alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §598. Severability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected by such invalidation.

(Added Pub. L. 95–521, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1873; amended Pub. L. 97–409, §§2(a)(1)(A), 7, Jan. 3, 1983, 96 Stat. 2039, 2042; Pub. L. 100–191, §2, Dec. 15, 1987, 101 Stat. 1306.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–191 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to severability for provisions relating to termination of chapter. See section 599 of this title.

1983—Pub. L. 97–409, §§2(a)(1)(A), 7, substituted reference to the date of enactment of the Ethics in Government Act Amendments of 1982 for reference to the date of enactment of this chapter and substituted "independent counsel" for "special prosecutor" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–191 effective Dec. 15, 1987, and applicable to proceedings initiated and independent counsels appointed on and after Dec. 15, 1987, see section 6 of Pub. L. 100–191, set out as a note under section 591 of this title.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation Protection

# Radiation All Around Us

Radiation is naturally present in our environment, as it has been since before the birth of this planet. In addition, radiation can be produced artificially, as in medical x-rays and microwaves for cooking. The various forms of radiation can be either benefical or harmful, depending on their use and control. For that reason, regulation of certain radioactive sources is necessary to ensure that people and the environment are protected from unnecessary or excessive exposures. For additional information, see the following topics:
            - Sources of Radiation
            - Uses of Radiation 
            - Doses in Our Daily Lives
            - Radiation Dispersion Maps and Information

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Radiation All Around Us
          - Radiation and Its Health Effects
          - How the NRC Protects You
          - Radiation and National Security
          - Related Information

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Related Information

            - Radioisotopes in Today's World
            - RadNet Dispersion Map
            - EnviroFacts Search
            - RadNet Database Query

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2004-18609; Airspace Docket No. 03-AWP-15] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule, which establishes Class E airspace at California City, CA.

# DATES:

0901 UTC, November 25, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Trindle, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, AWP-520, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 1500 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, telephone (310) 725-6613.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 11, 2004, (69 FR 487666). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on November 25, 2004. No adverse comments were received, and thus this action confirms that this direct final rule will be effective on that date.                

Issued in Los Angeles, California, September 23, 2004. 

John Clancy

Area Director, Western Terminal Operations.

[FR Doc. 04-22611 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
(No. 1194

Claimant awarded $3,000.00.)

#### James Needham, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12, 1927.*

Fees & *salaries*— when *award will be made.*This case is controlled by the decision of the court in *Redpath*v. *State, supra.*

Noah Gullett, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was appointed in due course as a member of the State mining board, and entered upon the duties of his position in 1917, and has been continuously employed in said position since the date aforesaid.

It appears that the legislature, in making the appropriation for the salary in question, did not take into consideration the law enacted by the 52nd General Assembly, effective July 1,1921, which increased the salary of the members of the State mining board from $500.00 to $1,000.00 per annum, being an increase of from $5.00 to $10.00 per day for one hundred (100) days services per annum; and that the legislature has not appropriated sufficient money to pay the increase in salary which was so provided for by the 52nd General Assembly, as aforesaid.

That claimant has been paid by the State of Illinois a salary of $500.00 per annum, being $5.00 per day for one hun*396dred (100) days services per annum, and it appears that there is now due and will be owing to him as unpaid salary from the' 1st day of July, 1921, to the 1st day of July, 1927, the sum of $3,000.00, this being the difference between the amount paid him and the amount allowed by the statute, up to July 1,1927.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the State, has filed his statement in this cause, and makes no • defense thereto, but submits the same upon the recommendation of the director of mines and minerals.

The court therefore awards claimant the sum of $3,000.00.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.953 Trustee. SBA must appoint a Trustee to: ( a ) Issue Certificates;
( b ) Transfer the Certificates upon resale in the secondary market;
( c ) Maintain physical possession of the Debentures for SBA and the Certificate holders;
( d ) Establish and maintain a central registry of: ( 1 ) Debenture Pools, including the CDC obligors and the interest rate payable on the Debentures in each Pool;
( 2 ) Certificates issued or transferred, including the Debenture Pool backing the Certificate, name and address of the purchaser, price paid, the interest rate on the Certificate, and fees or charges assessed by the transferror; and
( 3 ) Brokers and dealers in Certificates, and the commissions, fees or discounts granted to the brokers and dealers;
( e ) Receive semi-annual Debenture payments and prepayments;
( f ) Make regularly scheduled and prepayment payments to Investors; and
( g ) Assure before any resale of a Debenture or Certificate is recorded in the registry that the seller has provided the purchaser a written disclosure statement approved by SBA.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7346

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDUARD BANGIYEV, a/k/a Eddie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00206-LO-6; 1:16-cv-01189-LO)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Klugh, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD C. KLUGH, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. 

Gordon D. Kromberg, Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Allison Ickovic, Jonathan David Scharf, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eduard Bangiyev seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bangiyev has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.804 When does SBA determine the size status of a business concern?

Size status is determined as of the date of the patent applicant's written verification of size.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lathrop Brown, Respondent, v. John Gallagher and Others, as Members of and Together Constituting the Board of Inspectors of Elections of Election District No. 32, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, and Others, Respondents. Frederick C. Hicks, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 7.)

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: Order modified in accordance with opinion *in People ex rel. Brown v. Freisch, No. 1 (ante,*p. 370), decided herewith, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order to be settled before the presiding justice.
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.201 Refinancing unsecured or undersecured loans.

A Borrower may not use 7(a) loan proceeds to pay any creditor in a position to sustain a loss causing a shift to SBA of all or part of a potential loss from an existing debt.
#### Edith L. Rosenbaum, Respondent, v. Sun Printing and Publishing Association, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless, the respondent stipulates to reduce the verdict to $5,000; in which event, the judgment as-so reduced and the order appealed from are affirmed, without costs. *949No opinion. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Tuzigoot
National Monument
Arizona


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Biology
 When visiting Tuzigoot National Monument, you will read and hear many stories. Park staff, local people, visitors, and the place itself work together to tell these stories. Studying the plants and animals who call our park home is an essential part of land management. If we know who else lives here, park management teams can make informed decisions about how to sustain healthy habitats.

two people, one in a pink t-shirt and one in a green and grey NPS uniform, hold a net across the entryway to an old stone buildingHolding a mist net over the entrance to the top room of Tuzigoot Pueblo is one method we use to catch and survey bats.  Mist nets are also commonly stretched over creeks, where many bats hunt insects in the summer. NPS
At Tuzigoot, one of our ongoing research projects is monitoring the local bat population. Park staff and researchers have been studying bats in Tuzigoot National Monument for several decades.
At least seventeen species of bats have been detected in the park through a variety of surveys. Biologists use mist-nets to catch bats and acoustic recorders to record the echolocation calls of bats, which are unique to each species. These surveys allow biologists to identify the species and reproductive status of each animal, and check for signs of disease such as white-nose syndrome.
Through the advancement in technology over the years, it has been easier for biologists to detect bats using passive methods that include acoustic recording and DNA sampling of guano. These passive methods are less invasive, require less handling of animals, and allow for more flexible monitoring programs.
For an in-depth scientific overview of the Tuzigoot bat monitoring programs, check out this report. For more information about bat biology and conservation in national parks across the country, check out the National Park Service bat page.
 Last updated: March 28, 2021
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: P.O. Box 219
Camp Verde,
AZ
86322
 Phone: 928-634-5564 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
§ 49.535 What are the options and timeframe to respond to the final assessment of civil penalty? ( a ) *Response options.* A person who receives a final assessment of civil penalty may, within 30 days of the date the assessment is received, do one of the following: ( 1 ) Accept the final assessment of civil penalty, either in writing, by payment of the final assessment, or by failing to timely file a request for hearing under paragraph (a)(2) of this section; or
( 2 ) File a request for a hearing on the final assessment of civil penalty before a DCHD administrative law judge via: ( i ) Registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other delivery service method, deliver receipt requested, at DCHD's address specified in the final assessment of the civil penalty; or
( ii ) Electronic means in accordance with an OHA Standing Order which is available on OHA's website at the web address specified in the final assessment of civil penalty.
( b ) *Content of request for hearing.* A request for hearing must: ( 1 ) Be signed by the person who receives the final assessment of civil penalty or a representative qualified to represent that person under 43 CFR 1.3.
( 2 ) Identify the final assessment of civil penalty being challenged.
( 3 ) State clearly and concisely the reasons for challenging the final assessment, including the reasons why the person believes that he or she did not commit a violation and/or that the final assessment of civil penalty should be reduced or eliminated.
( 4 ) State the relief sought and the basis for that relief.
( 5 ) Be accompanied by the following documentation: ( i ) A copy of the notice of violation and proposed civil penalty;
( ii ) A copy of any objection and supporting documentation filed under § 49.515(a); and
( iii ) A copy of the final assessment of civil penalty.
( 6 ) Contain a certificate acknowledging service of the request for hearing with the documentation listed in paragraph (b)(5) of this section to the Office of the Solicitor at the address identified in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Service of request for hearing.* The person filing a request for hearing must simultaneously send a copy of the request and the accompanying documentation via certified mail, return receipt requested, or other verifiable delivery method to the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior at the address specified in the final assessment of civil penalty.
( d ) *Dismissal of hearing request.* ( 1 ) If the request for hearing is not received by DCHD within 30 days of the date of receipt of the final assessment, the request for hearing will not be considered and the hearing will be dismissed.
( 2 ) The request for hearing may be dismissed for failing to meet any of the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) *Waiver of hearing right.* A person who accepts the final assessment under paragraph (a)(1) of this section waives the right to a hearing.
#### David Kantor, Appellant, v. United Power Laundries, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Reba Deaner, Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section




National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley
National Monument
IL, MS


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  The Catalyst of the Modern Civil Rights Movement In 1955, 14-year-old Emmett Till traveled to Money, Mississippi, to visit relatives. He was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered after reportedly whistling at a white woman. His mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, insisted on an open-casket funeral near their hometown of Chicago. Her brave decision let the world see the racist violence inflicted upon her son and set the Civil Rights Movement into motion.
Read More
  A two-story brick courthouse with clock tower and tree in front.Plan Your Visit Plan a visit to the three sites associated with the national monument in Mississippi and Illinois.
 A multi-story brick church stands along the side of a street. A tree stands in front. History and Culture Learn more about Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley.
 Last updated: July 24, 2023
 Basic Information
 Maps
 News
 Partners
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Monument Headquarters
P.O. Box 361
Sumner,
MS
38957
 Phone: (662) 483-1231
Emmett Till Interpretive Center. Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5084 

To reprioritize Federal law enforcement funds from prosecuting nonviolent 

pro-life demonstrators to prosecuting violent offenders and drug traffickers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2022 

Mr. HAGERTY (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. DAINES, Mr. 

CASSIDY, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reprioritize Federal law enforcement funds from prosecuting nonviolent pro-life demonstrators to prosecuting 

violent offenders and drug traffickers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Arrest Murderers not 

5 Ministers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES. 

7 (a) FUNDING PROHIBITION.—During fiscal year 

8 2023, no funds may be used by the Federal Government 

9 to enforce section 248 of title 18, United States Code, inVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:26 Nov 15, 2022 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S5084.IS S5084

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5084 IS

1 cluding by alleging a conspiracy under section 241 of title 

2 18, United States Code, or any other violation of law that 

3 derives from section 248 of title 18, United States Code, 

4 unless the alleged violation of that section involves— 

5 (1) intentional physical injuries to a person, or 

6 an intentional attempt to physically injure a person, 

7 for— 

8 (A) obtaining or providing, or attempting 

9 to obtain or provide, reproductive health serv10 ices; or 

11 (B) lawfully exercising or seeking to exer12 cise the First Amendment to the Constitution 

13 of the United States right of religious freedom 

14 at a place of religious worship; or 

15 (2) intentional physical damage to, or an inten16 tional attempt to physically damage, the property 

17 of— 

18 (A) a facility that provides reproductive 

19 health services because the facility provides re20 productive health services; or 

21 (B) a place of religious worship. 

22 (b) ALTERNATIVE USE OF FUNDS.—Any funds that 

23 the Federal Government would have used to enforce sec24 tion 248 of title 18, United States Code, including by al25 leging a conspiracy under section 241 of title 18, United 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5084 IS

1 States Code or any other violation of law that derives from 

2 section 248 of title 18, United States Code, but for the 

3 prohibition under subsection (a) of this section, shall be 

4 used to prosecute offenders who— 

5 (1) have committed crimes involving violent 

6 conduct; 

7 (2) are felons who illegally possess firearms; 

8 (3) have committed drug trafficking crimes, in9 cluding crimes involving fentanyl and other synthetic 

10 opioids; or 

11 (4) are illegal aliens who have committed crimi12 nal offenses in the United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS