 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4699 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4539 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6475 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5238 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 340,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,2024 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1230 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6263 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 500,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5163 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,341 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 80,2270 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,709 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3519 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5872 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,7700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0872

JPY

Japanese yen

122,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4591

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77800

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3650

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0860

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4070

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,056

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3468

RON

Romanian leu

4,4653

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2089

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5196

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4699

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4539

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6475

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5238

KRW

South Korean won

1 340,06

ZAR

South African rand

17,2024

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1230

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6263

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 500,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5163

PHP

Philippine peso

51,341

RUB

Russian rouble

80,2270

THB

Thai baht

38,709

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3519

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5872

INR

Indian rupee

73,7700

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2681 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2681

To require the level of telework of employees of agencies to return to 
the level of telework of those employees on February 14, 2020, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 9, 2021

 Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Cramer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
               Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the level of telework of employees of agencies to return to 
the level of telework of those employees on February 14, 2020, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Return Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given the 
        term in section 101 of title 31, United States Code.
            (2) Covered period.--The term ``covered period'' means the 
        period beginning on February 14, 2020, and ending on the date 
        of enactment of this Act.
            (3) Telework.--The term ``telework'' has the meaning given 
        the term in section 6501 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO RETURN.

    Not later than September 30, 2021, the head of each agency shall 
require the level of telework of employees of the agency to return to 
the level of telework of those employees on February 14, 2020.

SEC. 4. REPORT.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator of General Services, in coordination with the Director of 
the Office of Personnel Management and the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, shall submit to Congress a report that includes 
a description of how, during the covered period, agency services and 
response times for individuals in the United States who benefit from 
services of agencies were affected by--
            (1) the increased level of telework of employees of 
        agencies; and
            (2) the limited access to physical mail, data servers, and 
        voice mail at agencies.
                                 <all>
```
Wyoming Sulfate Contribution to Gates of the Mountains

Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WY 0.0114261 4.35E-05 0.0006435 0.0006826 0.0015217 0.0143174

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Sulfate at Gates of the Mountains = 0.01 divided by 0.7, or 1%

Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 22 WY 0.0027773 3.18E-05 0.0001591 5.00E-05 0.0006273 0.0036455

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Sulfate at Gates of the Mountains = 0.004 divided by 0.5, or < 1%
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0428

Filed November 23, 2016

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL ROBERT HANDT,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell, 

District Associate Judge.

Michael Handt appeals the sentences imposed following his guilty plea to 

two charges of public intoxication, third or subsequent offense, and one charge of 

first-degree harassment. AFFIRMED.

William T. Morrison, Mason City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli A. Huser, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

Michael Handt pled guilty to two charges of public intoxication, third or 

subsequent offense, and one charge of first-degree harassment. At the time of 

sentencing, the prosecutor sought prison and jail time, and Handt’s attorney 

asked to have Handt placed on probation. Defense counsel stated Handt would 

abide by several conditions of probation, including continuation “with ongoing 

substance abuse treatment.” Counsel noted that Handt previously attended a 

dual diagnosis center “with what he viewed as great success for an extend[ed] 

period of time.” 

The district court agreed Handt needed treatment. The court stated he 

“had opportunities previously to correct [his] behavior” and concluded, “I don’t 

really think there is anything in your record that indicates that the State needs to 

continue to offer you services that do not seem to impact your behavior.” The 

court sentenced Handt to two concurrent prison terms not exceeding two years 

on the public intoxication charges, to be served consecutively with a thirty-day jail 

sentence on the harassment charge. 

Handt appeals his sentences. He argues the district court considered an 

impermissible factor at sentencing. See State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 758-59 

(Iowa 1998) (“A sentence will not be upset on appellate review unless the 

defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial court discretion or a defect in the 

sentencing procedure, such as trial court consideration of impermissible factors.” 

(citation omitted)). In Handt’s view, “the record of the sentencing hearing offers 

no evidence regarding services previously offered [him] by the State,” and “the 
3

Court was basing sentencing on information and factors not properly before the 

Court.”

We conclude the district court did not consider an impermissible 

sentencing factor. Handt’s attorney specifically raised his client’s past treatment 

and discussed the need for continued treatment. The court’s reference to the 

provision of continued services was simply a response to counsel’s comments. 

We affirm Handt’s sentences.

AFFIRMED.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO . 09
- 1 5
- 00 319
- C R



### ____________________

IN RE OTTO CAULEY

_______________________________________________________ ______________ Original Proceeding 1A District Court of Newton County, Texas Trial Cause No. ND
- 6336

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In his petition for a writ of mandamus , Otto Cauley asks that the Court compel the judge of the 1A District Court of Newton County, Texas to hold a hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion for new trial that Cauley says he filed in Trial Court Case Number ND

- 6336 on May 9, 2015. He identifies a case where his conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the mandate has issued. See generally Cauley v. State , No. 09

- 11

- 00034

- CR, 2012 WL 1448375, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Apr. 25, 201 2 , pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not2 designated for publication). “The trial court’s jurisdiction expires when a case becomes final or is taken to a higher court.” In re State ex rel. Sistrunk , 142 S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist. ] 2004, orig. proceeding). Because the trial cour t ha d no jurisdiction to consider Cauley’s motion for new trial, the trial court did not err by refusing to hold a hearing on it. See In re Pettigrew , 301 S.W.3d 920, 922

- 23 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2009, orig. proceeding) ;

s ee also Tex

. R. App. P. 21.4(a)

. PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 25, 2015 Opinion Delivered August 26, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.
# C_2015407EN.01000102.xml

| 8.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 407/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 407/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7812 — Swiss RE Life Capital/Guardian Holdings Europe)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 407/02)

On 2 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above-notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7812. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7812. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2014

No. 04-12-00768-CR

Anthony GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-05-00079-CRF

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw is hereby GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                                 JURISDICTION OF COMPANY
<S>                                                  <C>

FATS, Inc.                                           Delaware, U.S.A.

DART International, Inc.                             Colorado, U.S.A.

Firearms Training Systems Limited                    United Kingdom

F.A.T.S. Singapore PTE Ltd.                          Republic of Singapore

F.A.T.S. Foreign Sales Corporation                   Barbados

Firearms Training Systems Netherlands, B.V.          The Netherlands

FATS Canada, Inc.                                    Canada

Simtran Technologies, Inc.                           Canada

FATS Canada Holdings, Inc.                           Canada

Firearms Training Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.        Australia
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 of The Fulcrum Fund Limited
Partnership (the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kenneth A. Shewer, Chief Executive Officer of Kenmar Advisory Corp., as the
General Partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of
                        Section 13(a) or Section 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.



 By:         /s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
         -------------------------------
 Name:   Kenneth A. Shewer
         Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2003