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.                  

###### Arctic Research Commission

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 91st meeting in Cambridge, VA on November 9-11, 2009. The Business Session, open to the public, will convene at 9:30 a.m. Monday, November 9, 2009 in Cambridge, VA. An Executive Session will follow adjournment of the Business Session.

*The Agenda items include:*

(1) Call to order and approval of the Agenda;

(2) Approval of the Minutes of the 90th Meeting;

(3) Commissioners and Staff Reports;

(4) Discussion and presentations concerning Arctic research activities.

The focus of the meeting will be reports and updates on programs and research projects affecting the Arctic.

Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     John Farrell, Executive Director, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.                

Yours truly,

John Farrell, 

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. E9-25514 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LAVON M. WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv - 00220

- FDW

- DSC

- 2; 3:21

- cv 00084

- FDW )

Submitted : February 9, 2022 Decided: February 24, 2022

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Lavon M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Lavon M. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstratin g that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonst rate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams 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 a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
NWCG Fire Training and Incident Qualifications

Employee Name:

IFPM Position: Prescribed Fire and Fuels Specialist (Moderate Complexity)

NWCG Incident Management Qualifications

Primary Core Requirement: Prescribed Fire Burn Boss, Type 2 (RXB2)

Secondary Core Requirement: Single Resource Boss, Crew (CRWB) OR Single Resource 

Boss, Engine (ENGB) or Helicopter (HMGB)

The purpose of this form is to help identify required and developmental training for the 

NWCG Incident Management Qualification Standards for this position. The required 

training includes the IFPM “Additional Required Training” and the required training for 

the Incident Command Positions (ICS) and/or the Wildland Fire Positions based on the 

2008 Wildland and Prescribed Fire Qualification System Guide (PMS 310-1). Employees 

should refer to individual agency requirements.

Course 

Number

Course Name Training 

Needed

Training 

Completed

Estimated 

Cost

Required Training

S-230 Crew Boss (Single Resource)

S-290 Intermediate Wildland Fire Behavior

S-390 Introduction to Wildland Fire Behavior

Calculations

A-110 Aviation Transportation of Hazardous 

Materials

S-372 Helicopter Manager

Suggested Developmental Training

RX-301 Prescribed Fire Implementation

RX-341 Prescribed Fire Plan Preparation

S-215 Fire Operations in the Wildland/Urban 

Interface

S-234 Ignition Operations

L-380 Fireline Leadership

L-381 Incident Leadership

S-490 Advanced Fire Behavior Calculations 

S-491 Intermediate National Fire Danger 

Rating System

RX-310 Introduction to Fire Effects

RX-410 Smoke Management Techniques

M-580 Fire and Ecosystem Management 

(National or Geographic Level)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Cindy A. Renz, Appellant, v Home Depot USA, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted June 21, 2010;

decided September 16, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2600 

To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made fibers, 

assembled as a multi-species bush, with or without foliage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of manmade fibers, assembled as a multi-species bush, with 

or without foliage. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS OF MAN-MADE FIBERS, 

4 ASSEMBLED AS A MULTI-SPECIES BUSH, 

5 WITH OR WITHOUT FOLIAGE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2600 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Artificial flowers of manmade fibers, assembled as a 

multi-species bush, with or 

without foliage (provided for 

in subheading 6702.90.35) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 107 (Friday, June 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13026]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 
(Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447)

AGENCY: Coronado National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Tucson, Arizona.

ACTION: Notice of new fee site.

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

SUMMARY: The Coronado National Forest proposes to begin charging a new 
$150.00 per day fee for rental of the Kent Springs Cabin, located in 
Madera Canyon, 15 miles west of Green Valley, Arizona. Rental of the 
Cabin includes overnight use. Rental of other facilities within the 
Arizona National Forests has shown that the public appreciates and 
enjoys the availability of historic rental facilities. Funds from the 
rentals will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of the 
Kent Springs Cabin.

DATES: Kent Springs Cabin will become available for rent April, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Coronado National Forest, 300 West Congress, Tucson, AZ 
85701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Makansi, Archaeologist, Coronado 
National Forest, (520) 760-2502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act 
(Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 
publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new 
recreation fee areas are established.
    The Coronado National Forest currently has three other rental 
facilities. These facilities are booked regularly throughout the rental 
season. A business analysis for the rental of the Kent Springs Cabin 
shows that people desire having this sort of recreation experience on 
the Coronado National Forest. A market analysis indicates that the 
$150.00 daily fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of 
unique recreation experience.
    People wanting to rent the Kent Springs Cabin will need to do so 
through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at http://www.recreation.gov by calling 1-877-444-6777. The National Recreation 
Reservation Service charges a $9 fee per reservation.

    Dated: May 28, 2009.
Jeanine A. Derby,
Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest.
[FR Doc. E9-13026 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
##### 



Exhibit 3.

Certification of Vice President and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert V. Tubbesing, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Masonite
International Corporation, (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my
knowledge:



| | 1. |  | The Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
78o(d)); and
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.                                                                                     

Dated: May 7, 2003



| | /s/ Robert V. Tubbesing

Robert V. Tubbesing
Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         274,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,132,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,006,086
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,730,670
<PP&E>                                       2,030,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,416,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,248,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,015,889
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,416,683
<SALES>                                      7,078,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,078,116
<CGS>                                        4,865,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,614,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                374,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (125,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            499,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   499,475
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
#### Chester KIDD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIRBORNE EXPRESS, INC., a/k/a Airborne Freight Corporation; DHL Express (USA), Inc., a/k/a DHL Worldwide Express, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-5146.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 1, 2006.

Gary D. Copas, Gary D. Copas, Attorney at Law, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kim Koratsky, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, Memphis, TN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: MARTIN and COOK, Circuit Judges; and BUNNING, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable David L. Bunning, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Chester Kidd appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Airborne Express. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, and having the benefit of oral argument and the parties’ briefs, we determine that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirm the district court’s decision for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion. We will not consider Kidd’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the test announced in *Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,*252 F.3d 862 (6th Cir.2001), governs his case.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

______________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 4, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

136114(63)(67)(69)(72) Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

KEITH GAYLE DAVIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 136114 

v COA: 270478 
 Ingham CC: 04-000064-CP

FOREST RIVER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

KITSMILLER RV, INC.,

 Defendant.
 

On order of the Chief Justice, motions by General Motors Corporation and 

Chrysler LLC for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are considered and they are 

GRANTED. The motion by the Consumer Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan for 

extension to October 21, 2008 of the time for filing its brief amicus curiae is considered 

and it is GRANTED. The motion by Chrysler LLC for oral argument is GRANTED. 

Five minutes of the time allotted defendant-appellant will be reserved for the argument 

by Chrysler LLC. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 4, 2008 

 Clerk
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3010 

To require the Federal Aviation Administration to implement the recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board following the Board’s investigation of the loss of control of Colgan Air 

Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2010 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Aviation Administration to implement 

the recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board following the Board’s investigation 

of the loss of control of Colgan Air Flight 3407 on 

February 12, 2009, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flight 3407 Memorial 

5 Act’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3010 IS

1 SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN RECOMMENDA2 TIONS OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

3 SAFETY BOARD. 

4 (a) IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN RECOMMENDA5 TIONS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the en6 actment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 

7 Aviation Administration shall implement the recommenda8 tions of the National Transportation Safety Board con9 tained in the Aircraft Accident Report on the Loss of Con10 trol on Approach of Colgan Air, Incorporated, Operating 

11 as Continental Connections Flight 3407 at Clarence Cen12 ter, New York, on February 12, 2009 (NTSB/AAR–10– 

13 01). 

14 (b) DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO PENDING

15 AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

17 after the National Transportation Safety Board pro18 vides the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad19 ministration with a safety recommendation, the Ad20 ministrator shall submit to Congress a notification— 

21 (A) indicating whether or not the Adminis22 trator has determined to implement the rec23 ommendation; and 

24 (B)(i) if the Administrator determines to 

25 implement the recommendation, describing the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3010 IS

1 actions the Administrator plans to take to im2 plement the recommendation; or 

3 (ii) if the Administrator determines not to 

4 implement the recommendation, describing the 

5 reasons for that determination. 

6 (2) PENDING RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later 

7 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

8 this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

9 Administration shall submit to Congress the notifi10 cation described in paragraph (1) with respect to 

11 each recommendation of the National Transpor12 tation Safety Board— 

13 (A) made before the date of the enactment 

14 of this Act; and 

15 (B) that is not implemented before such 

16 date of enactment. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRMS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of  Andrea Electronics Corporation Form on S-8 (Files Nos. 333-133090, 333-82738,
333-82375, 333-142548) of our report dated March 17, 2011, with respect to our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Andrea Electronics
Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the
years then ended, which report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Andrea Electronics Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ Marcum LLP

Marcum LLP 
Melville, New York 
March 17, 2011

---
The Board of Directors
Micro Warehouse, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-33945 and 333-47163) on Form S-8 of Mirco Warehouse, Inc. and subsidiaries
(the Company) of our reports dated February 18, 1998, related to the
consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 1997 and 1996,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1997, and the related schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 1997,
annual report on form 10-K of the Company.


Stanford, Connecticut
March 27, 1998
#### McDonald v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al.

Civ. A. No. 11168.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 22, 1951.

See also 108 F.Supp. 293.

B. Nathaniel Richter, Richter, Lord & Farage, Philadelphia, Pa., for the plaintiff.

Philip Price, Robert M. Landis, Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for the defendant Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Harry R. Axelroth, Daniel J. McCauley, Jr., Axelroth & Porteous, Philadelphia, Pa., for the defendant S. J. Groves & Sons Co.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff asks, under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A., for the production of statements of certain of the defendant’s employees. From what was said at the argument, I assume that the statements were taken a very short time after the accident, which consisted of one of the defendant’s trains running into a mobile crane at a grade crossing. The plaintiff’s decedent, the engineer, was killed. The witnesses were the crew of a freight train which had gone by just before and, I understand, might have seen the crane about to cross the track. The plaintiff has the names of the witnesses and they are all readily available to her. Their depositions have not as yet been taken under the Federal Rules.

There are no special circumstances about the accident which would make applicable what was said in Brauner v. United States, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 468 — no complicated instrumentalities involved in the accident and nothing requiring expert knowledge or special familiarity with the subject to insure full disclosure on the taking of depositions. I know that in De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 403, I said that no more was needed to show good cause than that the accident occurred a year or more ago, that the defendant through its claims department immediately interviewed witnesses and took statements, and that the plaintiff was not in a position to do so until the bringing of the suit after a considerable lapse of time. However, certain statements in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Alltmont v. United States, 3 Cir., 177 F.2d 971, indicate that the Court is of the opinion that these facts would not be sufficient to establish *146good cause under Rule 34 but that additional “special circumstances” would have to appear. These expressions are dicta, because the Alltmont case was a motion under Rule 33 and not Rule 34. However, in the present case it does not appear that any hardship or injustice will result from a denial of the plaintiff’s motion. The whole situation may be clarified when the Brauner case, which is now pending in the Court of Appeals, is decided. I, therefore, deny the plaintiff’s motion as to the statements of these witnesses, with leave to renew it if, after the depositions are taken, special circumstances should appear which would justify granting it.
# z 30-/5: ILE COPY 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD

C0A# 11-12-00328-CR OFFENSE: 22.011 

## RobertThornburgh, Jr. v. STYLE: The State ofTexas COUNTY: Brown COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 35th District Court DATE: 2/5A5 Publish: NO TCCASE#: CR21718

IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

## RobertThornburgh, Jr. v. style: The State ofTexas 

## A?PEllANT*S> Petition cca#: PD-0230-15 CCA Disposition: FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

## -RZfuterb JUDGE: 

### DATE: 0Hl9-**l34>ir JUDGE: fJk UiSU/2^L~ SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD