alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50510-50511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0296; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-7]


Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oskaloosa, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal 
Register of August 28, 2017 that modifies E airspace extending upward 
from 700 feet above the surface at Oskaloosa Municipal Airport, 
Oskaloosa, IA, to accommodate new standard instrument approach 
procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. 
The FAA identified that the reference to the Ottumwa, IA Class E 
airspace was not removed from the legal description as it should have 
been.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 
40692, August 28, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0296; corrected (82 FR 
47098, October 11, 2017), Docket No. FAA-2017-0315, modifying Class E 
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Oskaloosa 
Municipal Airport, Oskaloosa, IA.
    Subsequent to publication, The FAA found that reference to the 
Ottumwa, IA Class E airspace was inadvertently left in the airspace 
description. This action removes the wording from the legal 
description.

[[Page 50511]]

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, 
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 2, 2017, and 
effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document 
will be published subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the 
Federal Register of August 3, 2017 (82 FR 40692) FR Doc. 2017-18107, 
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oskaloosa, IA, is corrected as follows:


Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

ACE IA E5 Oskaloosa, IA [Corrected]

0
On page 40694 column 1, on lines 11 and 12, remove the following text:

``excluding that airspace within the Ottumwa, IA Class E airspace 
area.''

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on October 17, 2017.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-23247 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Report of SFBC International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I David Natan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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 Company.

| |                         |  |  | 
| | ----------------------- |  |  | 
| |                         |  |  | 
| |                         | 
| | /s/ DAVIDNATAN*         | 
| | David Natan             | 
| | Chief Financial Officer | 
|

Date: August 14, 2006

* 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.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Mario Cordero – Remarks at FIATA World Congress Los Angeles, CA \u2013 October 9, 2012","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tFdASbiQKg\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-mario-cordero-remarks-at-fiata-world-congress-los-angeles-ca-october-9-2012\/\">Commissioner Mario Cordero – Remarks at FIATA World Congress Los Angeles, CA \u2013 October 9, 2012<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-mario-cordero-remarks-at-fiata-world-congress-los-angeles-ca-october-9-2012\/embed\/#?secret=tFdASbiQKg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Mario Cordero – Remarks at FIATA World Congress Los Angeles, CA \u2013 October 9, 2012” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"tFdASbiQKg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Ron DAVIS, (50% partner); Doctor’s Testing Center, LLC II, Appellants, v. Regina FAVORS; Pinnacle Business Solutions, Inc., Appellees.

No. 11-1523.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 5, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 11, 2011.

Kelley W. Webb, Webb Law Firm, Jacksonville, AR, for Appellants.

Shannon S. Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Janie W. Fenton, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ron Davis and Doctor’s Testing Center, LLC II (plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s1 denial of their motions to remand to state court, and dismissal with prejudice of their consolidated complaints. First, upon careful de novo review of the denial of the remand motions, *see Knudson v. Systems Painters, Inc.,*634 F.3d 968, 975 (8th Cir.2011), we agree with the district court that plaintiffs’ complaints arose under the Medicare Act and thus judicial review was available only in federal court, *see Bodimetric Health Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas.,*903 F.2d 480, 486-88 (7th Cir.1990) (plaintiffs grievance against Medicare carrier which included state-law tort and contract claims was, at bottom, challenge to carrier’s approach to processing claims rather than to validity of regulation, and therefore subject to exclusive review provisions of Medicare Act; party cannot avoid Medicare Act’s jurisdictional bar simply by styling its attack as claim for collateral damages instead of challenge to underlying denial of benefits, or by bringing suit against fiscal intermediary instead of against Secretary of Health and Human Services). Second, upon careful de novo review of the district court’s dismissal of the complaints, *see Hastings v. Wilson,*516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir.2008) (review standard for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) dismissals), we find no basis for reversing the dismissal of the complaints, *cf. Bowen v. City of New York,*476 U.S. 467, 484-85, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986) (distinguishing between case before court raising collateral claim in which claimants challenged systemwide policy that was inconsistent with established regulations, and therefore exhaustion would be futile; and case in which claimant alleges deviation from applicable regulations in his particular administrative proceeding, which is “fully correctable upon subsequent administrative review”). However, we conclude that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. *See Cty. of Mille Lacs v.*
      *671
      *Benjamin,*361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court generally barred from dismissing case with prejudice if it concludes subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motions to remand, modify the dismissal of the complaints to be without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

. The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6204** 

JAMES RUSSELL , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 0:15

- cv - 00267

- DCN )

Submitted : October 28, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before SHEDD and D UNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Russell seeks to appe al the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this s tandard 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 petition 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 Russell 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 legal3 contenti ons are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEPHANIE GALE KAN TER

, Appellant,

v.

ADAM KANTER

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 20 2 1

- 2080 & 4D2022

- 0634

[ November 16, 2023 ]

CORRECTED OPINION

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Linda Alley , Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE 15

- 4139

.

Doreen Inkeles and Randall Shochet of Shochet Law Group, Trenton

, for appellant.

John J. Shahady of S hahady & Wurtenberger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,

for appellee.

P ER C URI A M

.

Affirmed

.

M AY

, L EVINE and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the following meetings:

North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Member Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings

Board of Trustees Corporate Governance and Human Resources Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, Compliance Committee, and Standards Oversight and Technology Committee Meetings

JW Marriot New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130

November 8 (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. central time) and November 9 (8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. central time), 2017

                    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:                     *http://www.nerc.com/​Pages/​Calendar.aspx.*

The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:

Docket No. RR15-2, North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Docket No. RR17-6, North American Electric Reliability Corporation

                    For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-8529, or                     *jonathan.first@ferc.gov.*

Dated: October 27, 2017.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-23853 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > About > Strategies, Budgets, Plans, and Reports > Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 2023 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 414 KB]



2022 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 425 KB]



2021 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 301 KB]



2020 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 253 KB]



2019 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 253 KB]



2018 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 420 KB]



2017 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 334 KB]



2016 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 168 KB]



2015 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 195 KB]



2014 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 428 KB]



2013 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 277 KB]



2012 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 555 KB]



2011 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 173 KB]



2010 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 328 KB]



2009 Annual Employee Survey Results [PDF, 336 KB]



2008 Federal Human Capital Survey Results [PDF, 1634 KB]



FHCS HCAAF Index Graphs — Comparisons of 2006 and 2008 Response Percentages [PDF, 710 KB] Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00540-CR

____________________

JASON DAVID WINFREE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court 

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-10484 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Jason David Winfree pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to the thirddegree felony offense of indecency with a child, enhanced by a prior felony 

conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11(a)(2) (West 2011); 12.42(a) (West 

Supp. 2013). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, assessed a fine of $500, 

and placed Winfree on unadjudicated community supervision for ten years. The 

State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Winfree pleaded “true” to 

violations of his supervision. Finding Winfree violated the terms of his community 
2

supervision, the trial court revoked Winfree’s supervision, adjudicated his guilt, 

and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. 

Winfree’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable points of error. See 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Winfree to file a pro se

response. We received no response from Winfree.

We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and reporter’s record to 

determine whether there are arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found none. 

Therefore, it is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief 

Winfree’s appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-28; compare Stafford, 813 

S.W.2d at 511. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. 

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

Submitted on May 15, 2014

Opinion Delivered June 11, 2014

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
**Exhibit 32**

 

Section 1350Certifications

 

1

----

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

Theundersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer ofCongaree Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), each certify that, to his orher knowledge on the date of this certification:

 

1.               The annual report of the Company for theperiod ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on this date (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:       March 31, 2008 | By:                                                   | /s/ F. Harvin Ray, Jr.                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          | F. Harvin Ray, Jr.                               |
|                                                          | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                                                          |                                                  |
| Date:       March 31, 2008 | By:                                                   | /s/ Charlie T. Lovering                               |
|                                                          |                                                  | Charlie T. Lovering                                   |
|                                                          |                                                  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

2

----
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24039]



[[Page 51444]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): November 6, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 31, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 52 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-18, CP2018-40.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-24039 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P