alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Generalized geologic framework of the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho

By: Raymond L. NaceP.T. VoegeliJ.R. JonesMorris Deutsch

Edited by: Seymour Subitsky

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp725B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 166.407 If a range unit consists of tribal and individually-owned Indian lands, what is the grazing rental rate?

The grazing rental rate for tribal land will be the rate set by the tribe. The grazing rental rate for individually-owned Indian land will be the grazing rental rate set by us.
§ 291.3 When may an Indian tribe ask the Secretary to issue Class III gaming procedures? An Indian tribe may ask the Secretary to issue Class III gaming procedures when the following steps have taken place: ( a ) The Indian tribe submitted a written request to the State to enter into negotiations to establish a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of Class III gaming activities;
( b ) The State and the Indian tribe failed to negotiate a compact 180 days after the State received the Indian tribe's request;
( c ) The Indian tribe initiated a cause of action in Federal district court against the State alleging that the State did not respond, or did not respond in good faith, to the request of the Indian tribe to negotiate such a compact;
( d ) The State raised an Eleventh Amendment defense to the tribal action; and
( e ) The Federal district court dismissed the action due to the State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: November 19, 2015 106411

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NICKLES RUCKER, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 21, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ John P.M. Wappett, Public Defender, Lake George, for appellant. Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered January 2, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced as a second felony offender, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of eight years followed by three years of postrelease supervision, to be served concurrently with a sentence that had been imposed upon similar charges in Washington County. Defendant now appeals.-2- 106411

Defendant claims that defense counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to either request that defendant be sentenced nunc pro tunc to the date that the Washington County sentence was imposed or otherwise ensure that the conditional release dates of the concurrent sentences would be the same. Even assuming this issue impacts the voluntariness of defendant's plea and, hence, survives the unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal, this issue is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Brown, 128 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2015]). To the extent that defendant's contention amounts to a misunderstanding on his part at the time of sentencing that the conditional release dates for both sentences would be the same, this issue involves matters outside the record and, as such, is more properly addressed by motion pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Seminara, 53 AD2d 678, 678 [1976]). Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>



<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 62,171
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       62,171
<PP&E>                                                  5,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                          1,211
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         67,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,087,790
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   3,440
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (1,023,934)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           67,296
<SALES>                                                 9,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        9,332
<CGS>                                                  13,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          13,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      137,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     13,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (154,927)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (154,927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (154,927)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (.05)



</TABLE>
§ 115.410 What types of identification will the BIA or OTFM accept as “verifiable photo identification”? BIA or OTFM will accept the following forms of identification as “verifiable photo identification”: ( a ) A valid driver's license;
( b ) A government-issued photo identification card, such as a passport, security badge, etc.; or
( c ) A tribal photo identification card.
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

#### § 224.80 Under what authority will a Tribe perform activities for energy resource development?

A Tribe will perform activities for energy resource development activities undertaken under a TERA under the Federal authorities provided in the approved TERA. Notwithstanding anything in this part or an approved TERA to the contrary, a Tribe will retain all sovereign and other powers it otherwise possesses.

[73 FR 12821, Mar. 10, 2008, as amended at 84 FR 69613, Dec. 18, 2019]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 92-1076

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JERROLD MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

______________________________________________________ (September 24, 1992)

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Morris was charged with drug offenses arising out of

two separate transactions on different days. The jury acquitted

him of the charges stemming from the first transaction, but

convicted him of those stemming from the second. He appeals

c ontending that, since his sole defense was entrapment, his

acquittal on charges from the first event precluded his conviction

on charges from the second because, to acquit as to the first, the

jury must have found no predisposition, and predisposition must be

measured at a time before any government involvement. In the

alternative, he contends that the government's evidence of

predisposition was insufficient. We disagree with both contentions

and affirm.2

His first argument has been squarely rejected by both the

Second and Ninth Circuits. U.S. v. North , 746 F.2d 627, 630 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied

, 470 U.S. 1058 (1985); U.S. v. Smith

, 802 F.2d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986); U.S. v. Khubani

, 791 F.2d 260, 264 (2d.

Cir), cert de nied , 479 U.S. 851 (1986). We agree with those

results and find those cases consistent with U.S. v. Wells

, 506

F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1975). In W ells we rejected the contention that

the jury should have been instructed that it could fi nd that the

several drug sales were a "course of conduct" induced by government

activity. I d

. at 926-927. We held that the district court

correctly instructed the jury tha t it should consider each count

separately, allowing it to consider whether Defendant was guilty of

any or all of the offenses charged. Id . at 926.

We furth er note that even if the verdicts be considered

inconsistent that is not ground for reversal. U

. S. v. Pena , 949

F.2d 751, 755 (5th Cir. 1991).

Where the jury has rejected an entrapment defense, the

standard of review is whether, when viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the Government, a reasonable jury could

find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was predisposed

to commit the offense. U .S. v. Arditti

, 955 F.2d 331, 343 (5th

Cir. 1992). Here the version of events differs between the

testimony of the Government agent and Appellant. The jury was

entitled to credit the agent's testimony rather than that of the

Appellant. The agent's testimony was more than sufficient to carry

the Government's burden.3

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         230,956
<SECURITIES>                                    58,865
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,456
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               314,294
<PP&E>                                         164,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 528,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,365
<BONDS>                                        303,717
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   528,122
<SALES>                                         19,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,841
<CGS>                                           15,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (40,753)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (10,096)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,673)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,673)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.38)


</TABLE>
#### § 11.1001 Warrant.

The children's court may issue a warrant directing that a minor be taken into custody if the court finds there is probable cause to believe the minor committed the delinquent act alleged in the complaint.
EXHIBIT 32(b)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Overnite Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick D. Hanley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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) 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
Corporation.



|By: |  | /s/ PATRICK D. HANLEY                            
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|    |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



December 10, 2003



30
#### § 166.316 Can a permittee construct improvements on permitted Indian land?

Improvements may be constructed on permitted Indian land if the permit contains a provision allowing improvements.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 519 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          June 8, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 8) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the estate and 
gift taxes over a 10-year period. The bill shall be considered as read for 
amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution, which may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Follow w up questions and items from SNAP application

Monica Shimamura to: Kelley.Kline 12/22/2008 04:32 PM

Cc: Margaret Sheppard, Cindy Newberg

Follow Up: Normal Priority. 

Hi Kelley,

The SNAP team has reviewed GE's SNAP submission and have found a couple of missing items. To find

the GE's SNAP submission complete, we would like to have the following submitted:

1) A discussion of how GE is addressing the flammability risks to supplement the risk calculations and the

list of components GE analyzed. GE could meet this requirement by supplying FMEAs for the: defrost

heater, icemaker, lighting, switches and controls,compressor, mullion heater & temperature control and

providing explanation of how the FMEAs substitute for the fault tree analysis.

2) More detail on GE's training beyond the outline submitted, particularly with respect to adding or

removing the refrigerant for servicing or disposal, and how this differs from training for non-flammable

refrigerants. Provide whatever training GE has actually prepared.

 Please provide the two items mentioned above. GE can claim any of the information as confidential

business information if needed. Once EPA is in receipt of the two items, we can find the GE submission

complete. If you have any questions on the above, please contact me at the number below.

Cheers,

Monica

PS Happy Holidays!

Monica Shimamura

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Stratospheric Protection Division

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J)

Washington DC 20460

(tel) 202.343.9337

(fax) 202.343.2362

Address for hand delivery (UPS/Fed Ex/etc):

1310 L St. NW, 10th Floor (1027N)

Washington DC 20005

.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> .· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> ,.· ́ ̄`·. ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>

 ̧.· ́ ̄`·..· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> .· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>

.· ́ ̄`·.><((((o> ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>.· ́ ̄`·.><((((o> ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧><((((o>
# C_2015230EN.01011701.xml

| 14.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/117

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import into the Union of agricultural products originating in Turkey (codification)’

(COM(2014) 586 final — 2014/0272 (COD))

(2015/C 230/18)

On 20 October 2014 the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 207(2) of the TFEU, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import into the Union of agricultural products originating in Turkey (codification)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import into the Union of agricultural products originating in Turkey (codification)

COM(2014) 586 final — 2014/0272 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 503rd plenary session of 10 and 11 December 2014 (meeting of 10 December 2014), by 144 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 10 December 2014.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE

---
H. Res. 501

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 15, 2000.

Whereas the Nation’s law enforcement officers preserve and

protect the safety and well-being of all the citizens of this

country;

Whereas approximately 740,000 men and women risk their

personal safety every day to fight crime and to safeguard

our citizens;

Whereas peace officers are on the front line in the Nation’s

schools and on the Nation’s streets, preserving children’s

right to learn in schools that are free of violence and citizens’ right to safe communities;

Whereas 134 peace officers lost their lives in the performance

of their duty in 1999 and a total of more than 15,000

have now made that supreme sacrifice;

Whereas on average one officer dies every 54 hours and thousands of officers are assaulted and injured every year;

and

Whereas National Police Week 2000—May 14 to 20, 2000—

provides an opportunity to honor and recognize the officers who have died in the line of duty and to affirm the

Nation’s thanks to the officers who put their lives on the

line on a daily basis to protect our citizens: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 501 EH

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) all peace officers slain in the line of duty and

all peace officers who risk their own personal safety and

well-being to protect this Nation’s citizens should be

honored and recognized; and

(2) the President should issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to honor and

recognize slain peace officers with appropriate ceremonies and respect and to honor and recognize the sacrifices and risks taken daily by all peace officers.

Attest:

Clerk.
H. Res. 439

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 15, 2000.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3843) to reauthorize programs to assist small

business concerns, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Small Business. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered

as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in
2

•HRES 439 EH

clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

SEC. 2. House Resolution 432 is laid on the table.

Attest:

Clerk.