alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 114—NATIONAL QUANTUM INITIATIVE**

Sec.
8801.
Definitions.
8802.
Purposes.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—NATIONAL QUANTUM INITIATIVE

8811.
National Quantum Initiative Program.
8812.
National Quantum Coordination Office.
8813.
Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science.
8814.
National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee.
8814a.
Subcommittee on the Economic and Security Implications of Quantum Information Science.
8815.
Sunset.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY QUANTUM ACTIVITIES

8831.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Activities and Quantum Consortium.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION QUANTUM ACTIVITIES

8841.
Quantum information science research and education program.
8842.
Multidisciplinary centers for quantum research and education.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY QUANTUM ACTIVITIES

8851.
Quantum information science research program.
8852.
National Quantum Information Science Research Centers.
8853.
Department of Energy quantum network infrastructure research and development program.
8854.
Department of Energy Quantum User Expansion for Science and Technology program.
#### § 381.104 Export inspection marks.

The export inspection mark required in [§ 381.105](/on/2024-07-03/title-9/section-381.105) must be either a mark that contains a unique identifier that links the consignment to the export certificate or an official mark with the following form:[[1](#381.104-footnote-1)]

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER29JN16.016/ER29JN16.016_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER29JN16.016/ER29JN16.016_original_size.png)

[[81 FR 42234](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-42234), June 29, 2016]

###### Footnotes - [381.104](/on/2024-07-03/title-9/section-381.104)

[[1](#381.104-footref-1)] The number “1234567” is given as an example only. The number on the mark will correspond to the printed number on the export certificate.
#### § 7.6 Outside employment and activities by Commissioners.

No member of the Commission may devote a substantial portion of his or her time to any other business, vocation, or employment. Any individual who is engaging substantially in any other business, vocation, or employment at the time such individual begins to serve as a member of the Commission will appropriately limit such activity no later than 90 days after beginning to serve as such a member.
#### McMAHAN v. STOGNER

No. 491P89

Case below: 95 N.C.App. 764

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 18 January 1990.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,574
<INVENTORY>                                      1,032
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,817
<PP&E>                                          18,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (850)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,852
<BONDS>                                         81,367
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,753
<SALES>                                        107,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,095
<CGS>                                           19,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,946
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       760
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,083)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2805

___________

Dale E. Bryant, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Berry, *

CO-I, Transportation Officer, Varner *

Unit, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

*

Appellees, *

* Appeal from the United States

PHP Healthcare Corporation, Arkansas * District Court for the

Department of Correction, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

David E. Rowe, PHP Healthcare *

Medical Director, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; Mike Montoya, PHP *

Utilization Review Committee *

Coordinator, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Does, Members of PHP *

Utilization Review Committee from *

5/95 to 2/96, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

___________
1The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-

 Submitted: December 30, 1999

 Filed: January 5, 2000

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dale E. Bryant, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant

of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’

submissions, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment

for the reasons relied upon in its order. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### IN THE MATTER OF: THE FORECLOSURE OF THE DEED OF TRUST EXECUTED BY FIRST RESORT PROPERTIES OF N.C., INC. TO SAMUEL H. POOLE, Trustee, and CHARLES BILLINGS and wife, JANICE BILLINGS, Beneficiaries, Recorded in Book 362, Page 544, Moore County Registry

No. 284A89

(Filed 1 March 1990)

APPEAL by petitioners Charles and Janice Billings pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 94 N.C. App. 219, 380 S.E.2d 128 (1989), and upon discretionary review as to additional issues allowed by this Court on 31 July 1989. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of *Helms (William HJ, J.,*entered 6 June 1988 in Superior Court, MOORE County, dismissing the underlying foreclosure action and vacating an order of foreclosure by the Clerk of Superior Court, Moore County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 1990.

*Jack E. Carter and McCoy, Weaver, Wiggins, Cleveland & Raper, by Richard M. Wiggins, for petitioner-appellants Charles and Janice Billings.*

*Parham, Helms and Kellam, by Raymond L. Lancaster and William H. Trotter, Jr., for respondent-appellee Berkeley Federal Savings and Loan Association.*

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
§ 329.1 Article or livestock subject to administrative detention. Any carcass, part of a carcass, meat or meat food product of livestock, or article exempted from the definition of meat food product, or any dead, dying, disabled, or diseased livestock is subject to detention for a period not to exceed 20 days when found by any authorized representative of the Secretary upon any premises where it is held for the purposes of, or during or after distribution in, commerce or it is otherwise subject to Title I or II of the Act, and there is reason to believe that: ( a ) Any such article is adulterated or misbranded and is capable of use as human food; or
( b ) Any such article has not been inspected, in violation of the provisions of Title I of the Act, any other Federal law, or the laws of any State or Territory, or the District of Columbia; or
( c ) Any such article or livestock has been or is intended to be, distributed in violation of the provisions of Title I of the Act, any other Federal law, or the laws of any State or Territory, or the District of Columbia.
§ 146.9 Terminology and classification; flocks, products, and States. Participating flocks, products produced from them, and States that have met the requirements of a classification in this part may be designated by the corresponding illustrative design in this section. ( a ) *U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored.* (See §§ 146.23(a), 146.33(a), 146.43(a), and 146.53(a) and (b).)
( b ) *U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored State, Layers.* (See § 146.24.)
( c ) *U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored State, Turkeys.* (See § 146.44.)
[71 FR 56328, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended at 74 FR 14716, Apr. 1, 2009; 76 FR 15796, Mar. 22, 2011]
### §1795b. National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility; establishment; management; jurisdiction

There is created the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility. The Central Liquidity Facility, an instrumentality of the United States, shall exist within the National Credit Union Administration and be managed by the Board. The United States district court shall have original jurisdiction over any case to which the Board on behalf of the Facility is a party, without regard to the amount in controversy.

(June 26, 1934, ch. 750, title III, formerly subch. III, §303, as added and amended Pub. L. 95–630, title V, §502(b), title XVIII, §1802, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3681, 3720; Pub. L. 96–221, title III, §309(a)(4), (b)(1), Mar. 31, 1980, 94 Stat. 149; Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VIII, §2813(a)(1), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1206.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 309(b)(1) of Pub. L. 96–221 redesignated subch. III as title III of act June 26, 1934, ch. 750, cited as a credit to this section.

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–369 inserted ", an instrumentality of the United States,".

1980—Pub. L. 96–221, §309(a)(4), substituted "Board" for "Administrator" in two places, such change having been made previously by Pub. L. 95–630.

1978—Pub. L. 95–630, §502(b), substituted "Board" for "Administrator" in two places.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–369 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 2813(c) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1795k of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment effective on expiration of 120 days after Nov. 10, 1978, and transitional provisions, see section 509 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 1752 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 1806 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 1795 of this title.
PSA IS A FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY | WWW.PSA.GOV | FEBRUARY 2024

PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY for the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PROMOTING PRETRIAL JUSTICE AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY SAFETY

Arrest-Free Rates for Defendants Released to the Community in Washington, DC: 

FY 2019 – FY 2023 

Over the last 57 years, the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) has 

become a national leader in the pretrial justice field by effectively supporting a system of nonfinancial release that promotes the fair administration of justice, while also recognizing the need 

to assure community safety. 

Tracking new arrests during the pretrial supervision period is a critical national standard for 

pretrial service programs and used as an outcome measure in at least 36 states and the federal 

judicial system.1

PSA defines the arrest-free rate as the percentage of non-surety released defendants who remain 

free of new, papered, US or serious traffic charges in Washington, DC, while the original case is 

pending. The annual target for PSA’s arrest-free rate is 88%. Our analysis also includes data for 

new arrests occurring in the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia;2 and nationwide. 

During fiscal year 2023, a total of 14,561 defendants were released to the community while 

awaiting trial. Of these, 1,128 defendants were arrested for an offense within DC while awaiting 

trial, leaving an arrest-free rate of 92%. When PSA’s arrest-free rate is expanded to include new 

arrests occurring in Maryland and Virginia, the rate remains relatively stable at around 90%. 

Expanding the analysis nationwide, the arrest-free rate remains consistent at 90%. The table 

below compares arrest-free rates locally, regionally, and nationally. 

Fiscal 

Year

Released 

Defendants

New Arrests New Arrests within 

DC, MD, VA

New Arrests 

within DC Nationwide

Number

ArrestFree 

Rate

Number

ArrestFree 

Rate

Number

ArrestFree 

Rate

2019 18,362 2,344 87% 2,398 87% 2,402 87%

2020 15,438 1,862 88% 1,910 88% 1,914 88%

2021 15,843 1,625 90% 1,698 89% 1,707 89%

2022 16,090 1,200 93% 1,258 92% 1,270 92%

2023* 14,561 1,128 92% 1,420 90% 1,457 90%

1 Source: Measuring What Matters: Outcomes and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Field, National Institute of 

Corrections, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 2011. 

2 This includes statewide data, but the majority of arrests occur in Arlington and Fairfax Counties in Virginia; and 

Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland. 

*On February 9, 2024, the FY 2023 arrest-free data were updated to reflect a correction to Released Defendants

and New Arrests within DC defendant counts.
EX-4.7 LEASE AGREEMENT, DATED JULY 19, 2007






Exhibit 4.7




Lease Agreement



Jin-Ho Park, the president of Fine Tower whose location is 826-24, 25 Yoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu,
Seoul, Korea (“the Lesser”) and Yong-Bae Ku, the CEO of Gmarket Inc. whose location is 6~8fls LG
Life Insurance Building 649-11 oksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea (“the Lessee”) hereby enter
into the following lease agreement.




Subject Matter of the Lease Agreement




826-24 Yoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea



8th floor
of the above building (829,76
m2)



* The above space includes the common area.





	 	1.	 	Lease Period
	 
	 	 	 	The effective period of This Lease Agreement (this “Agreement”) is from August 1, 2007 to
October 20, 2008.






	 	1.	 	Lease Deposit
	 
	 	 	 	KRW 690,250,000
	 
	 	1.	 	Monthly Rent: KRW 10,353,750
	 
	 	2.	 	Monthly Maintenance Fee: KRW 6,777,000
	 
	 	A.	 	Upon the execution of this Agreement, KRW 69,025,000 of the lease deposit shall be
paid and the balance of KRW 621, 225, 000 shall be paid on August 1, 2007.
	 
	 	B.	 	Any matter not specified by this Agreement shall follow the lease agreement between
the Lessor and the Lessee on September 16, 2006 on the 9th to 12th
floors of the same building.
	 
	 	C.	 	To clarify the contents of this Agreement, two (2) original copies of this Agreement
shall be prepared, named and signed by the two parties and each shall keep one copy.





July 19, 2007




The Lesser

Name:

Residence Registration Number:

Address:




The Lessee

Name:

Residence Registration Number:

Address:
### §1441a–1. Definitions

For purposes of section 1441a–2 of this title:

#### (1) State housing finance authority

The term "State housing finance authority" means any public agency, authority, or corporation which—

(A) serves as an instrumentality of any State or any political subdivision of any State; and

(B) functions as a source of residential mortgage loan financing in that State.

#### (2) Nonprofit entity

The term "nonprofit entity" means any not-for-profit corporation chartered under State law that is exempt from Federal taxation under section 501(c) of title 26 and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or individual (including any nonprofit entity established by the corporation established under title IX of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 [42 U.S.C. 3931 et seq.]).

#### (3) Mortgage-related assets

The term "mortgage-related assets" means—

(A) residential mortgage loans secured by 1- to 4-family or multifamily dwellings; and

(B) real property improved with 1- to 4-family or multifamily residential dwellings,

which are located within the jurisdiction of the applicable State housing finance authority or within the geographical area served by the nonprofit entity.

#### (4) Net income

The term "net income" means income after deduction of all associated expenses calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

(Pub. L. 101–73, title XIII, §1301, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 547.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, referred to in par. (2), is Pub. L. 90–448, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 476. Title IX of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 is classified principally to chapter 49 (§3931 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1968 Amendment note set out under section 1701 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, and not as part of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act which comprises this chapter.
• ' • 

''•--^^fNTOF 

Capital Region SPORX^TiON 

community foundation v ; ii-ii.LVi:' 

The Center for Charitable Giving I!/ l-ff] 7 / p o- -30 

February 16,2012 ' "" '- -^^ 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Ref: Sun Country Slot Exemption - Docket Number FAA-2012-0089 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Sun Country Airlines has requested an exemption from the slot limit for Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport (DCA) set forth in § 93.123(a), to permit the FAA to create air carrier slots during 

certain limited hours for Sun Country's use. The proposed air carrier slots would replace two slot 

exemptions under DOT Order 2010-12-16 awarded to Sun Country. On January 6, 2012, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the DOT Order, and Sun 

(dountry will lose its existing service between DCA and Lansing's Capital Region International 

Airport. Specifically, Sun Country desires one daily slot during each of the 1000 and 1100 hours. 

The proposed exemption would permit Sun Country to continue operating its existing services and 

avoid an inequitable result of the Court's order. 

The Sun Country DCA service is of great benefit to the Lansing area's nonprofit community, as 

nonprofit leaders are regularly required to travel to Washington in connection with federal 

grantmaking and regulatory activities. The proposed exemption will ensure that charitable dollars 

are not wasted by having to use more expensive and time-consuming air travel alternatives. 

The Sun Country DCA service is essential to the economic growth of the Greater Lansing Region. 

The daily service is the only large aircraft (737-800) service to Washington Reagan Airport, in the 

state of Michigan outside of Detroit. Prior to Sun Country, the regional community had requested 

the introduction of this service from numerous other airline operators without success. Accordingly, 

it is critical that the FAA take the necessary steps to ensure the continuation of the Sun Country slots 

at the established flight times in support of Greater Lansing's business and economic growth. 

Your immediate approval of this exemption, so that Sun Country can begin to enter flight schedules 

for sale for the balance of 2012, will be greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis W. Fliehma n , 330 Marshall St. * Suite.300'Lansing, MI48912 

President and CE O , ... ; - 517-272-2870 • www.crcfoundation.org 

email: info@crcfoundation.org 

For good. For ever.="'
Draft Permit Comments 

Mike Thompson 

to: 

Jack Faulk 

01/24/2010 11:56 AM 

Show Details 

Jack

  

Enjoyed the meeting in Dallas.  Helped me to better understand what is going on, though I do not think I like it

any better.  So many questions will remain unanswered until  "real world" experience provides an answer.

  

My only comment at this time is as follows:

  

1.            FIFRA requires that all applicators ( commercial or not) of pesticides designated as "restricted" by EPA

be certified prior to use and in most states licensed by the state.  I could easily see a person obtaining this

NPDES Permit to apply pesticides and thinkijng he/she has met all requirements.  I think a sentence in the

beginning of the permit advising the permittee that the NPDES permit does not negate the permittee's

obligation to comply with other applicable state and federal requirements.

  

Micheal Thompson

AR Dept. of Agriculture

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7888.htm 5/12/2010
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.39 What is the difference between a standard and a system? ( a ) Standards are the minimum baseline requirements for the performance of an activity. Standards establish the “what” that an activity should accomplish.
( b ) Systems are the procedural mechanisms and processes for the day-to-day conduct of an activity. Systems are “how” the activity will be accomplished.
§ 202.210 Stipulations. ( a ) The Administrator may enter into a stipulation with any person operating subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended (P&S Act), prior to issuing a complaint that seeks a civil penalty against that person. ( 1 ) The Administrator will give the person notice of an alleged violation of the P&S Act or regulations and provide an opportunity for a hearing;
( 2 ) The person has the option to expressly waive the opportunity for a hearing and agree to pay a specified civil penalty within a designated time;
( 3 ) The Administrator will agree to settle the matter by accepting payment of the specified civil penalty within a designated time;
( 4 ) If the person does not agree to the stipulation, or does not pay the penalty within the specified time, the Administrator may issue an administrative complaint citing the alleged violation; and
( 5 ) The civil penalty that the Administrator proposed in a stipulation agreement has no bearing on the civil penalty amount that may be sought in a formal administrative proceeding against the same person for the same alleged violation.
( b ) [Reserved]