alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
128 STAT. 3020 PUBLIC LAW 113–280—DEC. 18, 2014 

Public Law 113–280 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the United States Anti-Doping Agency, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Anti-Doping Agency 

Reauthorization Act’’. 

SEC. 2. PROHIBIT PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING METHODS. 

Section 701 of title VII of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (21 U.S.C. 2001) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (4); and 

(2) in subsection (b)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and be recognized 

worldwide as the independent national anti-doping 

organization for the United States’’ after ‘‘Committee’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘, or performanceenhancing genetic modifications accomplished through 

gene-doping’’ and inserting ‘‘or prohibited performanceenhancing methods adopted by the Agency’’; 

(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘, or performanceenhancing genetic modifications accomplished through 

gene-doping’’ and inserting ‘‘or prohibited performanceenhancing methods adopted by the Agency’’; 

(D) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and the prevention 

of use of performance-enhancing drugs, or performanceenhancing genetic modifications accomplished through 

gene-doping by United States amateur athletes; and’’ and 

inserting ‘‘, and the prevention of use by United States 

amateur athletes of performance-enhancing drugs or 

prohibited performance-enhancing methods adopted by the 

Agency.’’; and 

(E) by striking paragraph (5). 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 703 of title VII of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (21 U.S.C. 2003) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 703. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the United States 

Anti-Doping Agency— 

‘‘(1) for fiscal year 2014, $11,300,000; 

‘‘(2) for fiscal year 2015, $11,700,000; 

21 USC 2001 

note. 

United States 

Anti-Doping 

Agency 

Reauthorization 

Act. 

Dec. 18, 2014 

[S. 2338] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 113–280—DEC. 18, 2014 128 STAT. 3021 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2338: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–281 (Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 12, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

‘‘(3) for fiscal year 2016, $12,300,000; 

‘‘(4) for fiscal year 2017, $12,900,000; 

‘‘(5) for fiscal year 2018, $13,500,000; 

‘‘(6) for fiscal year 2019, $14,100,000; and 

‘‘(7) for fiscal year 2020, $14,800,000.’’. 

Approved December 18, 2014. 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
Docket Number FAA-2014-0287

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Robert Farinas

(613) 952-4428

12/05/13 No Objections

Bombardier

Aerospace

Catherine Auger

(514) 855-5001

X 61571

12/05/13 No Objections

RAA Scott Foose

(202) 367-1212

12/05/13 N/A
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. JOE SAN NICOLAS, Defendant

Criminal No. 105F-76

Superior Court of Guam

October 28, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

In denying Defendant’s 5 October, 1976, Motion to Dismiss for prosecution’s non-compliance with a discovery order, this Court cites the Decision in the companion case *People of the Territory of Guam v. Michael Imamura,*104F-76.

Submit order.
us. PEEaMENy Gre ANTE DBOR

Rock Creek

Area

Mountain

Horseback

Recreation Opportunities

‘J Recreation (i) Fa &

Watchable Hunting Watchable

Camping Biking Hiking Riding Fishing Wildlife Wildflowers
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 1
T19N
T18N I SS
5 SS
6 4 ) 2
Revere SE
apc?
Amy Bs
a _ 1
9 10
Bf
“Road
S
18 S 17 16 15 14
IN
19 ihe 21 22 23
Road cA
28 it, 26%
a Z

33 35

te

T 18)N AG ’ Z|
BR:
T17\N & ) y g
a \ Rk
6 5 4 3 d 1 4 2
_-! Z
v7
24 Calloway Road

xo}

2 & Towell

< Res | Falls
7 8 a £ 9 10 11 12 ww 7 8 9 10 11

2 Twelvemile co] @

SS k Sa ($2)
K (eo se ao Zornes | Road co [
RS
0.5 0 0.5 1.0
LEGEND N CED ——|
MILES
Recreation Transportation Administered Land w E Oo ee
KILOMETERS

Fishing

Historic Site

Information

P| Parking
Restroom

Bureau of Land

Access Route Management

Seasonal Access Route Washington Dept. of

Improved Road Natural Resources
Washington Dept. of

Other Road or Trail, . wae
Fish and Wildlife

Access as Designated

Railroad Private or Other

U. S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Spokane District
1103 N. Fancher
Spokane, WA 99212
(509) 536-1200

It is unlawful to trespass on private lands. State hunting and fishing regulations
apply to private lands. Landowners are not required to post or fence their lands.
Check with private landowners before entering their property.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Insurance Management Solutions Group,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Anthony R. Marando
--------------------------------
Anthony R. Marando
August 19, 2002
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40205

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BAUDEL ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-229-5

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Baudel Ortiz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport undocumented

aliens within the United States for private financial gain by means of a motor

vehicle. The district court departed upward or varied from the guidelines range

in imposing a statutory maximum 120-month term of imprisonment. Ortiz has

appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court imposed an unreasonably

harsh sentence. He contends that the district court failed to explain adequately

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-40205

2

its reasons for upward departure or variance and that the extent of the

departure or variance is not supported by the facts relied upon by the district

court. We have reviewed these contentions for plain error. See United States v.

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-94 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008).

Ortiz was a leader of an extensive conspiracy involving the transportation

of many aliens under dangerous circumstances. In determining the sentence,

the district court considered and applied the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and it explained in detail why application of those factors to the facts

of this case supported imposition of a statutory maximum sentence that involved

an upward departure or a variance from the guidelines imprisonment range. See

United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

129 S. Ct. 625 (2008); see also United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th

Cir. 2008). The sentence imposed “was reasonable under the totality of the

relevant statutory factors.” United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th

Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). The judgment is 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA123


Marine Mammals; File No. 15616

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Craig Matkin, North Gulf Oceanic 
Society, Homer, AK, has been issued a permit to conduct research on 
marine mammals.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and Alaska Region, NMFS, 
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907) 586-7221; fax (907) 
586-7249.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tammy Adams or Kristy Beard, (301) 
713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 5, 2011, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (76 FR 542) that a request for a permit to conduct 
research on marine mammals had been submitted by the above-named 
applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 
seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine 
mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    The permit allows harassment of marine mammals during conduct of 
research in Alaskan waters, including southeast Alaska, Prince William 
Sound, the Kenai Peninsula, the Eastern Aleutian Islands, and the 
Bering Sea. The purpose of the research is to maintain a long-term 
killer whale (Orcinus orca) monitoring program in Alaskan waters that 
was initiated over 25 years ago. In addition, the permit holder will 
examine movements of other non-endangered cetacean species along the 
North Gulf Coast of Alaska in relation to U.S. Navy testing activities. 
The research activities include photo-identification, passive acoustic 
recording, biopsy sampling, tagging with barbed darts and suction cups, 
and collecting samples of marine mammal carcasses from sites of killer 
whale predation.
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the 
activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to 
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: March 9, 2011.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-5849 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### § 354.36 Withdrawal of application.

Any application for inspection service may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time before the service is performed upon payment, by the applicant, of all expenses incurred by the Service in connection with such application.
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 69 FR 32438, June 10, 2004.

§ 12.21 Exemptions. ( a ) *Grant of exemption.* Except as provided in paragraph (b), if an applicant or licensee satisfactorily demonstrates that no reasonably foreseeable project emergency would endanger life, health, or property, the Regional Engineer may exempt the applicant or licensee from filing an emergency action plan.
( b ) *No exemption.* A licensee or applicant may not be exempted from the requirements of § 12.22(c) for a radiological response plan.
( c ) *Conditions of exemptions.* ( 1 ) An applicant or licensee who receives an exemption from filing an emergency action plan has the continuing responsibility to review circumstances upstream and downstream from the project to determine if, as a result of changed circumstances, a project emergency might endanger life, health, or property.
( 2 ) Promptly after the applicant or licensee learns that, as a result of any change in circumstances, a project emergency might endanger life, health, or property, the applicant or licensee must inform the Regional Engineer of that changed condition without unduly delaying the preparation and implementation of the emergency action plan.
( 3 ) Comprehensive review of the necessity for an emergency action plan must be conducted at least once each year.
( d ) *Revocation of exemption.* ( 1 ) The Regional Engineer may revoke an exemption granted under this section if it is determined that, as a result of any change in circumstances, a project emergency might endanger life, health, or property.
( 2 ) If an exemption is revoked, the applicant or licensee must file an emergency action plan within the time specified by the Regional Engineer.
§ 385.913 Proposed order (Rule 913). ( a ) After the conclusion of the hearing and after the filings under Rule 912 (a) and (b), (proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and comments) the presiding officer will issue a decision and proposed order based on findings of fact affirming, modifying, or vacating the contested order or directing other appropriate relief. The proposed order will be based on the entire record before the presiding officer, including the record of prior proceedings certified by the Secretary.
( b ) Participants may file with the Secretary of the Commission, within 15 days of issuance of the proposed order of the presiding officer, written comments on the presiding officer's decision and proposed order.
( c ) Participants may file with the Secretary of the Commission, within seven days of the end of comment period prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, reply comments limited to a response to any arguments and issues raised in the written comment.
( d ) The presiding officer will certify and file with the Secretary of the Commission a copy of the record in the proceedings and copies of the written and reply comments filed pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( e ) Unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Administrative Law Judge, written comments and reply comments must be limited to 15 pages, doublespaced.
[Order 495, 53 FR 16408, May 9, 1988, as amended at 58 FR 1629, Jan. 12, 1994]
Nitric Acid Tail Gas Effluent

NOX Concentration as measured by CEMS

Note: Monthly data is based on 24-hour daily averages.

Year 2006 Year 2007 Year 2008

Month Avg NOX Month Avg NOX Month Avg NOX

ppm ppm ppm

January 32.71 January 38.08 January 38.87

February 28.61 February 39.80 February 10.66

March 37.30 March 35.87 March 14.56

April 31.81 April 30.63 April 9.19

May 34.94 May 50.44 May 6.01

June 27.10 June 33.65 June 7.62

July 19.30 July 39.48 July 9.04

August 25.10 August 497.87 August 8.46

September 26.94 September 30.08 September 13.64

October 23.34 October 17.95 October 5.60

November 28.17 November 16.65 November 6.55

December 32.65 December 9.67 December 11.04

Annual Avg 29.00 70.01 11.77
# C_2013225EN.01003902.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/39

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA v European Commission, Portuguese Republic

(Case C-242/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Articles 149 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Reduction of financial assistance - No need to adjudicate - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 225/67

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA (represented by: N. Ruiz, advogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, L. Flynn and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-401/07 Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Decision C(2007) 3772 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995, and a claim for an order against the Commission to pay the final balance of the financial assistance under Article 238 EC

Caixa Geral de Depósitos

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings.

| 3. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011

1

---
# C_2011130EN.01001001.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/10

---

Action brought on 15 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-65/11)

2011/C 130/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to consult the VAT Committee and by allowing non-taxable persons to join a fiscal unit, as is apparent from the resolution of 18 February 1991, No VB91/347, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to consult the VAT Committee and by allowing non-taxable persons to join a fiscal unit, as is apparent from the resolution of 18 February 1991, No VB91/347, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

1

| — | order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC provides that ‘taxable person’ means any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the results of that activity. Article 11 of the VAT Directive provides that after consulting the advisory committee on value added tax (‘the VAT Committee’) each Member State may regard as a single taxable person any persons established in the territory of that Member State who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

According to the Commission, the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC because it permits non-taxable persons to join a fiscal unit. Furthermore, in failing to consult the VAT Committee, the Netherlands has failed to comply with Article 11.

---

(1)  OL 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>

                          EAGLE BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARY              Exhibit 99-1
                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 Eagle Bancorp (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Larry A. Dreyer,
Chief Executive Officer, and Peter J. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Larry A. Dreyer                        /s/ Peter J. Johnson
----------------------------------------   -------------------------------------
Larry A. Dreyer                            Peter J. Johnson
President and Chief Executive Officer      Sr. VP/Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                           Officer
May 12, 2003                               May 12, 2003















                                      -28-
### §1648. Reverse mortgages

#### (a) In general

In addition to the disclosures required under this subchapter, for each reverse mortgage, the creditor shall, not less than 3 days prior to consummation of the transaction, disclose to the consumer in conspicuous type a good faith estimate of the projected total cost of the mortgage to the consumer expressed as a table of annual interest rates. Each annual interest rate shall be based on a projected total future credit extension balance under a projected appreciation rate for the dwelling and a term for the mortgage. The disclosure shall include—

(1) statements of the annual interest rates for not less than 3 projected appreciation rates and not less than 3 credit transaction periods, as determined by the Bureau, including—

(A) a short-term reverse mortgage;

(B) a term equaling the actuarial life expectancy of the consumer; and

(C) such longer term as the Bureau deems appropriate; and

(2) a statement that the consumer is not obligated to complete the reverse mortgage transaction merely because the consumer has received the disclosure required under this section or has signed an application for the reverse mortgage.

#### (b) Projected total cost

In determining the projected total cost of the mortgage to be disclosed to the consumer under subsection (a), the creditor shall take into account—

(1) any shared appreciation or equity that the lender will, by contract, be entitled to receive;

(2) all costs and charges to the consumer, including the costs of any associated annuity that the consumer elects or is required to purchase as part of the reverse mortgage transaction;

(3) all payments to and for the benefit of the consumer, including, in the case in which an associated annuity is purchased (whether or not required by the lender as a condition of making the reverse mortgage), the annuity payments received by the consumer and financed from the proceeds of the loan, instead of the proceeds used to finance the annuity; and

(4) any limitation on the liability of the consumer under reverse mortgage transactions (such as nonrecourse limits and equity conservation agreements).

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §138, as added Pub. L. 103–325, title I, §154(b), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2196; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1100A(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2107.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "Bureau" for "Board" in two places.

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.