alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4332 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to clarify the duties of 

procurement center representatives with respect to reviewing solicitations for a contract or task order contract. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4332 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maximizing Small 

3 Business Competition Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DUTIES OF PROCUREMENT CENTER REPRESENTA5 TIVES WITH RESPECT TO REVIEWING SOLICI6 TATIONS FOR A CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER 

7 CONTRACT. 

8 Section 15(l)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 

9 U.S.C. 644(l)(2)(D)) is amended— 

10 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) 

11 through (I) as subparagraphs (F) through (J), re12 spectively; and 

13 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the fol14 lowing new subparagraph: 

15 ‘‘(E) review any solicitation for a contract 

16 or task order without regard to whether the 

17 contract or task order or part of the contract 

18 or task order is set aside for small business 

19 concerns, whether one or more contract or task 

20 order awards are reserved for small business 

21 concerns under a multiple award contract, or 

22 whether or not the solicitation would result in 

23 a bundled or consolidated contract (as defined 
3 

•HR 4332 EH

1 in subsection (s)) or a bundled or consolidated 

2 task order;’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 19, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4332 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to clarify the dutask order contract. respect to reviewing solicitations for a contract or ties of procurement center representatives with
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22137]



[[Page 58873]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-129771-04]
RIN 1545-BD49


Guidance Under Section 951 for Determining Pro Rata Share; 
Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to notice of proposed 
rulemaking that were published in the Federal Register on August 6, 
2004 (69 FR 47822), providing guidance for determining a United States 
shareholder's pro rata share of a controlled foreign corporation's 
(CFC's) subpart F income, previously excluded subpart F income 
withdrawn from investment in less developed countries, previously 
excluded subpart F income withdrawn from foreign base company shipping 
operations, and amounts determined under section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan A. Sambur at (202) 622-3840 
(not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The proposed regulations that are the subject of these corrections 
are under section 951 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(REG-129771-04), which was the subject of FR Doc. 04-17907, is 
corrected as follows:
    1. On page 47823, column 1, in the preamble under the caption 
ADDRESSES, remove the last sentence.


Sec.  1.951-1  [Corrected]

    2. On page 47826, column 2, Sec.  1.951-1, paragraph (e)(5)(iii), 
line 11, the language ``distribution of earnings or profits that'' is 
corrected to read ``distribution of earnings and profits that''.

Cynthia Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedures and Administration).
[FR Doc. 04-22137 Filed 9-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
379 P.2d 772

#### Salomon GONZALES, Claimant, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLISON & HANEY, INC., Employer, and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 7076.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

March 12, 1963.

Montoya & Shwartz, Albuquerque, for appellants.

Traub, Parham & Zuris, Albuquerque, for appellee.

NOBLE, Justice.

Defendants have appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding claimant total temporary disability of 26 weeks and partial permanent disability of 45% on account of an injury occurring on October 10, 1958.

Complaint is made for the first time on appeal that by its instructions 7, 8, 9 and 10, the court charged the jury upon *479an issue not presented by the pleadings. We have repeatedly said that the specific vice in the challenged instruction must be pointed out and a ruling of the trial court invoked thereon to preserve the claimed error for appeal. Zamora v. Smalley, 68 N.M. 45, 358 P.2d 362; Louderbough v. Heimbach, 68 N.M. 124, 359 P.2d 518; Alford v. Drum, 68 N.M. 298, 361 P.2d 451; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227, 257 P.2d 915. In the absence of objections to the instructions sufficient to suggest the error now urged, this court said in Louderbough v. Heimbach, supra:

> “ * * * It follows, therefore, that the instructions, right or wrong, cannot be reviewed for error here for the first time.”

See, also, Warren v. Spurck, 64 N.M. 106, 325 P.2d 284.

It is also contended that the challenged instructions charged the jury upon a question on which there is no evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence to which the instructions complained of are directed. A review of the record convinces us that defendants’ contention is without merit. Attorneys fees in the sum of $500.00 will be awarded to claimant for attorneys fees on this appeal. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARMODY and MOISE, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of M. Fred Hirsch, Respondent, against Paul L. Ross et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, Respondents, and Dorset Hotel Corporation, Appellant.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 823.]
### **Subchapter A—Taxes**

Part
I.
Special (occupational) taxes.
II.
Tax on transferring firearms.
III.
Tax on making firearms.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior subchapter A consisted of parts I to IV, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1227.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4856 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4856

To require the denial of admission to the United States for individuals 
 subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2022

    Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Ernst, Mr. 
Barrasso, and Mr. Rubio) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the denial of admission to the United States for individuals 
 subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876, 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 ``Strengthening Entry Visa Enforcement 
and Restrictions Act of 2022'' or the ``SEVER Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF VISAS TO CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO UNITED NATIONS.

    Section 407(a)(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-246; 8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is 
amended by striking ``; and'' and inserting ``, or is subject to 
sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; 
relating to imposing sanctions with respect to Iran), as in effect on 
September 15, 2022; and''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

INTERIOR REGIONS 6, 7 & 8 

12795 W. Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80228

September 11, 2020 

Mr. Jeff Ruch

PEER Pacific Director

Via E-mail – No Hard Copy to Follow 

jruch@peer.org 

Dear Mr. Ruch:

We wanted to inform you that our response to your letter (dated July 16, 2020, concerning the 

“Review of the Sea Turtle Science and Recovery Program, Padre Island National Seashore”) is 

in process at this time. We will send it to you as soon as possible after it has cleared internal 

review. 

Thank you for your patience. 

Sincerely,

Michael T. Reynolds 

Regional Director

cc: Doris Lowery, NPS 

 John Dennis, NPS

 Jennifer Carpenter, NPS 

 Eric Brunnemann, PAIS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10702 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIO FLORES-JAIME, also known as Robert Mendoza-Rosales, also known as Joe Garcia-Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-3

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Mario FloresJaime raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Kenneth BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION OF TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-40459.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 13, 2006.

Lawrence D. Elliott, Law Office of Lawrence Elliott, Victoria, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christine Elaine Reinhard, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld Michael Vincent Galo, Jr., Galo & Cantu, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

*919Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This appeal is from a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a race discrimination case. Appellant contends that the district court incorrectly applied *Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.,*530 U.S. 133,120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), and erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact with respect to his failure to promote claim.

After consideration of the briefs and record on appeal, our de novo review leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the district court correctly granted summary judgment. We affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in the memorandum and order of the district court dated March 9, 2005.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Salvador RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10684.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 6, 2006.

*866Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

J. Michael Sutherland, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A jury convicted Salvador Ramos of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii), and 21 U.S.C. § 846.

First, Ramos argues that the district court abused its discretion when it did not admit into evidence the Government’s motion to dismiss co-defendant Isaías Pin-tor.

The Pintor motion does not discuss Ramos’s involvement in the offense. Unlike Pintor’s relatively minor role in the offense, Ramos acted as the supplier of methamphetamine and participated in planning the transaction that resulted in his arrest. Pintor’s dismissal does not make it any more or less probable that Ramos was innocent, and the Government’s motion to dismiss Pintor was therefore not relevant to Ramos’s case. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 401. Even if the evidence is considered relevant, it was properly excluded because the evidence was cumulative of trial testimony that showed the questionable character of the co-defendants who testified against Ramos. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 403. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the Pintor motion. *See United States v. Taylor,*210 F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir.2000).

*867Second, Pintor argues that the district court erred when it applied a sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). Ramos argues that there was no direct evidence that he reasonably foresaw that weapons would be involved in the offense.

One of Ramos’s co-defendants dropped a firearm when law enforcement officials attempted to arrest him after he had delivered drugs to the undercover officer. Another firearm was found in the trunk of a vehicle that was used in the drug transaction and that belonged to one of Ramos’s co-defendants. Evidence thus establishes that a codefendant knowingly possessed a gun while he and Ramos jointly engaging in concerted criminal activity involving a quantity of narcotics sufficient to support an inference of intent to distribute. *See United States v. Thomas,*120 F.3d 564, 574 (5th Cir.1997). The sentencing court therefore did not commit error, clear or otherwise, when it inferred that Ramos should have foreseen his codefendants’s possession of a dangerous weapon and applied the U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) weapons enhancement. *See id.*

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Harold F. Kemp et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Equally Interested, Respondents, v. Sophie Rubin et al., Appellants.

Action to enforce restrictive covenant in reference to the use, occupancy, lease, renting, gift or *790conveyance of real property. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [188 Misc. 310.]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the State of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of Public Health, Bureau of Radiological Health and the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, to continue to conduct a State as certifiers program in Iowa under the Mammography Quality Standards Act.

# DATES:

The agreement became effective August 18, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joanne Choy, Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs (HFZ-240), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-827-2903, or e-mail:                         *jkc@cdrh.fda.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , the agency is publishing notice of this MOU.                

Dated: September 30, 2004.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

      ( print page 59934)          ( print page 59935)          ( print page 59936)          ( print page 59937)          ( print page 59938)    

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[FR Doc. 04-22497 Filed 10-5-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) approval of minutes, (3) public comment, (4) chairman report, (5) new members welcome, (6) review of projects funded to date, (7) general discussion, (8) next agenda.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on October 14, 2004 from 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Conference Room A, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968-5329; Email                         *ggaddini@fs.fed.us*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after                           ( print page 59577)                        the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by October 12, 2004 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.                

Dated: September 29, 2004.

James F. Giachino,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 04-22324  Filed 10-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
##### 



EVERGREENBANCORP, INC.
SECOND AMENDED 2000 STOCK OPTION
AND EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN
 Recitals
     Plan
  Purpose
 Administration
 Procedures
 1




---



##### 



Responsibilities
 Section 16(b) Compliance and Bifurcation of Plan
 Stock Subject to This Plan
 Eligibility
 2




---



##### 



Terms and Conditions of Awards
 Number of Shares
 Price of Shares
 Vesting
 Exercise
 Payment of Exercise Price
 Withholding Tax Requirement
 3




---



##### 



Nontransferability of Awards
 Termination of Relationship
 Unvested Awards
 Vested Awards  Termination Other Than Termination For Cause, Death or Total
Disability
 Vested Awards  Termination For Cause
 4




---



##### 



Vested Awards  Termination Because of Death
 Vested Awards  Termination Because of Total Disability
 Transfer of Relationship Between Company and Related Corporation
 5




---



##### 



Military Leave, Sick Leave and Bona Fide Leave of Absence
 Related Corporation
 Status of Shareholder
 Continuation of Employment
 Modification and Amendment of Award
 6




---



##### 



Shareholders Agreement
 Special Rules Applicable to Incentive Stock Options
 General
 Required Terms
 Exercise Price
 Term
 Transferability
 Definition  10% Shareholder 7
        Limitation on Value for Incentive Stock Options
 Special Rules Applicable to Nonqualified Stock Options
 General
 Required Terms
 Valuation
 Term
 Transferability
 Special Rules Applicable to Restricted Stock
 General
 Escrow, Release and Cancellation of Restricted Stock
 8




---



##### 



Special Rules Applicable to Stock Appreciation Rights
 General
 Exercise 1 2 1 2
 Special Rules Applicable to Restricted Stock Units
 General
 Exercise 1 2 1 2
 9




---



##### 



Determination of Fair Market Value
    Adjustments Upon Changes in Capitalization
 Effect of Reorganization or Change in Control
 Conversion of Awards in Connection with Stock Exchange
 Change in Control
 10




---



##### 



Definition of Change in Control
 Fractional Shares
 Determination of Board to Be Final
 Securities Regulation
 11




---



##### 



Amendment and Termination
 Board Action
     Automatic Termination
 12




---



##### 



Effectiveness of This Plan
     EVERGREENBANCORP, INC.By
    
    Gerald O. HatlerIts
    
    President & CEO
 13
§ 49.1 What does this part do? This part: ( a ) Directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) (collectively referred to as “the bureaus”) to preserve, manage, and protect paleontological resources on Federal land using scientific principles and expertise;
( b ) Coordinates paleontological resources management among the bureaus;
( c ) Promotes public awareness; provides for collection under permit; clarifies that paleontological resources cannot be collected from Federal land for sale or purchase; establishes civil and criminal penalties; sets curation standards; and
( d ) Authorizes casual collecting of common invertebrate and plant paleontological resources from certain BLM-administered land and certain Reclamation-administered land.
#### § 423.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to maintain law and order and protect persons and property within Reclamation projects and on Reclamation facilities, lands, and waterbodies.