alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appellant's motion was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of 

good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. 

Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate cause for the delay. 

To the extent that appellant argued that the procedural bars did not apply 

because he was challenging the constitutionality of the laws and the 

jurisdiction of the courts, appellant's argument was without merit. 

Appellant's claims challenge the validity of the judgment of conviction, 

and thus, the procedural bars do apply in this case. 3 See NRS 34.720(1); 

NRS 34.724(1). Because appellant did not demonstrate good cause, the 

motion was procedurally barred. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

IPTCUITAA.. IL 

Pickering 

a rr a atritre. 

Saitta 

J. 

3Appellant's claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. 

Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010. We note that the Statutes of Nevada 

contain the laws with the enacting clauses required by the constitution. 

The Nevada Revised Statutes simply reproduce those laws as classified, 

codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge 

Michael Woomer 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Elko County District Attorney 

Elko County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

     We hereby consent to the use in this Amendment No. 5 to Registration
Statement on Form S-4 of our reports dated May 2, 2002, except as to Notes 20
and 21 to the consolidated financial statements, which are as of November 18,
2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Hanover Compression Limited Partnership, which appear in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Houston, Texas
February 7, 2003
# Official Journal L 116/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 116 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5717 April 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 116

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5717 April 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2014/203/EU |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision of 19 March 2014 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2014-17 (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2014/203/EU

*

Commission Implementing Decision of 19 March 2014 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2014-17 (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.1





AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED WHOLESALE FINANCING PLAN
    
This Amendment No. 7 to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of October 5, 2017 by and between Titan Machinery, Inc., (“Debtor”) and DLL Finance LLC (f.k.a. Agricredit Acceptance LLC) (“Secured Party”) (each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”).  
    
Debtor and Agricredit Acceptance LLC, as predecessor in interest to Secured Party, entered into the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan dated October 31, 2013, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan dated April 1, 2015, Amendment No. 2 to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan dated September 1, 2015, Amendment No. 3 to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan dated April 1, 2016, Amendment No. 4 to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan dated August 31, 2016, Amendment No. 5 to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan dated February 15, 2017, and Amendment No. 6 to the Amended and Restated Wholesale Financing Plan dated September 1, 2017 (as amended, the “Agreement”), and Debtor and Secured Party now desire to further amend the Agreement as set forth below. 
    
NOW THEREFORE, INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Integration. Except as amended herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail. Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


		
	2.
	Amendment. Section 10 of the Agreement titled “Annual Renewal Fee” is hereby deleted in its entirety.    


		
	3.
	Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, including facsimile counterparts, each of which will constitute an original, but which collectively will form one and the same instrument. This Amendment constitutes the final agreement between the Parties and is the exclusive expression of the Parties’ agreement on the matters contained herein. All earlier and contemporaneous negotiations and agreements between the Parties on the matters contained herein are expressly merged into and superseded by this Amendment. Any modification or additions to the terms of this Amendment must be in a written agreement identified as an amendment and executed by both Parties.  




	
						
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the date set forth above.



	DEBTOR
SIGNATURE
	

Titan Machinery, Inc.


	SECURED PARTY
SIGNATURE
	

DLL Finance LLC 
At: 8001 Birchwood Court, Johnston, IA  50131



	Debtor

	

/s/ Mark Kalvoda
	

/s/ Todd R Cate

	Authorized Signature
	Authorized Signature

	Mark Kalvoda, Chief Financial Officer
	10/5/2017   
	Todd R Cate, VP of Operations      10/10/17

	Print Name & Title
	Date
	Print Name & Title
	Date








1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--RFA-CE22-012, The CDC National Centers of 
Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention (YVPCs): Rigorous Evaluation of 
Prevention Strategies To Prevent and Reduce Community Rates of Youth 
Violence; Cancellation of Meeting

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of 
Health and Human Services

ACTION: Notice.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, 
Telephone: (404) 639-6473, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8899fa1a4a3adbb88abacabe6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d79680bebbbcb2a497b4b3b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given of a change in the 
meeting of the Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control 
Special Emphasis Panel--RFA-CE22-012, The CDC National Centers of 
Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention (YVPCs): Rigorous Evaluation of 
Prevention Strategies to Prevent and Reduce Community Rates of Youth 
Violence; June 21-22, 2022, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., EDT.
    The web conference was published in the Federal Register on 
February 1, 2022, Volume 87, Number 21, page 5482.
    This meeting is being canceled in its entirety.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-07243 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION



## MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Idle Test Data Submitted by USCAR to EPA

FROM: Brian Nelson

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

DATE: November 29, 2011



# ______________________________________________________________________________

Idle Test data from USCAR members:



# USCAR data:

Model Year Mfr. Veh. Model Eng. Displacement (L) Idle Test Result (g/min) Efficient A/C Technologies Chrysler C 2.4 28.0 LPM blower, evaporator temp & system pressure control Chrysler B 3.6 24.0 LPM blower, evaporator temp & system pressure control Chrysler A 5.7 26.0 LPM blower, evaporator temp & system pressure control

Ford A 2.0 22.4 reduced reheat
Ford B 2.0 20.0 reduced reheat
Ford C 3.5 12.0 reduced reheat
GM A 1.4 19.4 EVDC, reduced reheat
GM B 2.4 18.3 EVDC, reduced reheat
GM C 3.6 16.0 EVDC, reduced reheat
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8336 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8336

To repeal certain war powers of the President under the Communications 
                              Act of 1934.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2020

Ms. Gabbard (for herself and Mr. Massie) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal certain war powers of the President under the Communications 
                              Act of 1934.

    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 ``Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act 
of 2020''.

SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS UNDER COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

    (a) In General.--Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 606) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsections (c) through (g); and
            (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (c).
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 309(h) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(h)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``and'' before ``(2)''; and
            (2) by striking ``Act;'' and all that follows and inserting 
        ``Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 22

                    NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.
                          SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

    The following are significant subsidiaries of North American Technologies 
Group, Inc.:

    EET, Inc., a Texas corporation

    Industrial Pipe Fittings, Inc., a Texas corporation
  
    GAIA Technologies, Inc., a Texas corporation

    North American Environmental Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation

    All subsidiaries conduct their operations in their corporate names.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Doroteo RUBIO-DURAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40569 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Doroteo Rubio-Duran, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Doroteo Rubio-Duran has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with' *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rubio-Duran has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except- under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 83 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 

Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. MASSIE, and Mr. GOSAR) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, House Administration, Rules, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2010. 

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 ‘‘Responsible Path to 

5 Full Obamacare Repeal Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 83 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AF2 FORDABLE CARE ACT AND THE HEALTH 

3 CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT 

4 OF 2010. 

5 (a) PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE

6 ACT.—Effective October 1, 2019, the Patient Protection 

7 and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) is re8 pealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by 

9 such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not 

10 been enacted. 

11 (b) HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILI12 ATION ACT OF 2010.—Effective October 1, 2019, the 

13 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

14 (Public Law 111–152) is repealed, and the provisions of 

15 law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or re16 vived as if such Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Kevin Lynn FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Isidro BACA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16525

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Kevin Lynn Fernandez, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*379MEMORANDUM **

Kevin Lynn Fernandez, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his *42*U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Fernandez in forma pau-peris status (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of § 1915(g). *Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,*833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We reverse and remand.

The district court denied Fernandez IFP status on the basis that Fernandez had filed four prior actions or appeals in federal court that were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim. However, the district court improperly counted *Fernandez v. North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.,*Case No. 14-1790 (8th Cir. 2014) as a strike because “appellate affirmances do not count as strikes unless the court expressly states that the appeal itself was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.” *El-Shaddai v. Zamora,*833 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, one of the dismissals relied on by the district court as a strike, *Fernandez*ui *State of Nevada, et al.,*Case No 3:06-CV-00511-BES-(VPC) (D. Nev. January 29, 2007), involved removal of the case from state court by a party other than Fernandez. In *Harris v. Mangum,*863 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2017), which was decided after the district court’s dismissal of this action, this court held that dismissal of a case removed from state court by a party other than a prisoner cannot constitute a strike under § 1915(g).

We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8533 

To provide an exception to the volume cap requirement for private activity 

bonds used to finance the preservation, improvement, or replacement 

of certain federally-assisted buildings, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2020 

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts (for herself, Mr. MARCHANT, and Mr. 

CISNEROS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide an exception to the volume cap requirement for 

private activity bonds used to finance the preservation, 

improvement, or replacement of certain federally-assisted 

buildings, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Support Allowing Vol5 ume Exception for Federally-Assisted Housing Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SAVE Federally-Assisted Housing Act’’. 

2 

•HR 8533 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO VOLUME CAP REQUIREMENT FOR 

2 CERTAIN PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 146(g) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended in paragraph (3) by 

5 striking ‘‘and’’, in paragraph (4) by striking the period 

6 at the end and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the 

7 end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) any bond to finance the preservation, im9 provement, or replacement of a Federally-assisted 

10 building (as such term is described in section 

11 42(d)(6)(C)(i), provided that for purposes of this 

12 paragraph, the substantial assistance requirement 

13 under such section will be considered met with re14 spect to any building with more than 20 percent of 

15 units assisted or more than 20 percent of the eligible 

16 basis funded under one or more of the housing pro17 grams covered therein).’’. 

18 (b) LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT.—Section 

19 42(h)(4)(A)(i) of such Code is amended by adding after 

20 ‘‘section 146’’ ‘‘or is described in section 146(g)(5)’’. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of 

23 the enactment of this section. 

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50815

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO RIVAS-SALINAS, also known as Marco Antonio Carrillo-Luna

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-512-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Rivas-Salinas (Rivas) appeals his sentence for illegal reentry

following deportation. Specifically, he challenges the enhancement of his

sentence based upon the district court’s determination that his prior conviction

in California for robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Rivas argues that CAL. PENAL CODE § 211 may be violated not

only by the use of force but also by threats to property. Because § 211 may be

violated by fear of property damage alone, Rivas argues, it does not necessarily

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50815

2

have the use or threatened use of force as an element, does not fall within the

contemporary meaning of robbery, and is not a crime of violence. 

Because Rivas did not object below to the enhancement on the grounds he

asserts on appeal, this court reviews for plain error. See United States v.

Castillo, 386 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2004). In United States v. Tellez-Martinez,

517 F.3d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 2008),this court specifically held that“robbery under

§ 211 of the California Penal Code falls within the generic or contemporary

meaning of robbery as understood by this court” and is, therefore, a crime of

violence under § 2L1.2. Rivas’s arguments to the contrary are, therefore,

without merit.

Rivas additionally challenges, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of

the offense that must be found by a jury. As Rivas concedes, this argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

UnitedStates v.Pineda-Arrellano, 492F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied,

128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.