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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09903]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0054; FRL-9926-90-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Arkansas; Revisions to the State Implementation Plan; Fee Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
related to the Fee Regulations section of the Arkansas SIP that were 
submitted by the State of Arkansas on November 6, 2012. The EPA has 
evaluated the SIP submittal from Arkansas and determined these 
revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(Act or CAA). The EPA is approving this action under section 110 of the 
Act.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Ms. Tracie Donaldson, Air Permits 
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted 
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the 
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule 
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tracie Donaldson, (214) 665-6633; 
email address donaldson.tracie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct rule 
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this 
action no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is 
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 17, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-09903 Filed 4-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Brian M. BURMASTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. C. HOLLAND, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6115

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Brian M. Burmaster, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian M. Burmaster, a federal inmate committed for psychological evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (2012), appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition for failure to exhaust alternative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error, Bur-master has not exhausted available remedies through the commitment proceedings that are being held before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; to the contrary, Bur-master’s § 2241 petition indicates that challenges to his commitment are ongoing before that court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Accordingly, although we grant Burmas-ter’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Burmaster v.*Holland, No. 5:16-hc-02102-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 2017). 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*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2013

NO. 03-12-00456-CR

Dwayne Edward Nash, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

judgment: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment 

of the district court is in all things affirmed; that the appellant pay all costs relating to this appeal; 

and that this decision be certified below for observance.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) will hold a public meeting via “Zoom” on Wednesday, March 23, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Sean Parman, Office of National Public Liaison, at (202) 317-6247, or send an email to                         *publicliaison@irs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that a public meeting via conference call of the ETAAC will be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2022, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. The purpose of the ETAAC is to provide continuing advice regarding the development and implementation of the IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. ETAAC is an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues such as prevention of identity theft and refund fraud. It supports the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. ETAAC members convey the public's perceptions of IRS electronic tax administration activities, offer constructive observations about current or proposed policies, programs, and procedures, and suggest improvements. Please call or email Sean Parman to confirm your attendance. Mr. Parman can be reached at 202-317-6247 or                     *PublicLiaison@irs.gov*. Should you wish the ETAAC to consider a written statement, please call 202-317-6247 or email:                     *PublicLiaison@irs.gov.*

Dated: March 3, 2022.

John A. Lipold,

Designated Federal Official, Office of National Public Liaison, Internal Revenue Service.

[FR Doc. 2022-04992 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 65 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 65

To require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a study on 
   the use of contractors for intelligence activities, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

 Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
        the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a study on 
   the use of contractors for intelligence activities, 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 ``Civilian Contractors Engaged in 
Intelligence Activities Reduction Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE STUDY ON THE USE OF 
              CONTRACTORS IN THE CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

    (a) Study.--The Director of National Intelligence shall conduct a 
study to ascertain the extent to which contractors are used in the 
conduct of intelligence activities and the type of information to which 
such contractors are exposed or have access.
    (b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2015, the Director of 
Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report containing--
            (1) the results of the study conducted under subsection 
        (a); and
            (2) a plan for reducing by 25 percent the number of 
        contractors to the intelligence community with top secret 
        security clearances that are engaged in intelligence activities 
        (including intelligence analysis).
    (c) Reduction of Contractors.--Not later than December 31, 2016, 
the Director of National Intelligence shall reduce the number of 
contractors to the intelligence community with top secret security 
clearances that are engaged in intelligence activities (including 
intelligence analysis) as of the date of the enactment of this Act by 
25 percent.
    (d) Intelligence Community Defined.--In this section, the term 
``intelligence community'' has the meaning given the term in section 
3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,616
<SECURITIES>                                     3,978
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (340)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,082
<PP&E>                                          10,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,521)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,978
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,213
<SALES>                                          7,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,101
<CGS>                                            2,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,832)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        60
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,892)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)


</TABLE>
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

The undersigned, Evan Williams, Chief Executive Officer of Border Management,
Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No.2) of Border Management,
Inc. for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2009 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: August 9, 2010

/s/ Evan Williams
------------------
Evan Williams
Chief Executive Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joseph Leib SHALANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55050

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 26, 2017

Joseph Leib Shalant, Pro Se

Newton Knowles, III, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, State Bar of California, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Leib Shalant, a disbarred attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a California State Bar Rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. *Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park,*159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shalant’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Shalant’s equal protection claim was raised in a prior California State Bar Court proceeding that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. *See*Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6084(a) (‘When no petition to review or to reverse or modify has been filed by either party within the time allowed therefor ... the decision or order of the State Bar Court shall be final and enforceable,”); *Wehrli v. County of Orange,*175 F.3d 692, 694 (9th Cir. 1999) (according preclusive effect to administrative proceedings “where judicial review of the administrative adjudication was available but unused”); *see also Holcombe v. Hosmer,*477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); *DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber,*61 Cal.4th 813, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 352 P.3d 378, 382 n.1, & 386-87 (2015) (setting forth requirements for res judica-ta, or claim preclusion, defining primary rights doctrine, and discussing privity).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Shalant’s requests for costs, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Steven E. TARPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen T. MOYER, Interm Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services; Warden Bobby P. Shearin; Frank B. Bishop, Jr.; Richard S. Miller, Acting Warden of North Branch Correctional Facility; Carroll A. Parrish; J. Michael Stouffer; Wendell M. France, Acting Deputy Secretary of Operations; Sgt. Brian W. Custer; Sgt. Leah A. Youngblood; C.O. II Zachery D. Gentzler; C.O. II Cory A. Dolley; Lt. Bradley A. Wilt; C.O. II Nicholas J. Soltas; C.O. Major Ronald R. Stottler; C.O. Major Robert M. Friend; Richard S. Roderick, Correctional Case Management Manager; C.O. II Steven J. Miller, Jr.; Sgt. Walter E. Iser, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7363

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Steven E. Tarpley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steven E. Tarpley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Tarpley v. Moyer,*No. 1:15-cv-01132-GLR, 2016 WL 5144487 (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2016). 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 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge,the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September. 30, 2013 of Pacific Oil Company (the “Company”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the informationcontained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Pacific Oil Company and willbe furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1

                       DIGITAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                  SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                                 (000'S OMITTED)
                                                                            -------------------------
                                                                              2000              1999
                                                                            --------           ------
<S>                                                                         <C>                <C>
BASIC
Net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders                       $ (1,212)              17
                                                                            ========           ======

Shares:
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                     10,240            4,646
                                                                            ========           ======

Net income (loss) per common share                                          $  (0.12)           0.004
                                                                            ========           ======


DILUTED
Net income (loss) for diluted calculation                                   $ (1,212)              17
                                                                            ========           ======

Shares:
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                     10,240            4,646
     Shares issuable from assumed exercise of options and warrants             1,342               --
     Convertible debt                                                            721               --
     Convertible preferred stock                                               1,314               --
                                                                            --------           ------
                                                                              13,617            4,646
                                                                            ========           ======

Net income (loss) per common share(1)                                       $  (0.12)           0.004
                                                                            ========           ======
</TABLE>

------------------
(1) Potentially dilutive securities not included as their effect would be
    anti-dilutive.

                                    Page 17
Exhibit 32.2














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ended September 30, 2010 of Dime Community Bancshares, Inc., (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kenneth J. Mahon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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.









November 9, 2010


Date









By:  /s/ KENNETH J. MAHON


Kenneth J. Mahon


First Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer