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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2869 

To temporarily limit the authority of the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prescribe chargeable premium rates for 

flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. CASSIDY, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, and Mr. CORNYN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To temporarily limit the authority of the Administrator of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prescribe 

chargeable premium rates for flood insurance under the 

National Flood Insurance Program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NFIP Risk Rating 

5 2.0 Delay Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREMIUM RATE FREEZE. 

7 Notwithstanding section 1308(a) of the National 

8 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(a)), during 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2869 IS

1 the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act 

2 and ending on September 30, 2022, the chargeable pre3 mium rates for flood insurance coverage under the Na4 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et 

5 seq.), as in effect on the day before that date of enact6 ment— 

7 (1) shall remain in effect; and 

8 (2) may not be adjusted by the Administrator 

9 of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LAMON STREET,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 393 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2

nd day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is QUASHED as untimely filed, without prejudice to seek nunc pro tunc relief.
# C_2016311EN.01000701.xml

| 26.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/7

---

Corrigendum to the call for proposals under the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of the trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for period 2014-2020 (Commission Decision (C(2016) 1587))

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 236 of 30 June 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 236 of 30 June 2016

(2016/C 311/07)

On page 47:

for:

for:

‘The complete text of the call for proposals is available on:

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/https%3A//ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-energy/calls/second-2016-cef-energy-call-proposals-2016-2’,

read:

read:

‘The complete text of the call for proposals is available on:

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-energy/calls/second-2016-cef-energy-call-proposals-cef-energy-2016-2’.

---
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 Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (15-018)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

# SUMMARY:

Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

# DATES:

April 1, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767.

NASA Case No.: ARC-17241-1: Optimum Strategies for Selecting Descent Flight-Path Angles;

NASA Case No.: ARC-17299-1: Unmanned Aerial Systems Traffic Management;

NASA Case No.: ARC-17085-1: Electromagnetic Monitoring and Control of a Plurality of Nanosatellites;

NASA Case No.: ARC-17266-1: Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Based Fabrication of Printable Electronics and Functional Coatings;

NASA Case No.: ARC-17335-1: A Simplified Production of Organic Compounds Containing High Enantiomer Excesses.

Sumara M. Thompson-King,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2015-07452 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30565 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAMIEN WOODS, Also Known as Pimp, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:05-CR-243-6

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Damien Woods, federal prisoner # 2 5 9 2 4 -034, appeals the denial of his motion to compel the government to file a motion to reduce his sentence purU n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 22 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30565 Document: 00511797324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2012No. 11-30565

suant to Federal Rule o f C ri m i n al Procedure 35(b). On motion of the government, a court may reduce a sentence to reflect substantial ass i s t a n c e i n the investigation or prosecution of another offender. F E D
. R. C R I M
. P. 35(b). Where the government has agreed to file a Ru l e 3 5 (b) motion and then refuses to do so, such refusal is not reviewable unless it is based on an “unconstit u ti o n al motive,” Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United S t a t e s v. Sneed , 63 F.3d 381, 389 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995), which means a motiv e based on “race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights,” Wayte v. U n i t e d States , 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Wade , 504 U.S. at 185 (citing Wayte , 470 U.S. at 608-09). The defendant must make “a substantial threshold showing that the government’s refusal is based upon unconstitutional motives.” Sneed , 63 F.3d at 389 n.6 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Woods has failed to make that showing. See id. He has not asserted that the government was motivat e d by a discriminatory reason. See United States

v. Urbani , 967 F.2d 106, 109 (5th Cir. 1992). He has also not claimed that the government sought to deprive him of due process by refusing to file a Rule 35(b) motion, to the extent that depriving a defendant of due process could be a constitutionally suspect reason. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-30565 Document: 00511797324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2012
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 15
- 00424
- CR

Adam Guerrero Perez, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D
- 1
- DC
- 14
- 202568 THE HONORABLE CLIFFO RD A. BROWN, JUDGE P RESIDI NG

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is fr ivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for
pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate reco rd with this Court. Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial
court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to providewritten verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was

provided, on or before September 19, 2016

. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on September 8, 2016

.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-27973 of Weider Nutrition International, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
report dated July 8, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Weider Nutrition International, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 1997.

Our audit of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned report
also included the financial statement schedule of Weider Nutrition
International, Inc., listed in Item 14. This financial statement schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audit. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
August 27, 1997
[Crim. No. 2533.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

July 16, 1934.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SIDNEY GETZOFF, Appellant.

Chotiner & Chotiner for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Paul D. McCormick, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

CONREY, P. J.

Tbe sole ground of appeal is that tbe evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Appellant contends that the case for the People depends wholly upon tbe testimony of the witness Ray Pinker, an expert chemist. It appears that in connection with the burglary of a grocery store a small safe was broken open and tbe contents taken away. 'The defendant’s place of residence was in another part of tbe city, but on tbe night of tbe burglary he and another man rented a room in a lodging-house over tbe gro-*722eery store. But they disappeared therefrom before morning. The defendant registered at the lodging-house under an assumed name not his own.

The witness Pinker was a chemist in the employ of the police department of the city of Los Angeles. He made an examination of the safe and its contents as found after the burglary, and also of certain debris taken from the cuff of a pair of trousers which were proved to be the property of appellant. In the safe he found fire-clay, chips of steel, etc., and in the dark trousers “he found the same objects”. ITe also found in the safe a small portion of a button of similar substance to buttons on a jacket belonging to appellant, from which jacket one of the buttons had been removed, and apparently had been torn out by the threads. The witness testified that the chipped portion of the button which he found in the safe corresponded in color, ultra violet fluorescence, ‘ ‘ and joined, that is, in shape and size, to two of the buttons on the jacket”. It is not necessary to extend this opinion by describing the various items of circumstantial evidence outside of the testimony of the witness Pinker, which tend to prove that appellant was one of the men who committed the burglary. We are satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The judgment and the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial are, and each of them is, affirmed.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07463]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form SE; SEC File No. 270-289, OMB Control No. 3235-0327.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies 
of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or 
impossible to submit electronically, as provided in Rule 311 of 
Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.311). The information contained in Form SE 
is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form SE 
is filed by individuals, companies or other entities that are required 
to file documents electronically. Approximately 31 registrants file 
Form SE and it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total 
annual burden of 3 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2e2e0f3edffd3dbded0ddcaf2c1d7d19cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c09092819f8da1a9aca2afb880b3a5a3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 27, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07463 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7037

OMEAKO L. BRISBON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LATICIA OWENS, Head Nurse; MARY LOCKLEAR, Assistant 

Superintendent; BRAD PERRITT, Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03282-H)

Submitted: November 23, 2015 Decided: December 31, 2015

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Omeako L. Brisbon, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Omeako L. Brisbon appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. However, under the circumstances of this 

case, we conclude that the district court should have dismissed 

Brisbon’s complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm 

the dismissal order, with the modification that the dismissal is 

without prejudice. See Brisbon v. Owens, No. 5:14-ct-03282-H 

(E.D.N.C. June 24, 2015). 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 AS MODIFIED
Exhibit 32.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of IGI Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rajiv Mathur, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, state and certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and   (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: May 20, 2009


| |                                                   
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Rajiv Mathur                                  
| | Rajiv Mathur
President and Chief Executive Officer
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

JOSE TERRAZAS, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0350 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR2005-034221-001 

 CR2006-127957-001 

 CR2007-171066-001 

The Honorable Timothy J. Ryan, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker 

Counsel for Respondent 

Jose Terrazas, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 12-2-2021
STATE v. TERRAZAS

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge 

Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Jose Luis Terrazas seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s second successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES TERRENCE BARLOW, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-74, CA-98-138-2) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Terrence Barlow, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Terrence Barlow seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Barlow , Nos. CR-94-74; CA-98-138-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 1998). 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
bovieloantermination.htm




EQUIPMENT LINE LOAN TERMINATION AGREEMENT







THIS EQUIPMENT LINE LOAN TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Termination Agreement") entered into this effective the 31st day of March, 2013, by and between BOVIE MEDICAL CORPORATION ("Borrower") and PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("Bank").







WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, Borrower and Bank entered into that certain Equipment Line Loan Agreement, dated as of October 31, 2011 (the "Equipment Loan Agreement") pursuant to which Bank made available to Borrower a non-revolving line of credit loan in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000.00 (the "Equipment Loan"), which loan is evidenced by that certain Non-Revolving Equipment Line of Credit Note dated October 31, 2011 in the face amount of $1,000,000.00 (the "Equipment Note");  and







WHEREAS, the parties wish to terminate the Equipment Loan effective March 31, 2013.







NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree with each other as follows:







1.           The aforesaid recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by reference.







2.           All capitalized terms and conditions of this Termination Agreement shall have the meaning and definition set forth in the Equipment Loan Agreement.







3.           The Equipment Loan is hereby terminated effective March 31, 2013 and the Equipment Loan Agreement and the Equipment Note shall be deemed terminated, null and void and of no further force and effect as of such date.  Borrower shall not be entitled to request or obtain any further Advances under the Equipment Loan after such date.







4. Simultaneously with the execution of this Termination Agreement, Bank shall mark the Equipment Note "Cancelled" and return the original thereof to Borrower.







5.           This Termination Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall, for all purposes, constitute one (1) original Agreement.  Facsimile copies of this Agreement, with the original signatures of the parties hereto, shall, for all purposes, constitute originals.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands effective as of the day and year first above written.








	
BORROWER:

	
BANK:


	  	  
	
BOVIE MEDICAL CORPORATION

	
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION













	
By:  /s/ Gary Pickett                                                                

	
By:   /s/ Eric Vogt                                                                                                   


	
Name:  Gary Pickett                                                                  

	
Name:   Eric Vogt                                                   


	
Title:  Chief Financial Officer                                                 

	
Title:  Senior Vice President                                 

















{26247491;1}