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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2859 

To provide for the use of passenger facility charge revenue to enhance security 

at airports and to make projects for the installation of security cameras 

eligible for the airport improvement program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2018 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. GARDNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide for the use of passenger facility charge revenue 

to enhance security at airports and to make projects 

for the installation of security cameras eligible for the 

airport improvement program. 

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 ‘‘Secure Airport Public 

5 Spaces Act of 2018’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2859 IS

1 SEC. 2. USE OF PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE REVENUE 

2 TO ENHANCE SECURITY AT AIRPORTS. 

3 Section 40117(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code, 

4 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(H) A project for the construction, repair, 

6 or improvement of facilities at an airport, or for 

7 the acquisition or installation of equipment at 

8 an airport, to enhance the security of any area 

9 of the airport directly and substantially related 

10 to the movement of passengers and baggage in 

11 air transportation. Such a project shall not in12 clude the acquisition, installation, operation, or 

13 maintenance of screening equipment and tech14 nology or the functions or activities of the 

15 Transportation Security Administration under 

16 subsections (d) and (e) of section 114.’’. 

17 SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF CCTV PROJECTS FOR AIRPORT IM18 PROVEMENT PROGRAM. 

19 Section 47119(a)(1)(B) of title 49, United States 

20 Code, is amended— 

21 (1) by striking ‘‘directly related to moving pas22 sengers’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘directly re23 lated to— 

24 ‘‘(i) moving passengers’’; 

25 (2) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end and inserting 

26 ‘‘; or’’; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2859 IS

1 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(ii) installing security cameras in the 

3 public area of the interior and exterior of 

4 the terminal; and’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Edward Charles JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leanne HARTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-15367.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 14, 2014.

Edward Charles Johnson, Florence, AZ, pro se.

*530Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Edward Charles Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Johnson’s action with prejudice after Johnson failed to comply with a court order directing him to include in his amended complaint a description of his previous lawsuits, including the parties, court, case number, and result. Johnson, however, provided in a supplement to his amended complaint and in his • motion to reconsider sufficient case information for the court to review his previous lawsuits. Moreover, less drastic alternative sanctions would be appropriate in this case. Thus, fewer than three out of five factors weighed in favor of dismissal. *See Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing factors for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and affirming dismissal where three out of five factors supported it); *Oliva v. Sullivan,*958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir.1992) (“Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, it should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme circumstances.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Jean LIN, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.

No. 10-909-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 22, 2011.

Eric Dinnocenzo, Trief & Oik, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Tomasita L. Sherer, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Jean Lin (“plaintiff’ or “Mrs. Lin”) appeals from a March 30, 2009 order of the District Court granting the motion for summary judgment of defendant-appellee Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“defendant” or “MetLife”). The action involves a life insurance policy acquired by plaintiffs late husband (“Mr. Lin”) which was contested by MetLife on the grounds that Mr. Lin made a material misrepresentation in the insurance application, discovered during the “contestability period.” Specifically, MetLife sought rescission of the policy based upon the omission, from the original application, of the fact that plaintiffs late husband had been diagnosed and treated for hepatitis B. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

Both parties agree that California law applies. Plaintiff argues that (1) the District Court misinterpreted the standard under California law for determining what constitutes a material misrepresentation in an application for a life insurance policy; (2) the omission of Mr. Lin’s diagnosis and treatment for hepatitis B should not have been considered material to the underwriting process; and (3) there were plausible explanations for why hepatitis B was not listed by Mr. Lin on the insurance application.

We review an order granting summary judgment *de novo,*drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. *See, e.g., Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp.,*582 F.3d 268, 274 (2d Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c).

*414In its careful and well-reasoned opinion of March 30, 2009, Memorandum Opinion and Order, *Lin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*No. 07 Civ. 3218(RJH), 2009 WL 806572 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.30, 2009), the District Court explained why the omission of Mr. Lin’s hepatitis B diagnosis and treatment was a material misrepresentation under California insurance law. For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we affirm judgment disposing of all claims.

*CONCLUSION*

The judgment of the District Court as to all claims is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5160]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Tennessee Valley Authority (Meeting No. 
1527).

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (EST), March 5, 2001.

Place: TVA Chattanooga Office Complex Auditorium, 1101 market Street, 
Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Status: Open.

Agenda

    Approval of minutes of meeting held on January 24, 2001.
New Business
B--Purchase Award
    B1. Supplement to Contract No. 98PPW-231635 with Zurich American 
Insurance Company for workers' compensation, employer's liability, and 
general liability insurance for TVA's Owner Controlled Insurance 
Program.
C--Energy
    C1. Contract with STEAG LLC to design, fabricate, and deliver an 
ammonia vaporization system for each of the selective catalytic 
reduction systems being constructed at TVA's fossil plants.
E--Real Property Transaction
    E1. Public auction sale of approximately 2.73 acres of TVA land in 
DeSoto County, Mississippi, Tract No. XFRESS-1.
F--Other
    F1. Approval to file a condemnation case to acquire property 
interest and a road easement for access to a TVA power project. The 
affected tracts are Tract Nos. LSSSS-1 AND -2AR, South Scottsville, 
Kentucky, Switching Station in Allen County, Kentucky.
Information Items
    1. Delegation of authority to the Vice President, Fuel Supply and 
Engineering Services, or such officer's designee, to assign monetary 
credits received by TVA under the Kentucky National Forest Land 
Transfer Action of 2000.
    2. Modification of Contract No. P00P07-259943 with Virginia 
Electric and Power Company for coal supply to John Sevier Fossil Plant.
    3. Modification of Contract No. P98P07-233158 with Coastal Coal 
Company, LLC, for coal supply to John Sevier Fossil Plant.
    4. Modification of Contract No. P90P07-115734 with Arch Coal Sales 
for coal supply to John Sevier Fossil Plant.
    5. Delegation of authority to the Vice President, Fuel Supply and 
Engineering Services, to award an extension of a term transportation 
contract to CSX Transportation, Inc., for delivery services to Bull Run 
Fossil Plant.
    6. Approval to file a condemnation case to acquire a right-of-way 
easement for the Gallatin Fossil Plant-Hoeganaes Transmission Line in 
Sumner County, Tennessee, Tract No. GFPH-2.
    For more information: Please call TVA media Relations at (865) 632-
6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is also available at TVA's 
Washington Office (202) 898-2999. People who plan to attend the meeting 
and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000.

    Dated: February 26, 2001.
Maureen H. Dunn,
General Counsel and Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5160 Filed 2-27-01; 4:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-M
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Jesse R. Cheatham, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Buckhead Community Bancorp, Inc.;

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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-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;

c) Disclosed in the 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 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 controls 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: December 3, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jesse R. Cheatham  
|                       |  |     |  | Jesse R. Cheatham      
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Novastar Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Scott F. Hartman, Chairman of the Board, Secretary 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; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/    Scott F. Hartman             
|------------------------------------
|Scott F. Hartman                    
|Chairman of the Board, Secretary and
|Chief Executive Officer             



August 6, 2003



This certification is made solely for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### Bryan Randall MONKRES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-16011.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 12, 2011.

Bryan Randall Monkres, lone, CA, pro se.

Peter Ernest Flores, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

*102Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WALLACE and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The California Supreme Court’s rejection of Monkres’ Due Process claim was not an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Monkres argues that he was denied due process when the trial court admitted evidence of uncharged prior sexual assaults against the victim as evidence of her lack of consent to the charged sexual offenses in this case, and of Monkres’ propensity to commit acts of sexual assault. However, Monkres “can point to no Supreme Court precedent establishing that admission of propensity evidence, as here, to lend credibility to a sex victim’s allegations, and thus indisputably relevant to the crimes charged, is unconstitutional.” *Mejia v. Garcia,*534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.2008). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has “not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence [under state law] constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ.” *Holley v. Yarborough,*568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir.2009). Therefore, the state court’s decision to admit evidence of Monkres’ prior uncharged sexual assaults against the victim was neither contrary to, nor an objectively unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also Carey v. Musladin,*549 U.S. 70, 77, 127 S.Ct. 649, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006).

Monkres also argues that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he did not raise the trial court’s admission of the evidence as an issue on direct appeal. But Monkres has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have otherwise prevailed on appeal. *See Miller v. Keeney,*882 F.2d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir.1989); *see also Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Finally, because Monkres has not raised any allegations of fact that would entitle him to relief, his request that we remand for an evidentiary hearing is denied. *See West v. Ryan,*608 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Israel - Eligible Plants Certified to Export Poultry to the United States

June 13, 2023

EstForgnNBR Establishment Name Date Listed Date Delisted Date Relisted

8 Off-Tov (Shan) Hodu-Tov (Shan) Ltd. (Source Est.) 11/12/2006

18 Kornish Chen (1987) Ltd. - Hod Hefer (Source Est.) 01/12/2015

22 Tiv-Tirat-Zvi 2000, Meat Specialties 11/12/2006

37 Tari and Chalak 2 (Source Est.) 04/27/2022

104 Maadaney Yehiam (1993) Ltd. 11/12/2006

108 Of-Tov Products (2001) Ltd. 11/12/2006

Underlined/Bolded Establishments are eligible to produce raw poultry as source material for further processing

Page 1 of 1
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

      ( print page 1311)    
This decision is made pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. Law 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 

*Docket Number:*                     00-036.                     *Applicant:*                     University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.                     *Instrument:*                     Telecommunications Instrumentation Modeling System, Model TIMS-301.                     *Manufacturer:*                     Emona Instruments Pty Ltd., Australia.                     *Intended Use:*                     See notice at 65 FR 68981, November 15, 2000.                 

*Comments:*                     None received.                     *Decision:*                     Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States.                     *Reasons:*                     The foreign instrument provides expandable and customizable rack-mounted student workstations for laboratory instruction of optical and RF-based telecommunication techniques with 49 basic and advanced project modules currently available. A university department of electrical engineering advised December 21, 2000 that (1) these capabilities are pertinent to the applicant's intended purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument for the applicant's intended use.                 

We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured in the United States. 

Gerald A. Zerdy, 

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 01-455 Filed 1-5-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# FULL

# InspectionTaskNames
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Dated:  April      19, 2010 |   | By:    |   | /s/  Eliezer      Goldish |
|                                  |   |   |   |       Eliezer      Goldish     Principal      FinancialOfficer |
**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

 

I, Patricia L. Bitar, CPA., Chief Financial Officer of TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upon my knowledge:

 

(1)   this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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); and 

 

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 
| Date:   March 10, 2015 | /s/   Patricia L. Bitar, CPA |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
|                        | Patricia   L. Bitar, CPA     |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer    |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
FDIC Quarterly FOIA Report

4

th Quarter 2019 (July 1 – September 30, 2019)

1. Number of requests received during quarter: 95

2. Number of requests processed during quarter: 97

3. Number of requests backlogged at end of quarter: 1

4. Status of the FDIC’s ten overall oldest pending FOIA requests from the previous fiscal 

year (i.e., number closed during quarter): All ten (10) requests were closed during the 1st

quarter of FY2019