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

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,287]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 18, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by an official of a Missouri State workforce office on behalf of workers of The Doe-Run Company, St. Louis, Missouri.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of March 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-5913 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
AAM-12-349-E 

May 23, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10538 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0359 

Mr. David MacDonald 

President 

Flamingo Air 

262 Wilmer Avenue 

Cincinnati, OH 45226 

Dear Mr. MacDonald: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

On April 27, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Flamingo Air for an extension of Exemption No. 10048 from part 120 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption allowed Flamingo Air, which is operating 

under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one 

testing program. That exemption, however, expired on April 30, 2012; therefore, we will 

treat your request as a new petition. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Flamingo Air. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Flamingo Air an exemption from part 120 to the extent 

necessary to allow Flamingo Air, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the following 

conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Flamingo Air are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

 Flamingo Air part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
#### The Buckeye Savings *&*Loan Association of Bellaire, Ohio, *v.*William D. Smith

(No. 7700)

Submitted November 2, 1933.

Decided November 7, 1933.

*Jas. S. Wade,*for appellant.

Litz, Judge:

This appeal involves the constitutionality of chapter 34, Acts 1933, requiring the trustee in a trust deed to report a sale thereunder to the circuit court (or the judge thereof in vacation) for confirmation.

*285The trust deed in question was executed June 10, 1981. The statute was declared unconstitutional in *Stand*v. *Sill*(decided at this term), on the grounds that it impairs the obligation of contract as applied to prior trust deeds and attempts to confer upon thé courts the decision of non-judicial questions. Each of these points is fully discussed in the opinion of that case.

The order of the circuit court, upholding the validity of the act, is, therefore, reversed and the proceeding dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard P. Kundrat, Chief Executive Officer of NuVim, Inc., certify that:

1. I have  reviewed this Quarterly  Report on Form  10-Q of NuVim,  Inc. for the
period ended June 30, 2008;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining disclosure  controls and procedures (as  defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such  disclosure
controls and  procedures to  be designed  under our  supervision, to ensure that
material  information relating  to the  registrant, including  its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the  effectiveness of  the registrant's  disclosure  controls  and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the  effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed  in this  report any  change in  the registrant's internal control
over  financial  reporting that  occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent
fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or  is  reasonably  likely to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee  of
registrant's  board   of  directors   (or  persons   performing  the  equivalent
functions):

                                       32
<PAGE>

(a) All  significant deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in  the design  or
operation  of internal  control over  financial reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud,  whether or  not  material,  that  involves  management or  other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control  over
financial reporting.

Date: August 19, 2008

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat

Richard P. Kundrat, Chief Executive Officer

                                       33
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7212** 

GEORGE H. BRISBANE, SR. , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 02001

- RDB )

Submitted : October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. George H. Brisbane, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George H. Brisbane, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as a successive but unauthorized motion under 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brisbane has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with o ral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
exv10w2w83








Exhibit 10.2.83




GENON ENERGY, INC. 2002 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

(As Established Effective June 6, 2002)




Termination Amendment



          GenOn Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, formerly known as RRI Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”), having established the GenOn Energy, Inc. 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as established
effective June 6, 2002, and as thereafter amended (the “Plan”), and having reserved the right under
Section 13 thereof to amend and terminate the Plan, does hereby amend and terminate the Plan,
effective as of the dates set forth below:




          1. Effective as of December 3, 2010, the Plan is hereby amended (i) to change the name of the
Plan to the “GenOn Energy, Inc. 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan,” (ii) to change all references in
the Plan to RRI Energy, Inc. with GenOn Energy, Inc., and (iii) as otherwise necessary to reflect
the foregoing.




          2. Effective as of December 3, 2010, the Plan is hereby terminated by adding the following new
Section 21 to the Plan:






     “21. Termination. This Plan is terminated as of December 3, 2010 (the
‘Termination Date’), and no further awards shall be granted on or after the
Termination Date; provided, however, that any Awards outstanding as of the
Termination Date shall remain outstanding and subject to the terms and conditions of
this Plan and the applicable Award Agreements.”



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GenOn Energy, Inc. has caused these presents to be executed by its duly
authorized officer in a number of copies, all of which shall constitute one and the same
instrument, which may be sufficiently evidenced by any executed copy thereof, this 8th day
of December, 2010, but effective as of the dates set forth above.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	GENON ENERGY, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Karen D. Taylor
 	 
	 	 	Karen D. Taylor 	 
	 	 	Senior Vice President-Human Resources

and Administration
Donald M. MUDD, Appellant, v. Carolyn J. STAPLETON-MUDD, Respondent.

No. ED 105517

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: September 4, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Lawrence G. Gillespie, 120 South Central Avenue, Ste. 650, Clayton, MO 63105, Deborah K. Roeder, 1221 Locust, Ste. 1006, St. Louis, MO 63103.

FOR RESPONDENT: Michael L. Schechter, Anne E. Lageson, 8000 Maryland Ave., Ste. 950, St. Louis, Mo 63105.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Donald M. Mudd ("Husband") appeals the judgment dissolving his marriage to Carolyn J. Stapleton-Mudd ("Wife"). We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).1

1

We deny Wife's motion taken with the case, which requests our Court to strike Husband's brief, to dismiss his appeal, and to award Wife damages because Husband's appeal is allegedly frivolous.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  Certification
                                  -------------

I, Douglas C. Morrison, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
          Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
          of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
          Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust (issuer of the Citiseries Class A
          notes, Class B notes and Class C notes) and Citibank Credit Card
          Master Trust I (issuer of the Collateral Certificate);

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
          report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, (a) the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
          pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, with respect to Citibank
          Credit Card Master Trust I for inclusion in these reports is included
          in these reports and (b) the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the trustee by the issuer under the
          indenture with respect to Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust for
          inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and by
          the issuer under the indenture and based upon my knowledge and the
          annual compliance review required under each of those agreements, and
          except as disclosed in the reports, each of the servicer and the
          issuer has fulfilled its obligations under the respective agreement;
          and

     5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
          the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
          conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
          Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
          pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in
          these reports.


Date:  March 31, 2005


/s/ Douglas C. Morrison
-----------------------
Douglas C. Morrison
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Citibank (South Dakota), National Association
Presidential Documents

10999 

Federal Register 

Vol. 74, No. 48 

Friday, March 13, 2009 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of March 11, 2009 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect To 

Iran 

On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, the President declared a 

national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the unusual 

and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy 

of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government 

of Iran. On May 6, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12959 imposing 

more comprehensive sanctions to further respond to this threat, and on 

August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059 consolidating 

and clarifying the previous orders. 

Because the actions and policies of the Government of Iran continue to 

pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign 

policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared 

on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act 

(50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency 

with respect to Iran. Because the emergency declared by Executive Order 

12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 

14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, this renewal is distinct from the emergency renewal of November 2008. This notice shall be published in the 

Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

March 11, 2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–5691 

Filed 3–12–09; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–W9–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESOB#1.EPS</GPH>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5478 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5478

  To clarify the Congressional intent on Federal preemption under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to energy conservation 
                         for consumer products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2006

   Mr. Hall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the Congressional intent on Federal preemption under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to energy conservation 
                         for consumer products.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    Section 327(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6297(a)) is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Testing'' and 
        inserting ``Information, Testing,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``disclosure of 
        information'' both places it appears and inserting ``submission 
        or disclosure of information in any manner''.
                                 <all>
```
Charles W. Schroeder, Elsie A. Schroeder Schneider, Hollis London, Terry Mergers

Reel

, \



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00167

- CV

STEPHENS & JOHNSON OPERATING CO., Henry W. Breyer, III, Trust; CAH, Ltd.

- MOPI for Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.

- Stivers Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.

- Wiegand Resources Captial Account Wiegand Resources; C.T. Ca rden; Myrl W. Dietch Trust, Et al., Appellant s

v.

Charles W. SCHROEDER , Elsie A. Schroeder Schneider, Hollis London, Terry Me n gers Reel, Ted Mengers, Debbie Mengers Quates, August H. Setinmeyer, Carole Schroeder Miller, James M. Schroeder, Sally Schroede r Tinanus, James E. Schroeder, Et al., Appellee s

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC

- 04

- 143 Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The clerk’s record was filed April 10, 2014; however it is being r eturned to the District Clerk of Jim Hogg County because it fails to comply with the Supreme Court Order Directing the Form of the Appellate Record. In particular:

1 ) w hen more than one request for inclusion of items in the record is filed, the clerk must prepare only one consolidated record. Here, it appears the clerk prepared a separate volume for each request; see Supreme Court Order Directing the Form of the Appellate

Record

. Rule 1.1;

2) the documents in the consolidated record must be arranged in a scending chronological order, by date of filing or by date of occurrence, see id. Rule 1.1(d);

3) page numbering does not start on the front cover of the first volume of the clerk’s record and continue to number all pages consecutively

— including the front and back covers, tables of contents, and certification page

— until the final page of the clerk’s record, without regard for the number of volumes in the clerk’s record, see id. Rule 1.1(e); and4) the detailed table of contents must state the date each do cument was filed, see id. Rule 1.1(i).

We therefore order Zonia G. Morales, the District Clerk of Jim Hogg County, Texas, to prepare a new clerk’s record in proper form. We order the new record filed in this court by April 30, 2014 . The clerk must pro vide a copy of the corrected record to any party who has previously made a copy of the original, defective clerk’s record at the trial clerk’s expense. See

id. Rule 1.4.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of April, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2

URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.
405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville, TX 75067
972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax
www.uraniumresources.com

April 9,
2008

Securities
and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

I, Thomas H. Ehrlich, Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/THOMAS H. EHRLICHThomas H. Ehrlich Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerApril 9, 2008 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks