alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 7

**- 139. Implementation and Enfor**  **cement of 111**  **(d)(2) and 1 11**  **(d)/(2)/129(b)(3) Federal Plans** 

1200 TN 484 6/28/99

1. **AUTHORITY.** To implement and enforce Federal plans promulgated pursuant to sections 111(d)(2) or 111(d)(2)/129(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act. 2. **TO WHOM DELEGATED.**  Regional Administrators. 3. **LIMITATIONS.**

a. **For redelegations from Regional Administrators to States or Tribes only** : Regional Administrators may consider redelegating authority to implement and enforce Federal Plans if all of the following are true: 1. For Tribes, the Tribe has already established its eligibility to be treated in the same manner as a State. (Note: This determination is made pursuant to 40 CFR §§ 49.6 and 49.7). 2. The State or Tribe does not already have an EPA

- approved State or Tri bal plan. 3. The State or Tribe has submitted to the appropriate Regional Administrator a written request for the redelegation and has demonstrated that it has satisfied EPA's criteria for redelegation including, at a minimum, a demonstration of adequate res ources and legal and enforcement authorit y to administer and enforce the Federal plan at issue. 4. The State or Tribe has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Regional Administrator that sets forth the terms, conditions and effective date of the redelegation, and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer of authorit y. The MOA shall include a provision acknowledging that the Regional Administrator has the authority t o revoke all or part of the redelegation if the Regional Administrator det ermines that a State or Tribe has failed to properly implement or enforce the Federal plan. Upon signature of the MOA, the Regional Administrator must publish a notice in the Federal Register that notifies all interested parties of the redelegation and inc orporates the redelegation into 40 CFR Part 62. b. Regional Administrators will continue to retain enforcement authority along with a State or Tribe after redelegation to a State or Tribe of authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan.

c. Regional Admin istrators and/or the Office of Air and Radiation will continue to retain an y other specific authorities reserved to EPA in individual Federal plans. 4. **REDELEGATION AUTHORITY.**

a. The authorit y to implement and enforce Federal plans may be redelegated to States and/or Tribes in accordance with the terms under the Limitations section. This redelegation authority is reserved for the Regional Administrators only

.b. Within the Region, the authority to implement and enforce the Federal Plan may be redelegated to the Re gional Air Division Director, or equivalent, and may not be redelegated further. 5. **ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.**

a. Section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7601(a), as amended b y the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L . No. 101

- 549, 104 Stat. 2399. b. Sec tion 301(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7601(d), as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L . No. 101

- 549, 104 Stat. 2399.

c. 40 CFR §§ 49.6 and 49.7. d. 40 CFR § 60.27.
---

---

| |  | Exhibit
        13.1
| |  | --------------------
| |  |                     

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
Annual Report on Form 20-F TTI Team Telecom International Ltd. (the Company) for the
period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the Report), I, Meir Lipshes, 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) 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.

|Dated:
        March 30, 2004 | /s/ Meir Lipshes
        Meir Lipshes
        Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
No. 12-6460.

#### Sanders *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2498-000]


Cobisa-Person Limited Partnership; Notice of Filing

May 18, 1998.
    Take notice that on April 22, 1998, the Public Service Company of 
New Mexico tendered for filing a Certificate of Concurrence the above-
referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions and protests should be filed on or before May 27, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13692 Filed 5-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1734 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1734

    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand the 
               provisions relating to market exclusivity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 20 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

 Mr. Simon (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Moseley-Braun) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand the 
               provisions relating to market exclusivity.

    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 ``Market Exclusivity Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. MARKET EXCLUSIVITY.

    Section 505(j)(4)(D) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)(4)(D)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new clause:
    ``(vi) If--
            ``(I) an application (other than an abbreviated new drug 
        application) was submitted under subsection (b) for a drug;
            ``(II) no active ingredient of the drug (including an ester 
        or salt of the active ingredient) has been approved in any 
        other application under subsection (b);
            ``(III) the application was filed before September 1, 1982;
            ``(IV) the application was under regulatory review for a 
        regulatory review period (as defined in section 156(g) of title 
        35, United States Code) for at least 78 months; and
            ``(V) the application was approved October 29, 1992,
no application may be submitted under this subsection that refers to 
the drug for which the subsection (b) application was submitted before 
the expiration of 5 years from the date of the approval of the 
subsection (b) application, and no application submitted under this 
subsection that refers to such drug may be approved before the 
expiration of 5 years from the date of approval of the subsection (b) 
application plus the amount by which the regulatory review period 
exceeds 84 months, except that the period for such amount of additional 
market exclusivity shall not exceed 24 months.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Julio Benitez, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and Leemilt’s Petroleum Inc. et al., Respondents. Leemilt’s Petroleum Inc. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Miguel Rosa, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 258]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore his action to the pretrial calendar, inter alia, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs personal injury action was dismissed by order of Justice Braun in March 1998, on the erroneous impression that the action had been marked off the calendar in June 1994 and abandoned, when in fact it had been restored to the calendar by order of Justice Solomon in September 1997. The remedy for that error was a timely motion for reargument (CPLR 2221), a timely appeal (CPLR 5513), or a timely motion to be relieved of default (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Plaintiff did none of these. Justice Braun’s dismissal order has become final. Plaintiff has failed to present valid grounds for reviving this action at this late date. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1753 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1753

                Amending the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 20 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

 Mr. Bradley (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                Amending the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY OF FINASTERIDE AND FINASTERIDE TABLETS.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new headings:

      

       ``  9902.31.12  N-(1,1-dimethylethyl-3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androst-1-ene-                  No change        No change        On or before 12/      
                        17-beta-carboxamide (finasteride) (provided for in                                                         31/96             '';
                        subheading 2933.79.50)...............................  Free                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                     and
       ``  9902.32.02  N-(1,1-dimethylethyl-3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androst-1-ene-                  No change        No change        On or before 12/      
                        17-beta-carboxamide tablets (finasteride tablets)                                                          31/96             ''.
                        (provided for in subheading 3004.90.60)..............  Free                                                                     

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
No. 12-356.

#### Almy, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of BioniCare Medical Technologies, Inc. *v.*Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-6190.

#### Adger *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### A. E. WAXBERG and Wm. A. Birklid, Appellants, v. Alpheld Hjalmar NORDALE and Arnold Mauritz Nordale, cotrustees of the Nordale Estate Trust, Appellee.

No. 12356.

United States Court of Appeals ’ Ninth Circuit.

June 19, 1950.

Warren A. Taylor and George B. Mc-Nabb, Jr., Fairbanks, Alaska, Bailey E. Bell, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellants.

Maurice T. Johnson, Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellee.

Before HEALY, Circuit Judge, and MATHES and DRIVER, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. See Nordale v, Waxberg, D.C. Alaska, 4 Div. 1949, 84 F.Supp. 1004; United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 1948, 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746; Butte & Superior Copper Co. v. Clark-Montana Co., 1919, 249 U.S. 12, 30, 39 S.Ct. 231, 63 L.Ed. 447.
No. 12-8146.

#### Ladson *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7586.

#### Mackey *v.*Graber, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.'
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                    
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|Florida Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Florida Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 7      | 9      | 27     | 68     | 75     | 88     | 226    | 239    | 298   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 328    | 476    | 488    | 596    | 670    | 209    | 232    | 243    | 137    | 116   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 60     | 84     | 84     | 175    | 290    | 336    | 613    | 3,700  | 4,299  | 4,964 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,236  | 5,727  | 6,376  | 5,214  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
No. 12-554.

#### Harr *v.*Brodhead et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1708 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1708

    To renew the previously existing suspension of duty on parts of 
                          aircraft generators.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 19 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

 Ms. Moseley-Braun introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
                and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To renew the previously existing suspension of duty on parts of 
                          aircraft generators.

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

SECTION 1. PARTS OF AIRCRAFT GENERATORS.

    Heading 9902.85.03 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 applies with 
respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, 
on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon a request filed 
with the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from 
warehouse for consumption, of an article described in heading 
9902.85.03 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that 
was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

WILLIAM VIEIRA,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00100-CR

Appeal from the

394th District Court

of Hudspeth County, Texas 

(TC# HU5706)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until November 21, 2016. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Bill D. Hicks, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 21, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9

th day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








I, Tim
Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of HuntMountain Resources Ltd., certify
that:





1.           This
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HuntMountain Resources Ltd. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HuntMountain
Resources Ltd.







Date:
November 14, 2008




/s/
      Tim HuntTim
      Hunt, Chairman, President & Chief Executive
  Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98-ASW-07]


Revision of Class E Airspace; Grove, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which revises Class E airspace at Grove, OK.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 63 FR 12635 is 
effective 0901 UTC, June 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 
817-222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 16, 1998 
(63 FR 12635). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on June 18, 1998. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this action confirms that this direct final rule will be 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 5, 1998.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 98-12742 Filed 5-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned, A. F. Petrocelli, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of United Capital Corp., (the “Company”), does hereby certify,
with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) 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
      7, 2009By:
              /s/
      A. F. PetrocelliA.
      F. Petrocelli
                Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive
Officer