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

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 1414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00416]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9941-26-ORD]

Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) Meeting Dates and 
Agenda

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of teleconference and face-to-face meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA), Environmental 
Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB), as previously announced, holds 
teleconference meetings the third Wednesday of each month at 1:00 p.m. 
ET and two face-to-face meetings each calendar year. For 2016, 
teleconference only meetings will be February 17, March 16, April 20, 
May 18, June 15, July 20, September 21, October 19, November 16, and 
December 21 to discuss the ideas and views presented at the previous 
ELAB meetings, as well as new business. Items to be discussed by ELAB 
over these coming meetings include: (1) Issues in continuing the 
expansion of national environmental accreditation; (2) ELAB's support 
to the Agency's on issues relating to measurement and monitoring for 
all programs; and (3) follow-up on some of ELAB's past recommendations 
and issues. In addition to these teleconferences, ELAB will be hosting 
their two face-to-face meetings with teleconference line also available 
on January 25, 2016, at the Hyatt Regency Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma at 
1:30 p.m. (CT) and on August 8, 2016, at the Hyatt Regency Orange 
County in Orange County, CA at 1:00 p.m. (PT).
    Written comments on laboratory accreditation issues and/or 
environmental monitoring or measurement issues are encouraged and 
should be sent to Ms. Lara P. Phelps, Designated Federal Officer, US 
EPA (E243-05), 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709 or emailed to phelps.lara@epa.gov. Members of the public are 
invited to listen to the teleconference calls, and time permitting, 
will be allowed to comment on issues discussed during this and previous 
ELAB meetings. Those persons interested in attending should call Lara 
P. Phelps at (919) 541-5544 to obtain teleconference information. For 
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, 
please contact Lara P. Phelps at the number above. To request 
accommodation of a disability, please contact Lara P. Phelps, 
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much 
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: December 23, 2105.
Thomas Burke,
EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2016-00416 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Opinion issued January 24 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 11

- 00246

- CV

JOSEPHINE MASUKU , Appellant

V.

BANK OF AMERICA , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11CCV044193



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant , Jose p h ine Masuku , has failed to timely file a brief. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.6( a ) ( governing time to file brief ), 38.8(a) (governing failure of
appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to2

dismissa l, appellant did not respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b) (allowing
involuntary dismissal of case).
Accordingly, w e dismiss the a ppeal for want of prosecution

. We dismiss
any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
# C_2016259EN.01000201.xml

| 16.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8070 — Bancopopular-e/Assets of Barclays Bank)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 259/03)

On 4 July 2016, 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 32016M8070. 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 32016M8070. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 6, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00882

- CV

VILLEJO ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A Good Guys Auto Group ("Good Guys")

, Appellants

v.

C.R. COX, INC D/B/A AAMCO and Carl Cox,

Ap pellees

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV01289

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellees ’ motion for extension of time is hereby GRANTED. The Appellee s ’ brief

is deemed filed

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of August, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

February 28, 2012

Ms. Dorothy Beard Chief-Docket Operations U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Delta Air Lines, Inc. Notice of Intent for Beyond-Perimeter Slot Usage (DCA-Salt Lake City)
Docket DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Ms. Beard:

Pursuant to Order 2012-2-21, Delta Air Lines, Inc. hereby provides notice of its intent to institute new daily nonstop service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) and Salt Lake City (SLC). Delta plans to begin service on or about June 7, 2012 using B-737, B-757, or

other suitable aircraft in its fleet. The new schedule is as follows:

Depart DCA 0745 Arrive SLC 1022 (B-757-200)

Depart SLC 1650 Arrive DCA 2255 (B-737-800)

Delta has contacted the FAA Slot Administration Office and informed them of the following daily slots to be converted: slot #1643, 2000 hour; slot #1424, 2200 hour. The identified slots are currently used for service between DCA and New York LaGuardia, a large hub airport.

Sincerely,

Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director, Government Affairs
and Associate General Counsel

cc: brian.ctr.meehan@faa.gov; carl.nelson@aa.com; howard.kass@usairways.com; benjamin.slocum@usairways.com; dan.weiss@united.com; steve.morrissey@united.com
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2959

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa Jerry Gary, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 3, 2004 Filed: August 18, 2004

___________ Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jerry Gary appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Northern District of Iowa upon revocation of his supervised release. The district court sentenced Gary to 24 months imprisonment and 1 year supervised release. For reversal, Gary argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him above the suggested Guidelines range so that he could complete the Bureau of Prisons-2- (BOP) drug-treatment program and that the district court improperly delegated its authority to the BOP to decide whether Gary will be provided drug treatment in prison. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Upon careful review, we reject Gary’s arguments. The length of his sentence was not an abuse of discretion, because the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines are not binding on the district court, see United States v. Touche , 323 F.3d 1105, 1107 (8th Cir. 2003), and the court based its decision upon relevant sentencing factors, see18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cf. United States v. Shaw , 180 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (revocation sentence of 24 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, which exceeded suggested Guidelines range, was not abuse of discretion where defendant repeatedly violated terms of supervision, and court desired that defendant receive long-term intensive treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and mental health treatment in highly structured environment). The district court did not improperly delegate its authority because the BOP has sole authority to determine which prisoners will participate in the drug-treatment program. See United States v. Jackson , 70 F.3d 874, 877-78 (6th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6334

STEVE CARL CHADWICK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. FRANK BISHOP, JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 00416

- RDB )

Submitted : April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ , DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Steve Carl Chadwick , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Steve Carl Chadwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the con stitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispos itive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chadwick has not made the requisite show ing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7030

JIHAD SHAHADDAH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPUTY GOTCHER, with Arlington County Sheriff’s Dept.; ARLINGTON 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; BETH ARTHUR,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

COUNTY OF ARLINGTON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00883-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: January 28, 2020 Decided: February 7, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harsh Voruganti, THE VORUGANTI LAW FIRM, PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Alexander Francuzenko, Philip C. Krone, COOK CRAIG & 
2

FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Jihad Shahaddah appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2018) complaint and related state law claims. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Shahaddah v. Gotcher, No. 1:18-cv-00883-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. filed June 17, 2019 & 

entered June 18, 2019). 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
Exhibit 23.3

[W.D. VON GONTEN & CO. LETTERHEAD]

March 13,
2008

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-143474) and
Form S-8 (No. 333-141254, No. 333-113619, No. 333-106484, No. 333-61890,
No. 333-93209, and No. 333-22571) of Edge Petroleum Corporation (the "Company"), of our summary report dated January 15, 2008 included as
Exhibit 99.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K in respect of our reserve report relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenues of certain interests of the Company as of
December 31, 2007 and of the data extracted from such reports appearing in "Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties under the caption "Oil and Natural Gas Reserves" and in Note 22.
Supplementary Financial Information on Oil and Natural Gas Exploration, Development and Production Activities (unaudited) of the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended
December 31, 2007, each contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K. We hereby consent to all references to such reports and/or this firm in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K and we hereby consent to all references to such reports and/or to this firm in each such Registration Statement, and further consent to our being named as an expert in
each such Registration Statement and in each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates.

|W.D. Von Gonten & Co.                                   |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ W.D. Von Gonten, Jr.W. D. Von Gonten, Jr. President |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32

                             THINKING TOOLS, INC.
                           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 Thinking Tools, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the
"Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, 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 best of his knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: February 12, 2004

                                  By:  Moshe Zarmi
                                       ------------------------
                                  Name: Moshe Zarmi
                                  Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         and principal accounting officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2953 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2953

   To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from requiring financial 
     institutions to report on the financial transactions of their 
                               customers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 2021

   Mr. Tuberville (for himself, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. Braun) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from requiring financial 
     institutions to report on the financial transactions of their 
                               customers.

    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 ``Protecting Financial Privacy Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FROM REQUIRING 
              FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO REPORT ON FINANCIAL 
              TRANSACTIONS OF CUSTOMERS.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Internal Revenue 
Service shall not be permitted to create or implement any new financial 
account information reporting program that--
            (1) was not in effect as of October 1, 2021, and
            (2) would require financial institutions to report data on 
        financial accounts in an information return listing balances, 
        transactions, transfers, or inflows or outflows of any kind.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--
            (1) In general.--Nothing in this Act shall preempt, limit, 
        or supersede, or be construed to preempt, limit, or supersede, 
        any provision of, or requirement under, the Bank Secrecy Act or 
        any regulations promulgated under such Act.
            (2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        ``Bank Secrecy Act'' means--
                    (A) section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
                (12 U.S.C. 1829b),
                    (B) chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91-508 (12 
                U.S.C. 1951 et seq.), and
                    (C) subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United 
                States Code.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SAMUEL W. BOOTHE,

Appellant,

v.

WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2826

[March 5, 2020]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Susan Lebow, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE 08-008360.

Samuel W. Boothe, Plantation, pro se.

Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, William P. Heller of 

Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Eric M. Levine of Akerman LLP, West 

Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATEOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF**

**VYYOINC.**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Vyyo Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Wayne H. Davis, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Robert K. Mills, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of hisknowledge, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Wayne H. Davis            |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Wayne Davis                    |   |
| Chief Executive Officer        |   |
| February 14, 2008         |   |
|                           |   |
| /s/  Robert K. Mills |   |
| Robert K. Mills      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer        |   |
| February 14, 2008         |   |

 

 

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7277

TONY HOWARD WILLIAMS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN , Res pondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00748

- PJM )

Submitted : April 1 8 , 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Tony Howard William s , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7277 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Tony Howard Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constituti onal right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7277 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1280

LT Case No. 2020-DR-1724

_____________________________

KENNETH EDWARD BAER,

Appellant,

v.

BRIDGET NICOLE BAER,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.

Christopher S. Ferebee, Judge.

Kenneth Edward Baer, St. Augustine, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

January 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., MAKAR, and SOUD, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________