alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[106th Congress Public Law 254]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ254.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 638]]

Public Law 106-254
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for harming 
 animals used in Federal law enforcement. <<NOTE: Aug. 2, 2000 -  [H.R. 
                                1791]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Federal Law 
Enforcement Animal Protection Act of 2000.>> 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. <<NOTE: 18 USC 1368 note.>> 

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement Animal 
Protection Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. HARMING ANIMALS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1368. Harming animals used in law enforcement

    ``(a) Whoever willfully and maliciously harms any police animal, or 
attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title and 
imprisoned not more than 1 year. If the offense permanently disables or 
disfigures the animal, or causes serious bodily injury or the death of 
the animal, the maximum term of imprisonment shall be 10 years.
    ``(b) In this section, the term `police animal' means a dog or horse 
employed by a Federal agency (whether in the executive, legislative, or 
judicial branch) for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of 
criminal activity, enforcement of laws, or apprehension of criminal 
offenders.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``1368. Harming animals used in law enforcement.''.

    Approved August 2, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1791:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-372 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 145 (1999):
                                    Oct. 12, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 146 (2000):
                                    July 19, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
HomeAbout NRCSafety Culture

# Contact Us About Public Meetings and Presentations

See Public Meetings and Presentations for additional information.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 08, 2020
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 18-1129 

UNITED STATES, 

Appellee, 

v. 

ISHMAEL DOUGLAS 

Defendant, Appellant. 

ERRATA SHEET

 The opinion of this Court, issued on October 12, 2018, is 

amended as follows: 

 On page 16, footnote 14, line 4: replace " ... " with 

" . . . ". 

 On page 23, footnote 16, line 3: replace "code" with "Code". 

 On page 28, line 24: replace "inquires" with "inquiries" and 

"that" with "than".
HomeAbout NRCCareer OpportunitiesWorking at NRCNRC EthicsSummaries of Major Ethics Rules

# Bribery

The criminal law (18 USC 201) prohibits employees from seeking, accepting, or agreeing to receive anything of value for being influenced in the performance or nonperformance of an official act.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Financial Interests
          - Impartiality
          - Security Ownership Restrictions
          - Gifts
          - Bribery
          - NRC Time and Property
          - NRC Title or Position
          - Nonpublic Information
          - Outside Employment
          - Supplementing Federal Salary
          - Teaching, Speaking, or Writing
          - Fundraising
          - Representations to the Government
          - Job Seeking
          - Post-Employment Restrictions
          - Expert Witness
          - Political Restrictions
          - Procurement Restrictions
          - Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
          - Foreign Governments
          - Financial Disclosure (5 CFR Part 2634)

#### 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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020
EXHIBIT 32.1: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended August 31, 2009, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

      (1)   such Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31,
            2009 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 such Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
            the quarter ended August 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            Magna-Lab, Inc.


October 13, 2009                  /s/ Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                  -----------------------
                                  Name:  Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                  Title: President (principal executive officer)
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Township of Radnor, :

Appellant : CASES CONSOLIDATED

:

v. : No. 1665 C.D. 2019

:

Goshen Holding Company, Inc. :

and C.F. Holloway, III :

Township of Radnor :

:

v. : No. 1691 C.D. 2019

:

Goshen Holding Company, Inc. and :

C.F. Holloway, III :

:

Appeal of: Jeffrey S. Rosenblum and :

Leonor R. Rosenblum :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, September 11, 2020, having considered Designated Appellant

Township of Radnor’s application for reargument/reconsideration and Appellees’

answer in response thereto, the application is denied.
#### George Zelonka, Appellant, v. Sun Vacuum Stores, Inc., Respondent.

Ho opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellant,

v.

K.M., a child

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 2644

[ October 7, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Carlos S. Rebollo , Judge; L.T. Case No. 10

- 8678DL10A

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, As s istant Public

Defe nder, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the state’s delinquency petition prior to an adjudicatory hearing and remand for further proceedings. See State v. J.C. , 141 So. 3d 756 , 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 20 14);

State v. W.D. , 112 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

G ROSS

, T

AYLOR

, JJ., and S HEPHERD
, C AROLINE , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
In The Matter Of: HORTMAN AVIATION SERVICES, INC. Respondent 

### SERVED: March 30, 2016

) ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2015-0635 Case No. 2010EA170043

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING OnJanuary 19,2016, an Order Granting Temporary Stay ofProceedings

### Nunc Pro Tunc was filed. Among otherthings, this Order set a March 25, 2016 deadline for the FAAto file a Motion for Default, a Case Status Report, or a Withdrawal ofthe Complaint. OnMarch 29,2016, the FAAfiled the Agency's Withdrawal ofComplaint. After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215, the FAAhas withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service ListDocketNo. FAA-2015-0635 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST.,... BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Mr. Zachary M. Berman Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

.TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. H.M. Hortman, President Hortman Aviation Services, Inc. Respondent 9800 Ashton Road Philadelphia, PA 19114 TEL: 215-969-0311 FAX: 215-677-6408 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation ONE COPY

1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company,

CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00 066

- CV

Trial court case number: 1997

- 48526

Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County

The brief of appellant filed January 21, 2016

, exceeds the maximum length permitted by

Texas Rul e of Appellant Procedure 9.4(i) (2)(B). Accordingly, we strike t he brief and request

that appellant file a brief complying with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within 21

days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) (providing that brief must

not exceed 15,000 words if computer generated); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(i)(3) (requiring

certificate of compliance stating number of words in document).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 28, 2016
Exhibit
4.2


 


Description
of Securities


 


We
are authorized to issue up to 200,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 per share. We have designated 1,000,000 shares of preferred
stock as Series A Preferred Stock, one share of preferred stock as Series B Preferred Stock and 15,000,000 shares of preferred
stock as Series C Preferred Stock.


 


As
of March 31, 2021, we have 4,684,718 shares of common stock outstanding. The following description of our
common stock is a summary and is subject to and is qualified in its entirety by reference to our Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation which is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-k for the year
ended December 31, 2020.


 


Common
Stock


 


The
holders of common stock are entitled to one vote per share. Our Certificate of Incorporation does not expressly prohibit cumulative
voting. The holders of our common stock are entitled to share ratably such dividends, if any, as may be declared by the Board
of Directors out of legally available funds. Upon liquidation, dissolution or winding- up, the holders of our common stock are
entitled to share ratably in all assets that are legally available for distribution. All outstanding shares of common stock are
fully paid and non- assessable. The holders of our common stock have no preemptive, subscription, redemption or conversion rights.
The rights, preferences and privileges of holders of our common stock are subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights
of holders of any series of preferred stock, which may be designated solely by action of the Board of Directors and issued in
the future.


 


Our
common stock is quoted under the symbol “ OMQS”.
§ 142.16 At the hearing, what rights do the parties have? ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and SBA. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff in an action under the False Claims Act may participate in the hearing to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.
( b ) Each party has the right to: ( 1 ) Be represented by a representative;
( 2 ) Request a pre-hearing conference and participate in any conference held by the ALJ;
( 3 ) Conduct discovery;
( 4 ) Agree to stipulations of fact or law which will be made a part of the record;
( 5 ) Present evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
( 6 ) Present and cross-examine witnesses;
( 7 ) Present arguments at the hearing as permitted by the ALJ; and
( 8 ) Submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing, as permitted by the ALJ.
§ 108.40 How to read this part 108. ( a ) *Center headings.* All references in this part to SBA forms, and instructions for their preparation, are to the current issue of such forms (available from Investment Division, SBA). Center headings are descriptive and are used for convenience only. They have no regulatory effect.
( b ) *Capitalizing defined terms.* Terms defined in § 108.50 have initial capitalization in this part 108.
( c ) “ You. ” The pronoun “you” as used in this part 108 means a NMVC Company unless otherwise noted.
Exhibit 4.453

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182555 dated July 28, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Telecommunication services for provision of communication channels

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until July 28, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 23, 2020 No. 172-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Terlyakov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here

Official seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION 
   IN THE SPHERE

OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
   TECHNOLOGY

AND MASS MEDIA

PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119608
§ 107.1400 Dividends or partnership distributions on 4 percent Preferred Securities. If you issued Preferred Securities to SBA on or after November 21, 1989, you must pay SBA a dividend or partnership distribution of 4 percent per year, from the date you issued Preferred Securities to the date you repay them, both inclusive. The dividend or partnership distribution is: ( a ) Computed on the par value of the outstanding stock or the face value of the outstanding limited partnership interest.
( b ) Cumulative. This means that if you do not pay the entire dividend or partnership distribution for a given fiscal year, the unpaid balance accumulates as a distribution in arrears. You do not have to pay interest on distributions in arrears.
( c ) Preferred. This means that you must pay SBA in full (including distributions in arrears) before setting aside or paying any amount to any other equity holder.
( d ) Payable at the discretion of your Board of Directors or General Partner(s), except that all distributions in arrears must be paid in full when you redeem the Preferred Securities.
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 5869, Feb. 5, 1998]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 395

**Question 395:** If an individual is monitored several times during a year by the same licensee (e.g., during two monitoring periods separated in time), how should the monitoring period (s) be designated in the annual individual monitoring report required by 10 CFR 20.2206 (i.e., on the NRC Form 5 or equivalent)? Due to the possible limitations in the format and structure in licensee's computerized occupational dose recordkeeping systems, it seems that there should be flexibility in meeting the intent of the requirements. Alternatives might include the following:
        - Issue one NRC Form 5 or equivalent with a single monitoring period that begins on the first day of the year and ends on the last day of the year.
        - Issue one NRC Form 5 or equivalent with single monitoring period that begins on the first day of the first monitoring period and ends on the last day of the last monitoring period.
        - Issue a separate NRC Form 5 or equivalent for each individual monitoring period (i.e., issue two or more NRC Form 5s for the same individual in the same year).

Would any or all of these approaches be acceptable in meeting the intent of the regulatory requirements? Would other approaches be acceptable? If so, please describe.

**Answer:** All three options are acceptable (option B is preferable) provided that the separate "monitoring period (s)" in the question fall within the year used to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 20.2206 requires an annual report of monitoring for individuals for whom monitoring was required by 10 CFR 20.1502 during that year (emphasis added). 10 CFR 20.1502 requires monitoring sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the limits. The year as defined in 10 CFR 20.1003 is the period of time used to demonstrate compliance. Thus, the time period for reporting under 10 CFR 20.2206 must be the year as defined in 10 CFR 20.1003 that is used to demonstrate compliance.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.2206)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, November 27, 2017
(No. 1166

Claimant awarded $300.00.)

#### Genevieve M. Fogarty, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 29,*1927.

Fees *& salames*— when *State liable.*Claimant is entitled' to the salary-fixed by an appropriation made by the General Assembly for the position.

Joseph L. Gill, 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:

It appears that claimant was employed as a statistical clerk in the Division of State Fair of the Department of Agriculture of the State of Illinois from the 1st day of July, 1923, until the 1st day of September, 1924, and it further appears that the- 53rd General Assembly appropriated for the salary of this position the sum of $2,100.00 per annum, which would be at the rate of $175.00 per month, and it further appears, *350without contradiction, that claimant only received $150.00 per month for the period above mentioned.

It is the opinion of this court that the legislature intended that the occupant of this position should receive $175.00 per month for this period, which would be $300.00 more than the amount paid claimant.

Therefore this court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of $300.00.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Requests by Reactor Licensees That Women Inspectors Sign Statements That They are not Pregnant

## HPPOS-249 PDR-9206260114

See the memoranda from F. J. Congel to M. R. Knapp (and others) dated March 4, 1992, and from R. E. Cunningham to M. R. Knapp (and others) dated April 1, 1992.

It is OGC opinion that a licensee request for a female inspector to sign a statement that she is not pregnant is not appropriate and is inconsistent with the law. A licensee denial of site access to a female inspector because she refuses to sign such a statement is a clear violation of federal regulations.

Licensee denial of site access to a female inspector who refuses to sign a statement that she is not pregnant is a violation of 10 CFR 30.52 (a), 40.62 (a), or 70.55 (a).

These regulations require each licensee to "... afford to the Commission at all reasonable times, opportunity to inspect..." byproduct, source, or special nuclear material and the premises and facilities where such material is used, produced or stored.

At Part 70 licensee facilities, licensee denial of site access to an inspector who refuses to sign such statements would be a violation of 10 CFR 70.55 (c) (3). This regulation requires the licensee to provide immediate unfettered access to the inspector following proper identification and compliance with applicable access control measures for security, radiological protection, and personal safety.

**Regulatory references:**10 CFR 30.52, 10 CFR 40.62, 10 CFR, 50.70, 10 CFR 70.55

**Subject codes:** 8.11, 12.9, 12.18

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, October 18, 2017
#### Alexander Dezendorf, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. John F. Poppke, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style, etc., Appellant.

Although defendant did not seek a bill of particulars till on the eve of trial, there is no evidence that plaintiff had been harmed by such delay, since if ready to go to trial plaintiff must know what he is undertaking to prove, and, hence, can give the particulars asked for. Mere laches, without other prejudice to plaintiff, is not a sufficient ground to deny such application. *(Convery*v. Marrin, 128 App. Div. 265.) The order of the County Court of Kings county denying motion for a bill of particulars on the ground of laches is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.1010 Standard of review and burden of proof.

The protested concern has the burden of proving its eligibility, by a preponderance of the evidence.