alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §460uu. Establishment; description of area

(a) In order to preserve, for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, that area in western New Mexico containing the nationally significant Grants Lava Flow, the Las Ventanas Chacoan Archeological Site, and other significant natural and cultural resources, there is hereby established the El Malpais National Monument (hereinafter referred to as the "monument"). The monument shall consist of approximately 114,000 acres as generally depicted on the map entitled "El Malpais National Monument and National Conservation Area" numbered NM–ELMA–80,001–B and dated May 1987. The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the Director of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

(b) As soon as practicable after December 31, 1987, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") shall file a legal description of the monument with the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States House of Representatives and with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate. Such legal description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this subchapter, except that the Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in such legal description and in the map referred to in subsection (a). The legal description shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

(Pub. L. 100–225, title I, §101, Dec. 31, 1987, 101 Stat. 1539.)

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives changed to Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives on Jan. 5, 1993, by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Third Congress.
### §797c. Dams in National Park System units

After October 24, 1992, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may not issue an original license under Part I of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.] (nor an exemption from such Part) for any new hydroelectric power project located within the boundaries of any unit of the National Park System that would have a direct adverse effect on Federal lands within any such unit. Nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing any existing provision of law (or affecting any treaty) explicitly authorizing a hydroelectric power project.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XXIV, §2402, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3097.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Power Act, referred to in text, is act June 10, 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063. Part I of the Act is classified generally to this subchapter (§791a et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 791a of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the Federal Power Act which generally comprises this chapter.
§ 241.33 Expulsion. ( a ) *Execution of order.* Except in the exercise of discretion by the district director, and for such reasons as are set forth in § 212.5(b) of this chapter, once an order of deportation becomes final, an alien shall be taken into custody and the order shall be executed. An order of deportation becomes final in accordance with 8 CFR 1241.31.
( b ) *Service of decision.* In the case of an order entered by any of the authorities enumerated above, the order shall be executed no sooner than 72 hours after service of the decision, regardless of whether the alien is in Service custody, provided that such period may be waived on the knowing and voluntary request of the alien. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed, however, to preclude assumption of custody by the Service at the time of issuance of the final order.
[62 FR 10378, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 82256, Dec. 28, 2000; 70 FR 674, Jan. 5, 2005]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief
Executive Officer of HM Publishing Corp. and Houghton Mifflin Company (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 1) | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 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 Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ ANTHONY LUCKIAnthony LuckiPresident and Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 30, 2005



A signed original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to
HM Publishing Corp. and Houghton Mifflin Company and will be retained by HM Publishing Corp. and Houghton Mifflin Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Franklin R. Cragle, III (VSB No. 78398) 

HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC 

The Edgeworth Building 

2100 East Cary Street 

Post Office Box 500 

Richmond, Virginia 23218-0500 

Telephone: 804.771.9500 

Facsimile: 804.644.0957 

E-mail: fcragle@hirschlerlaw.com

Counsel to Plaintiff Richard Arrowsmith,

Liquidating Trustee of the HDL Liquidating Trust

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

In re: Chapter 11 

HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, 

INC., et al., 

 Case No.: 15-32919-KRH 

Debtors.1

 Jointly Administered 

RICHARD ARROWSMITH AS 

LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE OF THE HDL 

LIQUIDATING TRUST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Adv. Pro. No. 17-04384-KRH 

WILLOWBROOK CARDIOVASCULAR 

ASSOCIATES, et al. 

Defendants. 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF ADVERSARY PROCEEDING 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Rule 7041 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Order 

1

 The Debtors in these cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: 

Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. (0119), Central Medical Laboratory, LLC (2728), and Integrated Health 

Leaders, LLC (2434). 

Case 17-04384-KRH Doc 18 Filed 06/11/20 Entered 06/11/20 12:06:15 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Approving Amended Procedures for Avoidance Action Adversary Proceedings [Docket No. 

2740], Richard Arrowsmith, in his capacity as Liquidating Trustee of the HDL Liquidating Trust, 

appointed pursuant to the confirmed Modified Second Amended Plan of Liquidation Proposed by 

the Debtors [Docket No. 995], by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby discontinues and 

dismisses the Complaint in the above-captioned Adversary Proceeding, with prejudice, with the 

parties to bear their own costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees. 

DATED: June 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Franklin R. Cragle, III

Franklin R. Cragle, III (VSB No. 78398) 

HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC 

The Edgeworth Building 

2100 East Cary Street 

Post Office Box 500 

Richmond, Virginia 23218-0500 

Telephone: 804.771.9500 

Facsimile: 804.644.0957 

E-mail: fcragle@hirschlerlaw.com

Counsel to Plaintiff Richard Arrowsmith, 

Liquidating Trustee of the HDL Liquidating 

Trust

Case 17-04384-KRH Doc 18 Filed 06/11/20 Entered 06/11/20 12:06:15 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 11, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served 

using the Court’s ECF system, which thereby caused it to be served electronically on all registered 

users of the ECF system that have filed notices of appearance in this matter. I further certify that 

on June 11, 2020, a true copy of the foregoing, was sent by First Class, postage prepaid mail, to 

the following: 

John C. Isaac 

6560 Fannin Street 

Suite 620 

Houston, TX 77030 

Stanley Duchman 

6560 Fannin Street 

Suite 620 

Houston, TX 77030 

 /s/ Franklin R. Cragle, III 

Counsel 

12406530.1 039229.00023 

Case 17-04384-KRH Doc 18 Filed 06/11/20 Entered 06/11/20 12:06:15 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
(No. 82-CC-2380

#### Bernard Colvis, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 18, 1983.*

Bernard Colvis, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Sue Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Roe, C.J.

This matter comes before the Court on the Claimant’s complaint and the Respondent’s stipulation as to facts, and the Court being duly advised in the premises, finds:

The Claimant, Mr. Colvis, had property damaged or destroyed on or about 6:50 a.m. on July 3, 1981, when cattle, owned by the Menard Correctional Center, escaped from their pasture through an opening in a fence. *870This opening had been made in the fence the day before by a resident of the correctional system who had been mowing the right-of-way. The Menard Correctional Center was contacted at 6:00 a.m. by Mrs. Everett Spinner, who reported at that time that the cattle were loose on Old Route #3. Menard Correctional Center employees failed to respond to this phone call until 7:20 a.m., at which time the Claimant’s peach and nectarine trees had been destroyed by the cattle who found the grass to be greener on Mr. Colvis’ side of the fence. These facts were supported by the Claimant’s verified complaint, and by an affidavit given by the agricultural manager of the Illinois Correctional Industries, William D. Beaty, a copy of which was attached to the Respondent’s stipulation.

The Respondent, State of Illinois, concedes liability for loss of Mr. Colvis’ property to the extent agreed upon in the stipulation. Both parties agree that the value of the lost property amounted to $1,030.00 and that this amount was determined by the area advisor for the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana, Mr. Chris Doll.

No other evidence, either oral or written, was presented to the Court by the Respondent, and the Respondent waived briefs. The Respondent, State of Illinois, agreed to the granting of the award to the Claimant, Bernard Colvis, in the amount of $1,030.00, provided that this award would constitute full and final satisfaction of the claim herein or any other claim arising out of the same occurrence.

While this Court is not necessarily bound by a stipulation such as this, it has no desire to interpose a controversy where none appears to exist. The stipulation *871submitted by the Respondent appears to have been entered into freely and fairly and its contents appear to be reasonable. The Respondent has stipulated to the entire amount of the award requested by the Claimant, and the Claimant has filed no objections thereto. The Court, therefore, finds no reason not to accept the stipulation and to follow its recommendation for an award in the amount of $1,030.00.

It is hereby ordered, that the • Claimant, Bernard Colvis, is hereby awarded the amount of $1,030.00 in full and final satisfaction of this instant claim.
§ 342.5 Conduct of examination. ( a ) *Authority of naturalization examiner.* The naturalization examiner assigned to consider the case shall have authority to administer oaths or affirmations to respondent and witnesses, issue subpoenas, present and receive evidence, rule upon offers of proof, take or cause depositions or interrogatories to be taken, regulate the course of the examination, take testimony of respondent and witnesses, grant continuances, consider and rule upon objections to the introduction of evidence, make recommendations to the district director as to whether cancellation shall be ordered or the proceedings terminated, and to take any other action as may be appropriate to the conduct and disposition of the case.
( b ) *Assignment of additional officer.* The district director may, in his discretion, assign an officer of the Service to examine and cross-examine the respondent and witnesses and to present evidence pertinent to the case. The naturalization examiner designated under § 342.4 may take such part in the proceedings as he may deem necessary.
( c ) *Examination.* The naturalization examiner designated under § 342.4 shall, prior to commencement of the examination, make known to the respondent his official capacity and that of any officer assigned pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the nature of the proceedings, his right to representation by counsel, to examine or object to evidence against him, to present evidence in his own behalf, to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government, and shall read the allegations in the notice to respondent and, if necessary, explain them to him. The respondent shall be asked whether he admits or denies the material allegations in the notice, or any of them, and whether he concedes illegality or fraud. If respondent admits all the material allegations and that the certificate, document, or record was procured by fraud or illegality, and no issue of law or fact remains, the naturalization examiner may determine that fraud or illegality has been established on the basis of the respondent's admissions. The allegations in the notice shall be taken as admitted if respondent, without reasonable cause, fails or refuses to attend or remain in attendance at the examination. The examination shall be recorded verbatim except for statements made off the record with the permission of the naturalization examiner.
( d ) *Prior statements.* The naturalization examiner assigned to consider the case may receive in evidence any oral or written statement which is material and relevant to any issue in the case previously made by the respondent or by any other person during any investigation, examination, hearing, trial, proceeding, or interrogation.
[28 FR 209, Jan. 9, 1963, as amended at 32 FR 3340, Feb. 28, 1967]
#### § 940.5 Policy.

ITS projects shall conform to the National ITS Architecture and standards in accordance with the requirements contained in this part. Conformance with the National ITS Architecture is interpreted to mean the use of the National ITS Architecture to develop a regional ITS architecture, and the subsequent adherence of all ITS projects to that regional ITS architecture. Development of the regional ITS architecture should be consistent with the transportation planning process for Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning.
# C_2008235EN.01S00301.xml

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 8
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 8
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 8
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 8
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 8
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 8
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 8
Case 17-13144-KHK Doc 21 Filed 11/16/17 Entered 11/16/17 13:23:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 8
§ 108.5 Compliance obligations. ( a ) The obligation of covered entities to comply with the Act and this part is not limited by the nature or extent of their authority to make decisions about the use of school premises or facilities.
( b ) Consistent with the requirements of § 108.6, a covered entity must provide equal access to any group that is officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or is officially affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group. A covered entity may require that any group seeking equal access inform the covered entity whether the group is officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or is officially affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group. A covered entity's failure to request this information is not a defense to a covered entity's noncompliance with the Act or this part.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7905)
### Distribution of thorium and uranium in three early Paleozoic plutonic series of New Hampshire

By: John B. Lyons

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1144F

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yaji Floyd, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 532]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered April 1, 2004, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s justification charge, which included allegedly unwarranted instructions concerning the principles of provocation and “initial aggressor.” However, the defendant’s argument is *495partially unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant opposed the court’s instruction on provocation, thus preserving this argument for appeal. However, he did not object to the court’s “initial aggressor” instruction, and therefore, failed to preserve this argument for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]).

In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the challenged instructions were properly given to the jury. The evidence established that the defendant went to the scene with a loaded pistol searching for the victim, chased the victim down, and then shot him three times at close range. Under these circumstances, the court properly instructed the jury to consider the principles of provocation and “initial aggressor” *(see People v Ramos,*168 AD2d 518 [1990]; *People v Rattley,*148 AD2d 642, 643 [1989]).

Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that the court failed to properly convey the applicable standards of the duty to retreat is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Gray, supra).*In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. Finally, the defendant’s claims of summation error are unpreserved for appellate review and in any event, either are without merit or do not require reversal. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
I n c o r p o r a t i o n b y R e f e r e n ce D o c k e t I D N o
. E P A

- HQ

- O AR

- 2009

- 0925

Ja nu a r y 7 , 2010

T h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e f

o l l o w i n g d o c k e t s a r e h e r e b y i n c o r po r a t e d b y r e f e r e n c e i n t o a n d a r e

c o n s i d e r e d t o b e i n c l ud e d i n , c o n t a i n e d i n a n d t o h a v e b e e n p l ace d i n D o c k e t E P A

- HQ

- O A R2009

- 0925 ( C o r p o r a

t e P a r e n t a n d N A I C S C o d e i n t h e G r ee n h o u s e G a s R e p o r t i n g R u l e ) :

1) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2008

- 0508 ( G r ee n h o u s e G a s M a nd a t o r y R e p o r t i n g ) 2) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0923 ( O i l a n d N a t u r a l G a s S y s t e m s ) 3) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0924 ( D e t e r mi n a t i o n o f C o n f i d e n t i a l B u s i n e ss I n f

o r m a t i o n ) 4) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0926 ( C a r b o n D i o x i d e I n j ec t i o n a n d G e o l og i c S e qu e s t r a t i o n ) 5) E P A

- HQ

- O A R

- 2009

- 0927 ( A d d it i o n a l S o u r ce s o f F l u o r i n a t e d G a s e s )

A c c e ss i n g d o c k e t s : P ub l i c l y a v a il a b l e d o c k e t m a t e r i a l s a r e a v a i l a b l e e i t h e r e l e c t r o n i c a ll y t h r o ug h

www

. r e g u l a t i o n s

. g ov o r i n h a r d c o p y a t E P A ’ s D o c k e t C e n t e r , P ub li c R ea d i ng R oo m , E P A W e s t B u il d i ng , R o o m 3334

, 1301 C o n s t i t u t i o n A v e n u e , N W

, Wa s h i ng t o n , D C 2000 4

. T h i s D o c k e t F a c il i t y i s o p e n f

r o m 8 : 30 a

. m

. t o 4 : 3 0 p

. m ., M o n d a y t h r o ug h F r i d a y , e x c l

u d i ng l e g a l h o li d a y s

. T h e t e l e p h o n e n u m

b e r f o r t h e P ub li c R e a d i n g R o o m i s ( 202 ) 566

- 1744

, a n d t h e t e l e p h o n e

n u m b e r f o r t h e A i r D o c k e t i s ( 202 ) 566

- 174 2

.
#### § 101.116 Filing of ex parte communications.

A prohibited communication in writing received by the Secretary, the reviewing authority, or by the presiding officer, shall be made public by placing it in the correspondence file of the docket in the case and will not be considered as part of the record for decision. If the prohibited communication is received orally a memorandum setting forth its substance shall be made and filed in the correspondence section of the docket in the case. A person referred to in such memorandum may file a comment for inclusion in the docket if he considers the memorandum to be incorrect.
#### § 630.1006 Work zone safety and mobility policy.

Each State shall implement a policy for the systematic consideration and management of work zone impacts on all Federal-aid highway projects. This policy shall address work zone impacts throughout the various stages of the project development and implementation process. This policy may take the form of processes, procedures, and/or guidance, and may vary based on the characteristics and expected work zone impacts of individual projects or classes of projects. The States should institute this policy using a multi-disciplinary team and in partnership with the FHWA. The States are encouraged to implement this policy for non-Federal-aid projects as well.