alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1666a. Regulation of credit reports

#### (a) Reports by creditor on obligor's failure to pay amount regarded as billing error

After receiving a notice from an obligor as provided in section 1666(a) of this title, a creditor or his agent may not directly or indirectly threaten to report to any person adversely on the obligor's credit rating or credit standing because of the obligor's failure to pay the amount indicated by the obligor under section 1666(a)(2) of this title, and such amount may not be reported as delinquent to any third party until the creditor has met the requirements of section 1666 of this title and has allowed the obligor the same number of days (not less than ten) thereafter to make payment as is provided under the credit agreement with the obligor for the payment of undisputed amounts.

#### (b) Reports by creditor on delinquent amounts in dispute; notification of obligor of parties notified of delinquency

If a creditor receives a further written notice from an obligor that an amount is still in dispute within the time allowed for payment under subsection (a) of this section, a creditor may not report to any third party that the amount of the obligor is delinquent because the obligor has failed to pay an amount which he has indicated under section 1666(a)(2) of this title, unless the creditor also reports that the amount is in dispute and, at the same time, notifies the obligor of the name and address of each party to whom the creditor is reporting information concerning the delinquency.

#### (c) Reports by creditor of subsequent resolution of delinquent amounts

A creditor shall report any subsequent resolution of any delinquencies reported pursuant to subsection (b) to the parties to whom such delinquencies were initially reported.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §162, as added Pub. L. 93–495, title III, §306, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1513.)
### §5105. Inventory of real property

(a) In General.—The Commandant shall maintain an inventory of all real property, including submerged lands, under the control of the Coast Guard, which shall include—

(1) the size, the location, and any other appropriate description of each unit of such property;

(2) an assessment of the physical condition of each unit of such property, excluding lands;

(3) a determination of whether each unit of such property should be—

(A) retained to fulfill a current or projected Coast Guard mission requirement; or

(B) subject to divestiture; and

(4) other information the Commandant considers appropriate.

(b) Updates.—The Commandant shall update information on each unit of real property included in the inventory required under subsection (a) not later than 30 days after any change relating to the control of such property.

(c) Recommendations to Congress.—Not later than March 30, 2016, and every 5 years thereafter, the Commandant shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that includes—

(1) a list of all real property under the control of the Coast Guard and the location of such property by property type;

(2) recommendations for divestiture with respect to any units of such property; and

(3) recommendations for consolidating any units of such property, including—

(A) an estimate of the costs or savings associated with each recommended consolidation; and

(B) a discussion of the impact that such consolidation would have on Coast Guard mission effectiveness.

(Added Pub. L. 113–281, title II, §217(a), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3035, §679; amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. C, title XXXV, §3539, Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2322; renumbered §5105, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §122(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4239.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 679 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–232, §3539(1), in introductory provisions, substituted "The Commandant shall maintain" for "Not later than September 30, 2015, the Commandant shall establish".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–232, §3539(2), added subsec. (b) and struck out former subsec. (b). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Commandant shall—

"(1) maintain the inventory required under subsection (a) on an ongoing basis; and

"(2) update information on each unit of real property included in such inventory not later than 30 days after any change relating to the control of such property."
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2084-2085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-519]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA136


Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Ad Hoc 
Groundfish Process Improvement Committee (PIC) will hold a working 
meeting, which is open to the public.

[[Page 2085]]


DATES: The PIC meeting will be held Thursday, February 3, 2011 from 
8:30 a.m. until business for the day is completed. The PIC meeting will 
reconvene Friday, February 4, from 8:30 a.m. until noon.

ADDRESSES: The PIC meeting will be held at the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council office, Large Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador 
Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384.
    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kelly Ames or Mr. John DeVore, 
Groundfish Management Staff Officers; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the PIC work session is to 
develop an optimum detailed process and schedule for the 2013-14 
groundfish biennial cycle for harvest specifications and management 
measures. The PIC will also consider whether an amendment to the 
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan should be pursued by the Council for 
long-term solutions. The PIC recommendations will be brought forward 
for Council consideration and action at its April 9-14 meeting in San 
Mateo, CA. The PIC may also address other assignments relating to 
groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the 
PIC.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda 
may come before the PIC for discussion, those issues may not be the 
subject of formal PIC action during this meeting. PIC action will be 
restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any 
issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency 
action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified 
of the PIC's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 
5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-519 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
§ 92.4 Reestablishment of a region or compartment's disease-free status. This section applies to regions or compartments that are designated under this subchapter as free of a specific animal disease and then experience an outbreak of that disease. ( a ) *Interim designation.* If a region or a compartment recognized as free of a specified animal disease in this subchapter experiences an outbreak of that disease, APHIS will take immediate action to prohibit or restrict imports of animals and animal products from the entire region, a portion of that region, or the compartment. APHIS will inform the public as soon as possible of the prohibitions and restrictions by means of a notice in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Reassessment of the disease situation.* ( 1 ) Following removal of disease-free status from all or part of a region or a compartment, APHIS may reassess the disease situation in that region or compartment to determine whether it is necessary to continue the interim prohibitions or restrictions. In reassessing disease status, APHIS will take into consideration the standards of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for reinstatement of disease-free status, as well as all relevant information obtained through public comments or collected by or submitted to APHIS through other means.
( 2 ) Prior to taking any action to relieve prohibitions or restrictions, APHIS will make information regarding its reassessment of the region's or compartment's disease status available to the public for comment. APHIS will announce the availability of this information by means of a notice in the Federal Register.
( c ) *Determination.* Based on the reassessment conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section regarding the reassessment information, APHIS will take one of the following actions: ( 1 ) Publish a notice in the Federal Register of its decision to reinstate the disease-free status of the region, portion of the region, or compartment;
( 2 ) Publish a notice in the Federal Register of its decision to continue the prohibitions or restrictions on the imports of animals and animal products from that region or compartment; or
( 3 ) Publish another document in the Federal Register for comment.
[85 FR 11836, Feb. 28, 2020]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

GERALD DENNELL GREEN, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 28 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justices Donohue and Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision 

of this matter.
judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district 

court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 

107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849,851 (1991). It is within this court's sole 

discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered. Smith, 107 

Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner bears the burden of 

demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). An 

appeal is typically an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 

224, 88 P.3d at 841. 

Having considered the petition, answer, and reply, 2we 

conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not 

warranted because petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of 

an appeal from any adverse judgment. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 

120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. An order denying a motion for an 

injunction is appealable. 3 See NRAP 3A(b)(3) (allowing an appeal from an 

order denying an injunction); Ellis v. McDaniel, 95 Nev. 455, 457, 596 P.2d 

222, 223 (1979). Accordingly, as petitioner has a speedy and adequate 

20n April 18, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a 

limited reply to real party in interest's answer to the petition. Having 

considered the motion, we grant it and direct the clerk of this court to 

detach and file the reply, which was attached to the April 18 motion. 

3Petitioner acknowledges in his petition that a district court's denial 

of injunctive relief is reviewed on direct appeal. Petitioner asserts that the 

time constraints in this matter warrant expedited consideration. In cases 

in which parties file a direct appeal and seek emergency relief, this court 

reviews any properly made requests under the established procedures 

provided by the appellate rules. See NRAP 8. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 
/A6--txt-g-tn 

ibr 

ev4-"pts-ram7 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

remedy available in the form of an appeal, we deny the petition. See Pan, 

120 Nev. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 

851. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Parraguirre 

Cherry 

J. 

Saitta 

(0) 1947A 
PICKERING, J., concurring: 

I concur in the result only. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge 

Hafter Law 

Bradley 0. Van Ry 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Warren
      B. Kanders, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Clarus
      Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of Clarus Corporation.





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.






*Date:
      March 7, 2008*


*By: 
      /s/ Warren B. Kanders*


*Warren
      B. Kanders*


*Executive
      Chairman of the Board of Directors*
Testimony submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602)

In support of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Rule Submitted by Grant La Rouche, National Wildlife Federation August 1, 2014

Thank you for the opportunity to submit formal testimony regarding EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan. My name is Grant La Rouche from Annapolis, MD, and I want to express my strong support for EPA's historic action to combat climate change by setting limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants. As a father, I believe we, the people of the United States of America, have an obligation to protect our children and future generations from the impacts of climate change. As an angler and outdoor enthusiast, I believe we also have an obligation to protect the fish and wildlife on the frontlines of our changing climate. I applaud EPA for taking action to combat the root of the problem — carbon pollution. Growing up in Pennsylvania, I was confident that my home would be there for me whenever I needed it. When I look outside the window of my house on the coast of the Chesapeake Bay, I know my son won't have that same opportunity. I have witnessed the damage of extreme weather fueled by climate change in the small island communities in the Chesapeake Bay where entire ways of life have been lost to rising tides. I have witnessed the swarms of ticks that only the most toxic of chemicals can repel when I take my four-year-old out into the woods. I have witnessed the millions of dollars needed to clean up after Superstorm Sandy. For these reasons I applaud EPA for taking much needed steps to reverse the course we are on. The U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan is a major step in the right direction. This plan will help speed the way towards a future in which we invest more in wildlife-friendly sources of clean energy and less in fuels that pollute our air and water and harm our global climate. America was built on innovation. It's time we challenge the biggest polluters to find better ways to be profitable or pass the torch to those who are willing to keep America the world's leader. By stimulating innovative solutions and reducing reliance on coal-burning for power generation in the U.S., the Clean Power Plan will help protect fish and wildlife. This rule will reduce the need for more coal mining that's destroying our wildlife's habitat with forest fragmentation, chemicals, and carbon pollution. As you finalize the standard, I ask that you work to ensure that it achieves the deepest reductions possible by requiring states to use fish-and-wildlife-friendly renewable energy and energy efficiency, and not simply more natural gas burning. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today, and we look forward to working with you to finalize and implement the Clean Power Plan. We hope you will do everything you can to ensure it stays strong through the process — wildlife and future generations are counting on your leadership.

Grant Larouche 1335 Washington Drive Annapolis, MD 21403
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1499

LAUNEIL SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE, authorized agent NC Attorney General Roy Cooper; GASTON COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (7:07-cv-03174-GRA)

Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald Kevin Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Frank Langston Eppes, EPPES & PLUMBLEE, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, Thomas B. Kakassy, THOMAS B. KAKASSY, PA, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Launeil Sanders appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons state d by the district court. See

Sanders v. North Carolina , No. 7:07-cv-03174-GRA (D.S.C. Apr.

24, 2008). Further, we deny the pending motion to dismiss this

appeal for failure to prosecute. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2007042EN.01004601.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/46

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Genette v Commission

(Case F-92/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Pensions - Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the Communities - Transfer to Community scheme - Withdrawal of the application to transfer in order to rely on new more favourable provisions)

(2007/C 42/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Genette (Gorze, France) (represented by: M.-A Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decision refusing to withdraw the applicant's application relating to the transfer of his pension rights acquired in Belgium in order to bring a fresh claim on the basis of new and more favourable provisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 25 January 2005. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 25 January 2005.

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bears its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Genette. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bears its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Genette.

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005, p. 14 (case originally registered at the Court of First Instance under number T-361/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00191-CR

Jesus Martinez Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-12-31240-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 30, 2022
### §2907. Contract and grant authority; records and audits

(a) Functions vested in any Federal officer or agency by this chapter or under the Program may be exercised through the facilities and personnel of the agency involved or, to the extent provided or approved in advance in appropriation Acts, by other persons or entities under contracts or grant arrangements entered into by such officer or agency.

(b)(1) Each person or entity to which Federal funds are made available under a contract or grant arrangement as authorized by this chapter shall keep such records as the Director of the Office shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such person or entity of such funds, the total cost of the activities for which such funds were so made available, the amount of that portion of such cost supplied from other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit.

(2) The Director of the Office and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall, until the expiration of 3 years after the completion of the activities (referred to in paragraph (1)) of any person or entity pursuant to any contract or grant arrangement referred to in subsection (a), have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of such person or entity which, in the judgment of the Director or the Comptroller General, may be related or pertinent to such contract or grant arrangement.

(Pub. L. 95–367, §8, Sept. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 604.)