alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Energy Conservation Standards 

Refrigerated Beverage Vending Mac

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemak

Public Meeting 

Building Technologies Program 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable E

U.S. Department of Energy

June 26, 2008

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercia

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Meeting Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome 9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions and Ag9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking overview 9:30-10:00 am Comments from Participants 10:00-11:15 am Engineering Analysis11:15-11:30 am Break11:30-12:45 pm Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 12:45-1:45 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)1:45-3:00 pm National Impact Analysis3:00-3:30 pm Discussion of Other Issues3:30-3:45 pm Break3:45-4:30 pm NOPR Analyses4:30-5:00 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks5:00 pm Adjourn

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Rulemaking Overview 

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
 To present methodologies and characterize result

date

 To discuss specific issues related to each analysi To seek input from stakeholders on methodologie

and data sources

 To describe upcoming analyses and next steps

Purpose of the Public Meetin

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) dir

seven factors when setting energy conservat

Factor Ana

1. Economic impact on consumers 

and manufacturers

Life-cycle cost analyManufacturer impact 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle cost analy3. Total projected energy savings National impact analy4. Impact on utility or performance Screening Analysis

Engineering analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of 

competition

Manufacturer impact 

6. Need for national energy 

conservation

National impact analy

7. Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant

Environmental assesUtility impact analysiEmployment impact 

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
ScreeningAnalysis

Engineering 

Analysis

Energy Use Characterization

Shipments Analysis

Markups to Determine Equipment Price

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: 

Framework

Document ANOPR NOPR Final Rule Effectiv

Date

Market & Technology Assessment

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Issues for Public Comment

1. Equipment Classes2. Operating Hours of Compressor and Lighting3. Equipment Refurbishment Cycles4. Life-Cycle Cost Baseline Level5. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasts6. Differential Impact of New Standards on Future Sh

Equipment Classes

7. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels for the NO8. Approach to Characterizing Energy Conservation 

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
Comments from Participants

 Participants are invited to provide summary comm

statements

 Participants are invited to raise additional issues 

today

 ANOPR comment period open through July 16, 20

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 28
STATE of North Carolina v. Blaine Markeith BENSON

No. COA18-732

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 4, 2019

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**     I, Vincent E. Estrada, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Visicu, Inc. on Form10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Visicu, Inc.        Dated: August 6, 2007 By:  /s/ Vincent E. Estrada    Vincent E. Estrada    Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Walter Britt GARRISON

No. 427P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Garrison, Walter Britt.

Alvin William Keller, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of December 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the *720decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00082-CR

____________________

EX PARTE AMIR TAVAKKOLI

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-26808 

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

Counsel of record for Amir Tavakkoli filed a motion for leave to withdraw 

as counsel. Although he signed the notice of appeal as counsel of record for the 

appellant, counsel informs the Court that he has not been retained for the appeal.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal is abated and the case is 

remanded to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether counsel should 

be allowed to withdraw as counsel on appeal. The trial court shall determine 

whether appellant has retained new counsel for the appeal. If the trial court 

determines that counsel of record should be allowed to withdraw, and that 
2

appellant has not retained new counsel for the appeal, the trial court shall 

determine whether the appellant is indigent and shall determine whether counsel 

should be appointed, in which case the trial court may appoint new counsel for the 

appeal unless the trial court admonishes appellant as to the dangers of selfrepresentation on appeal and determines that appellant’s decision to relinquish the 

benefits associated with counsel and to proceed pro se is knowingly and 

intelligently made. All appellate timetables are suspended pending resolution of 

this matter in the trial court. A supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders 

and findings made by the trial court pursuant to this Order, together with a 

reporter’s record of any hearings conducted by the trial court, shall be filed with 

the Court of Appeals by May 6, 2013.

ORDER ENTERED April 4, 2013.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
No. 09-818.

#### Irene Romaniuk, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 1006, 130 S. Ct. 1885,

176 L. Ed. 2d 363,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2665.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

*364Same case below, 388 Ill. App. 3d 1139, 367 Ill. Dec. 609, 982 N.E.2d 287.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARSENIO MONTOYA TIONGCO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72896 

Agency No. A037-373-734 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Arsenio Montoya Tiongco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order denying his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. 

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-72896 

petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Montoya Tiongco’s motion to withdraw 

his previous concession of removability, where he failed to demonstrate any 

egregious circumstance that would warrant withdrawing his pleadings. See id. at 

831-32 (describing egregious circumstances that, if present, justify relieving an 

alien of his attorney’s admissions). 

Accordingly, the agency did not err in sustaining the removability charge. 

See Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2007) (because 

petitioner’s admissions at pleadings stage constitute clear, convincing, and 

unequivocal evidence of removability, the government met its evidentiary burden 

of demonstrating removability).

Montoya Tiongco’s contention that the IJ erroneously relied on testimony at 

the relief stage to establish the removability charge is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Planck Aerosystems Inc, 3106 Maple St, San Diego, CA 92104 Ph : (619) 770

- 8150 www.planckaero.com Page 1 20 January 2016 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption 12535; Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2015−1479
Dear Sir or Madam: The following constitutes a petition to amend Exemption 12535, which was granted to Planck Aerosystems Inc which was granted on 20 August 2015. The amendment requests to include additional types of small unmanned aircraft systems ( s UAS) to the existing exemption. The additional s UAS types will be fully compliant and follow all restrictions of the existing issued exemption.
The additional sUAS are:

 3D Robotics IRIS+

 DJI Matrice 100

 Parrot Bebop

 Sensefly eXom

D ocumentation related to these sUAS are submitted along with this petition , with links provided in the Appendix. I t is our opinion that they do not present any additional risks for safe and consistent operations under the existing exemption. Sincerely,

David Twining Chief Operating Officer Planck AerosystemsPlanck Aerosystems Inc, 3106 Maple St, San Diego, CA 92104 Ph : (619) 770

- 8150 www.planckaero.com Page 2 Appendix A Additional sUAS Documentation Additional information on the additional sUAS is submitted along with this petition , except where noted below . Links to this documentation can be found below.
3D Robotics IRIS+

 https://3dr.com/wp

- content/uploads/2015/02/IRIS

- Plus

- Operation

- Manual

- vH

- web.pdf

 https://3dr.com/wp

- content/uploads/2015/04/IRIS

- Plus

- Flight

- Checklist

- vB.pdf
DJI Matrice 100

 (file size too large to upload to regulations.gov) http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_User_Manual_v1.4__en.pdf

 http:// download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_Disclaimer_and_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf Parrot Bebop

 htt ps://parrotcontact.parrot.com/website/user

- guides/download

- user - guides.php?pdf=bebop

drone/Bebop

- drone_User

- guide_UK.pdf Sensefly eXom

 https://www.sensefly.com/fileadmin/user_upload/sensefly/documents/brochures/eXom

brochure

- en.pdf

 https://www.sensefly.com/fileadmin /user_upload/sensefly/documents/senseFly

- eXom

Technical

- Specifications.pdf
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned,  Robert A. Bourne,  the  President and Treasurer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income  Fund V, Ltd.  (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.

Date:    March 27, 2003               /s/ Robert A. Bourne
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Name:  Robert A. Bourne
                                      Title:     President and Treasurer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2002, of Cedar Brakes II, L.L.C. (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Clark C. Smith, President (Principal Executive Officer), certify (i) that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                              /s/ Clark C. Smith
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Clark C. Smith
                                              President
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)

                                              November 14, 2002
Proclamation 8346 of February 27, 2009

# American Red Cross Month, 2009

Sixty-two years after its founding, the Red Cross was instrumental in what President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the “greatest single crusade of mercy in all of history.” In 1943, at the height of World War II, President Roosevelt called on the American people to support the troops by supporting the Red Cross, which provided food, blood, and supplies to American troops, allies, and civilians across the world. President Roosevelt asked Americans to donate funds to the Red Cross, setting a goal of $125 million for 6 weeks of fundraising. The American people responded with characteristic generosity, opening their hearts and wallets. The Red Cross met this goal in less than 6 weeks. During that season of generosity and unity, President Roosevelt proclaimed March 1943 as the first Red Cross Month.

The Red Cross has continued to serve those suffering from large- and small-scale disasters. The organization is best known for its work helping communities deal with major disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. These large-scale disasters represent a major part of the work of the American Red Cross. Just as important are the tens of thousands of small-scale disasters that occur every day in communities nationwide, and the volunteers who respond to them. These efforts include supporting our military and their families, collecting and distributing blood, helping the needy, delivering health and safety education, and providing aid abroad.

In every response, volunteers are the key to Red Cross efforts. Volunteers represent 96 percent of the Red Cross workforce. Without their giving spirit, disaster relief operations would fall short, blood donations would fail, and the mission of the Red Cross would go unfulfilled. Whether helping military families stay connected with service members around the world, teaching CPR and first aid, or supporting other members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, volunteers are critical to the success of each and every Red Cross endeavor. These individuals epitomize the generosity and community spirit of the American people.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America and Honorary Chairman of the American Red Cross, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States do hereby proclaim March 2009 as American Red Cross Month. I encourage all Americans to support this organization’s noble humanitarian mission.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.



[FR Doc. E9-4818 Billing code 3195-W9-P
STATE v. Douglas Wayne STANALAND

333P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2019

Douglas Wayne Stanaland, for Stanaland, Douglas Wayne.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of May 2019 by Defendant for Petition for Redress of Grievances:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2019."
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to 
Innovative Foods, Inc. of South San Francisco, California, an exclusive 
license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/917,797, ``Novel 
Infrared Dry Blanching (IDB), Infrared Blanching, and Infrared Drying 
Technologies for Food Processing'', filed on August 13, 2004.

DATES: Comments must be received April 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in 
this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as Innovative Foods, Inc. of 
South San Francisco, California has submitted a complete and sufficient 
application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be 
royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be 
granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published 
Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and 
argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be 
consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E9-5235 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
EXHIBIT
      31.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Peter
      M. Kuhn, Chief Executive Officer of Bullion River Gold Corp. (the "small
      business issuer"), certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement
      of
      a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were
      made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly
      Report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects
      the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;





4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and
      I
      have:





a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;





b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c)
      presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on My evaluation as of the Evaluation
      Date;





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors
      and
      the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
      the equivalent function);





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls.





Dated:
                October 25, 2006
            
            Signature:
            /s/
                Peter M. Kuhn
              Peter
                M. KuhnChief
                Executive Officer
No. 09-650.

#### Kelmer Da Silva Neves, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

560 U.S. 901, 130 S. Ct. 3273,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1179,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3905.

May 17, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration in light of Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 130 S. Ct. 827, 175 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2010).

Same case below, 568 F.3d 41.