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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031]
RIN 1904-AC54

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Pumps; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting; 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) and public meeting for Energy Conservation Program: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Pumps. This document corrects the terms in 
one of the equations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: pumps@ee.doe.gov.

DATES: April 24, 2015.

Correction

    In the Federal Register published on April 2, 2015, in FR Doc. 
2015-06947, make the following correction:
    On page 17836: Equation 2 is corrected by removing ``13.46'' and 
adding in its place ``17.80''. The corrected equation reads as follows:

[eta]pump,STD = -0.85 * 
ln(Q100[percnt])2 - 0.38 * ln(Ns) * 
ln(Q100[percnt]) - 11.48 * ln(Ns)2 + 
17.80 * ln(Q100[percnt]) + 179.80 * ln (Ns) - (C 
- 555.6)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-09565 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Eric Orlando FOWLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2453

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6454
TILDEN PATTERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00589-JLK-MFU) Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tilden Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tilden Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Patterson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
STATE of Louisiana v. Duvander HURST

No. 2018-KP-0470

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show any error in the rulings of the courts below.

Defendant has now fully litigated three applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Defendant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, defendant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
# C_2020370EN.01001701.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/17

---

ECSEL JOINT UNDERTAKING

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2019

(2020/C 370/17)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.ecsel.eu/documents?value=refresh&f%5B0%5D=creation_date%3A2020

---
Kenneth O'Brien DUNHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-388

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 1 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
DAVID J. BERESOVOY,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 97-7126
v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-362) RITA ANDREWS, (E.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining Petitioner-Appellant’s brief and th e appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. In his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, Pet itioner David J. Beresovoy asserts that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when the Oklahoma state district court of Muskogee County held his1 Because the habeas corpus petition was filed on Aug ust 1, 1995, prior to

the April 24, 1996, effective date of the Antiterro rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Petitioner does not need a certificate of appealability to proceed on appeal. He must, however, obtain a cert ificate of probable cause. -2- parole revocation hearing outside of the twenty day s required by Oklahoma statute. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 991 (1991). Petitioner further alleges that the state court did not have jurisdiction to rule on th e second application to revoke his parole because the court lost jurisdiction due to t he alleged violation of the Oklahoma statute. After careful review of Petitioner’s contentions an d the record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has failed to make a “‘su bstantial showing of the denial of an important federal right by demonstrating thatthe issues raised are debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issue s differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings.’” Smith v. Secretary of New Mexico Dep’t of Corrections , 50 F.3d 801, 821 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Gallag her v. Hannigan , 24 F.3d 68, 68 (10th Cir. 1994)), cert. denied sub nom. Mondragon v. Smith , ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 272 (1995). We therefor e deny Petitioner’s request for a certificate of probable cause 1 for the reasons stated in the district court’s Order Affirming and Adopting Findings and R ecommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed September 25, 1997. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of probable cause is DENIED, and the-3-

appeal is DISMISSED. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
Jeremy SHEPHARD and Emily Shephard and Michael Jackson and Tamisia Jackson v. AIX ENERGY, INC., AIX Operating Company, Bear Creek Services, LLC, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Avery Graves, IV, Republic Well Testing

NO. 2018-C-1266

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 5, 2018

Denied.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Bonnie L. McNamara, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of id-Confirm, Inc. for the three months ended September 30, 2005 (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 id-Confirm, Inc.

Date: January 19, 2006

/s/ Bonnie L. McNamara                  

Bonnie L. McNamara 

Chief Financial Officer 

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30017 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. L A R R YC O L E M A N , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R

- 247- 1
B e fo r e K IN G , J O L L Y , a n d S O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * Th e at t or ney appoi nt ed t o r epr es ent Larr y Col em an has m ove d f orl eave t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ers v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). C o le m a n h a s n o t file d a r e s p o n s e . T h e r e c o r d is in s u ffic ie n tly deve l ope d t o a l l ow c ons i der at i on att hi s t i m e o f any po t ent i alc l ai m of i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

c ounse lide n ti fi ed byc ounse l ; s uch a c l ai m ge ner al l y “ c annotbe resolved on d i rectapp ealw h en [i t ] ha s n ot been rai sed bef ore t h e di st ri ctcourt s i nc e no o ppo r t uni t y e xi s t e d t o de ve l o p t he r e c o r d o n t he m eri t s of t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30017

2 a l l eg a tio n s .” Un itedS ta tes v. Ca n tw ell , 470 F. 3d 1087, 1091 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)
. O uri nde pe nde ntre vi e w of t he r e c o r d a n d co u n s e l’ s b r ie f d is c lo s e s n o n o n fr iv o lo u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e t o w i t h d r a w is G R A N T E D , co u n s e l is e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P EA L I S DI S M I S S ED
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 30, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31034 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RANDALL M. BRAZZEL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:06-CR-50023

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Randall M. Brazzel appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court imposed a non-guidelines sentence of 36 months in prison, which was nine-months above the upper end of the advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27 months calculated in the presentence report. Brazzel argues first that the district court erred by sua sponte imposing a sentencing above the guidelines range without first providing notice of its intent to do so. In support of hisNo. 06-31034 -2- argument he relies on the reasoning of Burns v. United States , 501 U.S. 129 (1991), and F ED . R. CRIM . P. 32(h). His argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Huerta , 480 F.3d 713, 720-23 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2007) (No. 06- 1381). Brazzel also argues that his 36-month sentence was unreasonable. The district court’s sentencing colloquy shows that the court considered Brazzel’s particular characteristics and circumstances and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment and adequate deterrence for further offenses. The court’s comments and written statement of reasons show that the court was aware of the correctly calculated guidelines range and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Brazzel fails to show that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received great weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 707-09 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2976)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - (-)news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - texas(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Technical Announcement        June 16, 2017        USGS: High Plains Aquifer Groundwater Levels Continue to Decline

Technical Announcement        May 14, 2015        Preliminary Wind Energy Impacts Assessment Methodology Released

Technical Announcement        December 16, 2022        DARPA Announces Winners of Artificial Intelligence  Competition to Aid Critical Minerals Assessments

Technical Announcement        January 30, 2017        Shrinking Number of Long-term Monitoring Sites Could Hamper Scientists’ Ability to Measure Recovery of Impaired Streams
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Desert climate and soils

Filters

              - science_science(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(10)
              - california(14)
              - colorado(3)
              - idaho(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(4)
              - north dakota(1)
              - (-)oregon(1)
              - south dakota(5)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(5)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Project        September 18, 2023        New Tools for Modern Land Management Decisions
Exhibit 10.8 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN SERVICES AGREEMENT This First Amendment to that certain Loan Services Agreement dated as of January 1, 2004 (Services Agreement) made between INLAND WESTERN RETAIL REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES, INC, (Business Manager) a Maryland corporation and INLAND MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION (Service Provider), an Illinois corporation, is made as of May 1, 2005. RECITAL Business Manager and Service Provider desire to amend the Compensation paid to Service Provider by providing for a monthly per loan charge in lieu of a percentage charge. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements to be made herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. The Recital set forth above is hereby incorporated herein by reference. 2. Effective as of May 1, 2005, Paragraph 2 of Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and in lieu thereof the following is inserted: 2. Compensation: In consideration of the services rendered by Service Provider under the terms of this Agreement, Service Provider shall be entitled to a monthly fee for each month during the term of this Agreement calculated as follows: $190.00 per loan serviced per month. The monthly fee due shall be paid by the REIT to Service Provider within two (2) days after receipt of each billing. All monthly compensation shall be deemed fully earned on the first day of each month. There shall be no proration of monthly compensation in the event this Agreement is terminated on any day other than the last day of a month. In all other respects the Services Agreement remains in full force and effect.  INLAND WESTERN RETAIL REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES, INC.By:/s/ Brenda Gail GujralIts:Vice President  INLAND MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATIONBy:/s/ Frances C. PanicoIts:President    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 of Anteon  International  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period ended  December 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Joseph M. Kampf,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  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, as amended; 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:  March 4, 2004                           By: /s/ Joseph M. Kampf
                                                   Joseph M. Kampf
                                                   President and Chief Executive
Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Anteon  International  Corporation  and will be  retained by Anteon
International   Corporation   and  furnished  to  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Fipronil Task Force and EPA Registration Review meetings October 2014 - July 2015 

The Fipronil Task Force (FTF) met with EPA on October 30, 2014 to discuss the health effects data needs 

and the ecological and fate data needs for registration review, including data required in the registration 

review DCI issued in March 2013. 

• Meeting sign-in sheets attached 

EPA and the FTF discussed the health effects data needs in a teleconference on July 16, 2015, and the 

upcoming registration review risk assessments. 

• FTF Participants: Jeff Birk and Damien Fages (BASF) 

• EPA participants: Tom Myers, Cathryn Britton, Garland Waleko
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
࿙1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NORTH AMERICAN NATURAL GAS, INC. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Jim
      Glavas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ࿙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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







*/s/*Jim
                GlavasJim GlavasChief Executive
              OfficerAugust
              16, 2005
Dago Bruce HALE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1534

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 15, 2018

Anne M. Rush, Alachua, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda Stokes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits. *See**Amato v. Winn Dixie Stores/Sedgwick James* , 810 So.2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (observing that whether a motion to disqualify was timely filed generally will involve a factual determination, and thus, is reviewed to determine whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's ruling).

Roberts, Rowe, and Ray, JJ., concur.