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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 61135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7630]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire

    Pursuant to Section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. 
L. 111-117) (SFOAA), Section 7086(c)(2) of the SFOAA as carried forward 
by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011(Div. B, Pub. L. 
112-10), and Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, 
I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest of the 
United States to waive the requirements of Section 7086(c)(1) of the 
SFOAA and Section 7086(c)(1) of the 2011 Full-Year Continuing 
Appropriations Act with respect to C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire and I hereby 
waive such restrictions.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published 
in the Federal Register.

     Dated: July 20, 2011.
Thomas Nides,
 Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2011-25438 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
```
Summary of Meetings With Escanaba Paper Company

Following the publication on August 6, 2012 of the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding Michigan’s regional haze plan, EPA held two meetings with the Escanaba Paper Company :

August 27, 2012 call Escanaba Paper att endees: Todd Schmidt, Dave Holl and (consultant to Escanaba Paper) EPA attendees: Douglas Aburano, John Summerhay s, Michigan attendees: Bob Irvine, Asad Khan Sy nopsis: The primary

topic of discussion was the form and magnitude of the limit for Boiler 8. EPA had proposed a limit reflecting a weighted average (weighted according to fuel use) of a 0.26 pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) for gas and 0.50 lb/MMBTU for oil

. Escanaba Paper requested a fixed limit irrespecti ve of fuel used. and urged that this limit be between 0.35 and .040 lb/MMBTU, preferabl y 0.375 lb/MMBTU.

August 30, 2012 call Escanaba Paper attendees: Todd Schmidt, Dave Holland (consultant to Escanaba Paper) EPA attendees: Douglas Aburano, John Summer hay s, Michigan attendees: Bob Irvine, Asad Khan Sy nopsis: Again, the primary topic of discussion was the form and magnitude of the limit for Boiler 8. EPA proposed to promulgate a fixed limit of 0.35 lb/MMBTU, and Escanaba Paper agreed.

November 2, 2 012 call Escanaba Paper attendees: Todd Schmidt, Dave Holland (consultant to Escanaba Paper) EPA attendees: Douglas Aburano, John Summerhay s, Michigan attendees: Bob Irvine, Asad KhanSy nopsis: EPA and Escanaba Paper discussed details of the codification of requirements for Escanaba Paper , discussing comments that Escanaba provided by email on November 1, 2012. EPA committed to use the compan y’s formal identity as Escanaba P aper Compan y where appropriate. EPA committed to clarify that the statement in the notice of proposed rulemaking that it viewed the Boiler 9 limit as requiring overfire air did not mean that this particular compliance approach was mandated. Escanaba Paper asked that the codification expressly allow alternative test methods for th e Boiler 9 limit; EPA stated that the intent was for Escanaba Paper, in the context of demonstrating compliance, to have flexibility to use alternate test methods that could be shown to the regulatory agency to provide equivalent, adequate demonstration of compliance. EPA indicated that this might be done by stating that Method 7 is the reference method. Escanaba Paper sought a delay ed compliance date, but EPA stated that it found no justification for delaying the compliance date for a limit that is alrea dy being met.
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:31 AM

To: 'ourgreenhorizons@gmail.com'

Cc: May, Rick (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional In formation - Steven Roote

Dear Mr. Roote:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 2227). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

• Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed set filming

from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 9/1/15. If we do not receive

the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0012 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0012

**2001/12/EC: Council Decision of 19 December 2000 amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field **

*
Official Journal L 003 , 06/01/2001 P. 0027 - 0027 *

Council Decision

of 19 December 2000

amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field

(2001/12/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty instituting the European Community and in particular Article 37 thereof,

Having regard to the Commission proposal,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),

Whereas:

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(3) provides that the specific veterinary actions defined in Decision 90/424/EEC(4) would be financed as from 1 January 2000 by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 33(1) of the Treaty.

(2) It is appropriate to specify what arrangement is to be applied to the management by the Community on the expenditure in question.

(3) It is appropriate that the Commission should manage this expenditure directly, in view of its nature.

(4) Decision 90/424/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following Article shall be inserted in Decision 90/424/EEC:

"Article 40a

Expenditure subject to funding under the terms of this Decision shall be managed directly by the Commission in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 98 of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977(5)."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2000.

For the Council

The President

J. Glavany

(1) Opinion delivered on 16.12.2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2) Opinion delivered on 30.11.2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

(4) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. Decision as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999.

(5) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 (OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 1).
#### Clarence Tanner, Appellant, *v.*Imperial Recreation Parlors, Inc., Respondent.

Argued April 19, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*803J. *Irving Lynch*for appellant.

*Edward T. Boyle*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
#### Tremaine Shenard JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-15552 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 20, 2017)

Tremaine Shenard Jackson, Pro Se

Lisa Tobin Rubio, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Susan R. Osborne, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee

*659Before HULL, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tremaine Jackson, a federal prisoner serving a 120-month sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. On appeal, in a brief filed before the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), Jackson argues that this Court’s decision in United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015), was wrongly decided, that the district court erred in denying his petition based on Matchett, and that the residual clause contained in the career offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), is void for vagueness.

In reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir. 2014) (en banc). In Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557-58, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (“ACCA”) residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), holding that it was unconstitutionally vague because it created uncertainty about (1) how to evaluate the risks posed by the crime, and (2) how much risk it takes to qualify as a violent felony. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Welch v. United States, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1264-65, 1268, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016).

In Matchett, we rejected the argument that the virtually identical career-offender residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) was unconstitutional, concluding that Johnson’s holding did not apply to the Sentencing Guidelines. 802 F.3d at 1194-95. In Beckles, the Supreme Court affirmed that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not. subject to the same vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause as the ACCA, and as such, § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness. Beckles, 137 S.Ct. at 897.

Because Johnson does not extend to the residual clause of the career-offender guideline, Jackson’s claim that his career offender enhancement was unlawful in light of Johnson fails. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Jackson’s § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21
  
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    State or Other Jurisdiction of IncorporationHarris Stratex Networks Algeria S.A.R.L.
    
    AlgeriaHarris Communication Argentina SA
    
    ArgentinaHarris Stratex Networks (Australia) Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaHarris Stratex Networks (Bangladesh) Limited
    
    BangladeshHarris do Brasil Ltda.
    
    BrazilStratex Networks do Brasil Ltda.
    
    BrazilHarris Stratex Networks Canada ULC
    
    CanadaHarris Communications (Shenzhen) Ltd.
    
    The Peoples Republic of ChinaHarris Communication France S.A.S.
    
    FranceStratex Networks S.A.R.L.
    
    FranceHarris Stratex Networks Ghana Limited
    
    GhanaHarris Stratex Networks Holland B.V.
    
    The NetherlandsHarris Stratex Networks HK Limited
    
    Hong KongHarris Stratex Networks (India) Private Limited
    
    IndiaTelsima Communications Private Limited
    
    IndiaPt. Harris Stratex Networks Indonesia
    
    IndonesiaHarris Communications International (Kenya) Limited
    
    KenyaHarris Stratex Networks Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaDigital Microwave (Mauritius) Private Limited
    
    MauritiusTelsima Holding Company
    
    MauritiusHarris Stratex Networks México S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoHarris Stratex Networks (NZ) Limited
    
    New ZealandHarris Communications Systems Nigeria Limited
    
    NigeriaStratex Networks Nigeria Limited
    
    NigeriaHarris Stratex Networks (Clark) Corporation
    
    The PhilippinesHarris Stratex Networks Philippines, Inc.
    
    The PhilippinesHarris Stratex Networks Polska Sp. z.o.o.
    
    PolandHarris Stratex Networks (S) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Republic of SingaporeTelsima storitveno podjetje, d.o.o.
    
    SloveniaHarris Stratex Networks (South Africa) (Proprietary) Limited
    
    Republic of South AfricaMAS Technology Holdings (Proprietary) Limited
    
    Republic of South AfricaDMC Stratex Networks (South Africa) (Proprietary) Limited
    
    Republic of South AfricaHarris Stratex Networks Tanzania Limited
    
    TanzaniaHarris Stratex Networks (Thailand) Ltd.
    
    ThailandHarris Stratex Networks (UK) Limited
    
    DelawareBWA Technology, Inc.
    
    DelawareHarris Communications International, Inc.
    
    DelawareHarris Stratex Networks Operating Corporation
    
    DelawareTelsima Corporation
    
    Delaware
#### Glenn C. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angela C. DEMPSEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16522 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 31, 2017)

Glenn C. Smith, Pro Se

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Glenn Smith, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Smith’s complaint asserts a claim for declaratory relief against Florida judge Angela Dempsey, who dismissed his pro se state court action in 2015 based on a 2008 state court order prohibiting him from proceeding pro se in future lawsuits. In his district court complaint, Smith seeks a declaration that Judge Dempsey’s dismissal of his lawsuit was erroneous because the 2008 state court order violated his constitutional right of access to courts and cannot be enforced.

“We review de novo a district court’s decision that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives it of subject matter jurisdiction.” Doe v. Fla. Bar, 630 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2011). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), “is a jurisdictional rule that precludes the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.” Alvarez v. Att’y Gen. for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012). The doctrine is confined to cases “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

*844The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to Smith’s claim and precludes the district court (and our Court) from exercising jurisdiction over it. Smith is effectively asking the district court to declare the 2008 order, which prohibited him from filing lawsuits pro se, an unconstitutional restraint on his access to courts, and to declare that Judge Dempsey’s 2015 dismissal of his lawsuit erroneously relied on that unconstitutional 2008 court order. In other words, the claim- Smith asserts is brought by a state-court loser complaining about injuries caused by two state-court judgments, and Smith seeks federal review and rejection of those orders. The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. As a result, dismissal of Smith’s complaint was proper.

AFFIRMED.
### E-Rt 

### Ro7TO3-9fV



### - 4 / GPO Corrections to Central Air Conditionerand Heat Pump Proposed Rule published inthe October 5, 2000 Federal Register
1)Page 59598, Table V.2.: Correct the title to read "Revised Reverse Engineering Production Cost Multipliers for 3- ton Unitary Equipment".
2) Page 59614, Table VI.4A.: Correct the numerical value in the table at the rowlabeled "Single Package Air Conditioner; Efficiency Level 11" and column labeled "ARI mean manufacturing cost" from "6.1" to "16.1". 3)Page 59626, Table VI.29.: Correct the numerical value in the table at the row labeled "Payback (years): Packaged Heat Pump" and column labeled "Trial std 6" from "12.81" to 12.8". 4) Page 59627, 2nd column, footnote 39: Correct the footnote to read "It ispossible the NPV does not include the value ofavoided power plants. It should be captured in the price ofelectricity, however, DOE used the same AEO 2000 prices forecasts in the base case projection as well as each trial standard level. It is entirely possible the average and marginal electricity prices do not change, however, DOE did not undertake an analysis to determine the effect, ifany, ofstandards on electricity prices." 5)Page 59627. 3rd column, footnote 36: Delete the footnote. .. 4'

.. 

# *13 DJ.) E£.-R0TO-Qf-4vo-#-13 t 

### GPO Corrections to CentralAir Conditionerand HeatPump Proposed Rule published in the October5,2000Federal Register
1) Page 59598, Table V.2.: Correctthe title to read "RevisedReverse Engineering Production Cost Multipliers for 3- ton UnitaryEquipment".
2) Page 59614, Table VI.4A.: Correctthe numerical value in the table at the row labeled "Single Package Air Conditioner; Efficiency Level II" and column labeled "ARImean manufacturingcost" from "6.1" to "16.1"

. 3) Page 59626, Table V1.29.: Correctthe numerical value in the table at the row labeled "Payback (years): Packaged Heat Pump" and column labeled "Trial std 6" from "12.81" to 12.8". 4) Page 59627, 2nd column, footnote 39: Correct the footnote to read "It is possible the NPV does not includethe value ofavoided powerplants. It should be captured in the price ofelectricity, however, DOE used the same AEO 2000 prices forecasts in the base case projection as well as eachtrial standard level. Itis entirelypossible the average and marginal electricityprices do not change, however, DOE did not undertake an analysis to determine the effect, ifany, ofstandards on electricity prices." 5) Page 59627. 3rd column. footnote 36: Delete the footnote.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2003  (the  "Report"), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby  certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

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


                                   /s/Allen E. Kahn
Dated:  May  15,  2003             ----------------------------------
                                   Allen  E.  Kahn
                                   Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-Q  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.

















                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
#### Angelo GALLOWAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7436

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 28, 2017

Decided: April 12, 2017

Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit'.

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Galloway, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition for lack of jurisdiction. We review the district court’s dismissal order de novo. See Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly determined that it lacked authority to consider the merits of Galloway’s claims under § 2241, as he failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (describing test).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we modify the district court’s dismissal to one without prejudice and affirm as modified for the reasons stated by the district court. Galloway v. Wilson, No. 2:16-cv-00348-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2016); see S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that dismissal for defect in subject matter jurisdiction “must be one without prejudice”). We deny Galloway’s motions for bail or release pending appeal and for summary judgment. 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*
United States Environmental Protection Agency Acid Rain Program OMB No. 2060

- 0258 Approval expires 11/30/2012 

# Notification For Distribution Of

Proceeds From EPA Auctions

Step 1

Provide your Authorized Account Representative (AAR) or Alte rnate AAR identification:

Name AAR ID# (please print) (or Alternate)

Phone # Plant Name and ORIS Code

EPA will send one payment for each plant that you represent for the proceeds from the auctions of allowances. Proceeds payments will be distributed no later than 90 days following the conclusion of the auction. If you are the AAR, or alternate AAR, for multiple plants and the payments are to be made to the same company, either submit a separate form for each plant or attach a list of the plants and ORIS codes. A separate form must be submitted for each plant or list of plants where the payment is made to a different company. You do not need to complete this form for plants that did not have any allowances withheld for the auctions and will not receive proceeds. As the AAR, or alternate AAR, you are responsible for designating to whom proceeds payments

should be made. All payments will be wire transferred to the bank account on record with the EPA Las Vegas Financial Management Center (call 702 -798-2492 to change your company’s bank account information).

Step 2

The proceeds payment should be endorsed to:

Company Name

Taxpayer ID. No. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Step 3

I understand that EPA will continue to make the payments as indicated above until I give new written

instructions to EPA.

Authorized by ______________________________________________ Date _____________

AAR or Alternate AAR

S end this form to one of the following addresses:

for regular or certified mail:

U.S. EPA

Clean Air Market s Division (6204J)

Attention: Kenon Smith 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 for overnight mail:

U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Division (6204J)

Attention: Kenon Smith
1310 L Street, NW

Room 254A Washington, DC 20005

EPA Form 7610

- 11 ( Revised 12

- 2009 )