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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 24, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 105 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-20, CP2015-25.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-30139 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I,    Anna T. Chew, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of  Monmouth Capital Corporation;



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 officer(s) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(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:    March 11, 2005







By:  /s/ Anna T. Chew

Anna T. Chew

Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Hertz Corporation et al., Respondents, v City of Syracuse et al., Respondents, and John’s Auto Body Service, LLC, Appellant.

[967 NYS2d 863]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered July 5, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order, inter alia, granted the motion of respondent John’s Auto Body Service, LLC for leave to renew and, upon renewal, adhered to an order entered April 17, 2012.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
3D Printed Polymers For 

Biomedical Applications 

S. Raj Govindarajan, Tanmay Jain, Abraham Joy

Dept. of Polymer Science, University of Akron

Katherine Vorvolakos, Irada Isayeva

FDA
2

The promise of 3D Printing BioStructures

• Potential to print:

– Complex structures

– Personalized medical solutions

– Structures with gradient properties 

(modulus, composition, functionality)

• Need:

– Novel chemistry

– Process optimization for reproducible 

structures
3

Methods for 3D Printing Scaffolds for 

Biological Applications

Advantages Disadvantages

FDM • Good resolution structures with 

reproducible features

• Scaffold 3D printed from pure 

polymer

• High temperature used in 

FDM is deleterious to cells 

and biologicals

• High modulus structures

SLA • Very fast printing of 3D objects

• High resolution of prints

• Diverse chemistry, 

instrumentation, software 

available

• Product contains residual 

monomers, oligomers, 

initiators etc. – not fully 

characterized

Extrusion • Enables ambient temperature 

printing

• Allows incorporation of 

biologicals, cells in printing 

process

• Slow 3D printing process

• Scaffold features are of 

lower resolution

Ink-jet • High resolution

• Very fast printing of 3D objects

• Low viscosity materials only
4

Materials Selection for 

3D Printed Scaffolds 

Extrusion

FDM SLA
5

Viscoelastic Polyesters for 3D Printing

S. Govindarajan et al.; Macromolecules, 2016, 49, 2429

• Solvent-free, low modulus polymer enabling room temperature 3D 

printing

• Degradable, high MW polyester

• Tunable modulus, functionality

• Light induced transition from viscous liquid to elastomeric solid

O O O

N

O

O O

O

O

N

O

O

O

O

N

O

O

O

O

ran

x y z

R O

O
6

Rheological Properties of SC5050
7

Rheological Properties of SC5050

O O O

N

O

O O O

N

O

O O O

N

O

350 nm UV

O

N

O O O

A
8

3D Printed Viscoelastic polyesters

S. Raj Govindarajan, Tanmay Jain
9

CHALLENGES

• Trade-off between printing speed and print quality

• Mechanical failure of a printed structure because of 

adhesion failure in between layers

NEEDS

• Correlation between material bulk properties and print 

parameters

• Methods to quantify filament adhesion to substrate and 

previous layers

• Quantitative methods to determine localized stress

Process optimization
10

Collaborators: • Irada Isayeva, FDA • Katherine Vorvolakos, FDA • Jae-Won Choi, UA

Students on the project: • S. Raj Govindarajan • Tanmay Jain

Funding • NSF • FDA Orise fellowship (SRG)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,573-01

EX PARTE BENNY ALONZO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2011CR5317 IN THE 226TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

firearm by a felon and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appeal this conviction through no fault of

his own. Applicant’s trial counsel has filed an affidavit in which he states that Applicant, who has

several other cases awaiting trial by jury, mistakenly believed that an appeal could be had in this case

after final resolution of all of his pending cases. Counsel states his belief that Applicant was denied

the right to appeal through no fault of his own, but rather through mis-communication and confusion.
2

The trial court has determined that due process requires that Applicant be afforded an out-oftime appeal in this case. See Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We find that

Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction

in Cause No. 2011CR5317 from the 226th District Court of Bexar County. Applicant is ordered

returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the

aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion, the trial

court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be

represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent Applicant

on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date

on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an

appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30

days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: June 12, 2013

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NetZero, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2001 of our reports dated August
14, 2001 included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of United Online, Inc. (Registration No. 333-63704) dated August 24, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of the Company. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-89705, 333-93599, 333-42084, 333-54210,
333-55704 and 333-61534) of the Company of our reports dated August 14, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of the Company, which is incorporated in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Century
City, California
September 25, 2001

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.2


                    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 AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Mark  E.  Larson, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  the  Managing General Partner of the  Partnership,
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  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                           /s/ Mark E Larson
                               Mark E. Larson, Chief Financial Officer
                               AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                               Managing General Partner
                               November 1, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77598-77599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

December 18, 2014.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 23, 2015 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for 
reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 
Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3bcbaa1b2aca086919e9a80809a9c9db3bcbeb1ddb6bca3dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0fff9e2f1efe3c5d2ddd9c3c3d9dfdef0fffdf29ef5ffe09ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a> and (2) Treasury PRA 
Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 8141, Washington, 
DC 20220, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93c3c1d2d3e7e1f6f2e0e6e1eabdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2373716263575146425056515a0d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission may be 
obtained by emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0b0b2a1a09492858193959299ce878f96"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5e5e7f4f5c1c7d0d4c6c0c7cc9bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>, calling (202) 622-1295, or 
viewing the entire information collection request at www.reginfo.gov.

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund

    OMB Number: 1559-0028.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

[[Page 77599]]

    Title: The Community Development Financial Institutions Program--
Certification Application.
    Form: CDFI Form 0005.
    Abstract: The certification application will be used to determine 
whether an entity seeking CDFI certification or recertification meets 
the Fund's requirements for such certification as set forth in 12 CFR 
1805.201.
    Affected Public: Private Sector: Not-for-profit institutions; 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 6,563.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-30097 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-70-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* 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 June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10221 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE JESUS MUNOZ-REYA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-00057-ALL-C

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Jesus Munoz-Reya appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Munoz-Reya contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Munoz-Reya maintains that heNo. 03-10221 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum sentence which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Munoz-Reya acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARRON GRIFFIN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0064-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this date, it 

is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be affirmed. 

DONE this the 5th day of January, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00064-C Document 22 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cynthia Athena BURNS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4813.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

Benjamin Thomas Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, SC, for appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, SC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Cynthia Athena Burns was convicted by a jury of three counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1994), for which she was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment.* Burns’ counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), addressing whether: (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Burns’ conviction, and (2) the district court erred in denying Burns’ motion for a *169new trial based on juror misconduct. Burns was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.

The jury’s verdict “must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). The court must also “allow the Government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.” *United States v. Tresvant,*677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). With these standards in mind, we find that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Burns’ conviction.

Burns also argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for a new trial based on alleged improper contact with a juror. A claim of private contact, communication, or tampering with a juror creates a presumption of prejudice. *Remmer v. United States,*347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954). The presumption of prejudice is rebuttable, however. *Id.*A defendant must support a claim of extrajudicial juror contact by competent evidence, and show that the contact was more than innocuous. *Howard v. Moore,*131 F.3d 399, 422 (4th Cir.1997). Burns cannot meet this burden. Moreover, the district court acted properly when the situation came to its attention, and we find no error in its determination that a new trial was not warranted.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 After Burns filed her notice of appeal, the district court reduced her sentence to twelve months and one day.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1948 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

Veterans Employment and Training for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training 

for fiscal year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, VETERANS EM5 PLOYMENT AND TRAINING FOR FISCAL YEAR 

6 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1948 IH

1 Training for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $256,341,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB