alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §462. Court accommodations

(a) Sessions of courts of the United States (except the Supreme Court) shall be held only at places where the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts provides accommodations, or where suitable accommodations are furnished without cost to the judicial branch.

(b) The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall provide accommodations, including chambers and courtrooms, only at places where regular sessions of court are authorized by law to be held, but only if the judicial council of the appropriate circuit has approved the accommodations as necessary.

(c) The limitations and restrictions contained in subsection (b) of this section shall not prevent the Director from furnishing chambers to circuit judges at places within the circuit other than where regular sessions of court are authorized by law to be held, when the judicial council of the circuit approves.

(d) The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall provide permanent accommodations for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and for the United States Court of Federal Claims only at the District of Columbia. However, each such court may hold regular and special sessions at other places utilizing the accommodations which the Director provides to other courts.

(e) The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall provide accommodations for probation officers, pretrial service officers, and Federal Public Defender Organizations at such places as may be approved by the judicial council of the appropriate circuit.

(f) Upon the request of the Director, the Administrator of General Services is authorized and directed to provide the accommodations the Director requests, and to close accommodations which the Director recommends for closure with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §115(c)(1), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 31; amended Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1015, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4669; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court".

1988—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–702 substituted "within the circuit other than where regular sessions of court are authorized by law to be held," for "where Federal facilities are available".

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as an Effective Date of 1982 Amendment note under section 171 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5172 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5172

 To designate the Department of Energy Integrated Engineering Research 
   Center Federal Building located at the Fermi National Accelerator 
  Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, as the ``Helen Edwards Engineering 
                           Research Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 1, 2022

  Mr. Durbin (for himself and Ms. Duckworth) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Department of Energy Integrated Engineering Research 
   Center Federal Building located at the Fermi National Accelerator 
  Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, as the ``Helen Edwards Engineering 
                           Research Center''.

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

SECTION 1. HELEN EDWARDS ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER.

    (a) Designation.--The Department of Energy Integrated Engineering 
Research Center Federal Building located at the Fermi National 
Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Helen Edwards Engineering Research Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal Building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Helen Edwards Engineering Research Center''.
                                 <all>
```
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Humboldt Bay Radiation Protection Procedures

## HPPOS-129 PDR-9111210340

See the memorandum from K. D. Cyr to J. Wigginton dated June 17, 1985.

This memo provides the following OELD opinion. Technical Specifications that require only that radiation protection procedures be "maintained" should be interpreted to mean that the procedures should be followed.

A broader reading of the word "maintain" to include "adherence to" is consistent with the intent of the Technical Specifications that the licensee have a radiation program to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20. HPPOS-128 contains a related topic.

**Regulatory references:** Technical Specifications

**Subject codes:** 1.7

**Applicability:**Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen,
Justices 

# Order

May 18, 2016

151717

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC POLICE AND FIRE RETIREE PREFUNDED GROUP HEALTH & INSURANCE TRUST, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151717 COA: 316418 Oakland CC: 2012

- 128625

- CZ CITY OF PONTIAC, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On April 6, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2015 judgment of t he Court of Appeals. On order of th e Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The Court of Appeals erred in its reading of Executive Order 225 (EO 225). Contrary to the Court of Appeals conclusion, EO 225 by its plain language expre sses the intent of the emergency manager to extinguish the defendant’s 2011

- 2012 fiscal year contribution. Although that contribution accrued on June 30, 2012, the defendant had not yet paid the obligation when EO 225 went into effect. EO 225 clearly sta tes that, as of August 1, 2012, the defendant no longer has an obligation “to continue to make contributions” under Article III of the Trust Agreement. It does not differentiate between already accrued, but unpaid obligations and future obligations, and t hus by its terms applies to both. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the emergency manager did not intend to extinguish the defendant’s 2011

- 2012 fiscal year contribution. Nonetheless, although the Court of Appeals determined that the emergency man a ger could retroactively extinguish

the 2011

- 2012 fiscal year contribution through his authority under 2011 PA 14, it did not specifically address whether EO 225 was a permissible retroactive modification of the plaintiff’s accrued right to the contribution. See LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler Group, LLC , 496 Mich 26 (2014). We therefore REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment which interprets EO 225, VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment which discusses the pla intiff’s breach of contract claim, and REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for it to consider: (1) whether the retroactivity analysisI, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 18, 2016

p0511 2

Clerk stated in LaFontaine applies to EO 225; (2) if so , whether the extinguishment of the defendant’s accrued, but unpaid, 2011

- 2012 fiscal year contribution by EO 225 is permissible under LaFontaine ; and (3) if LaFontaine does not apply, the appropriate method for determining whether EO 225 constitutes a per missible retroactive

modification of the 2011

- 2012 fiscal year contribution.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
### §7483. Notice of appeal

Review of a decision of the Tax Court shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Tax Court within 90 days after the decision of the Tax Court is entered. If a timely notice of appeal is filed by one party, any other party may take an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within 120 days after the decision of the Tax Court is entered.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 891; Pub. L. 91–172, title IX, §959(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 734.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1969—Pub. L. 91–172 substituted references to notice of appeal for references to petition for review, and otherwise generally altered the section as to time for appeal and terminology in order to conform section to the form of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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

#### Effective Date of 1969 Amendment

Pub. L. 91–172, title IX, §962(f), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 736, as amended by Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that: "The amendments made by sections 959 and 960(h) [amending this section and sections 7481, 7482, and 7485 of this title] shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 1969]. In the case of any decision of the Tax Court entered before the 30th day after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 30, 1969], the United States Courts of Appeals shall have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such decision, if such appeal was filed within the time prescribed by Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or by section 7483 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954] as in effect at the time the decision of the Tax Court was entered."
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION





I , Ramesh C. Trivedi, Chief Executive Officer of Integrated Surgical Systems,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
          ended September 30, 2004, which this certification accompanies (the
          "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.




 Dated: December 16, 2004                          /s/ Ramesh C. Trivedi
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                       Ramesh C. Trivedi
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.17



ACCESSION AGREEMENT



|To: | BARCLAYS BANK PLC as Facility Agent
|--- | -----------------------------------



|From:  ARAMARK | IRELAND HOLDINGS LIMITED, ARAMARK HOLDINGS GMBH & CO. KG and ARAMARK GMBH
|-------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: | 22 September 2004
|----- | -----------------



ARAMARK IRELAND HOLDINGS LIMITED  £150,000,000 Credit Agreement

dated 21 June 2004, as amended by the amendment letter dated 22 September 2004

(the Agreement)



We refer to the Agreement. This is an Accession Agreement.



Each of ARAMARK Holdings GmbH & Co. KG (of Martin-Behaim-Strasse 6, 63263 Neu-Isenburg,
Germany) and ARAMARK GmbH (of Martin-Behaim-Strasse 6, 63263 Neu-Isenburg, Germany) agrees to become an Additional Borrower and to be bound by the terms of the Agreement as an Additional Borrower.



This Accession Agreement is governed by English law.



[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]



---

|                                 |  |                     
|-------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|ARAMARK IRELAND HOLDINGS LIMITED
|                                 | 
|By:                              |  | /s/ John B. Benjamin
|Name:                            |  | John B. Benjamin    
|Title:                           |  | Director            



|                               |  |                                             
|------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|                              
|ARAMARK HOLDINGS GMBH & CO. KG
|                               | 
|By:                            |  | ARAMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH, its general partner

|       |  |                                                       |  |        |  |                                    
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Udo Luerssen                                      |  | By:    |  | /s/ Uli Böpple                     
|Name:  |  | Udo Luerssen                                          |  | Name:  |  | Uli Böpple                         
|Title: |  | Managing Director (Vorsitzender dar
Geschäftsfübrung) |  | Title: |  | Managing Director (Geschäftsführer)



ARAMARK GMBH

|       |  |                                     |  |        |  |                  
|------ |  | ----------------------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------
|       |  |                                     | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Udo Luerssen                    |  | By:    |  | /s/ Uli Böpple   
|Name:  |  | Udo Luerssen                        |  | Name:  |  | Uli Böpple       
|Title: |  | Managing Director                   |  | Title: |  | Managing Director
|       |  | (Vorsitzender dar Geschäftsfübrung) |  |        |  | (Geschäftsführer)



[SIGNATURE PAGE TO
ACCESSION AGREEMENT]
Some of the applications referenced in these letters of intent are likely to contain or reference 

Safeguards Information (SGI). The NRC has established procedures to allow potential parties 

(i.e. members of the public who may wish to request a hearing) to obtain access to SGI upon a 

showing of "need to know" and a determination that they would be likely to have standing in a 

hearing. Additionally, members of the public requesting access to SGI must be found 

trustworthy and reliable by the NRC before being granted access to SGI; this determination 

involves a background check that includes fingering printing. 

Because background checks for trustworthiness and reliability determinations may take several 

months to complete, potential parties seeking access to SGI are advised to contact the 

individual listed for the specific letter of intent to determine whether the intended application is 

likely to contain SGI. If the application is likely to contain SGI, potential parties may, by 

following the NRC’s pre-clearance procedures (available at Agencywide Document Access 

Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML080380626), submit a request for preclearance as early as 180 days before the projected date of the filing of an application. Do not 

submit an access request until the Staff has confirmed that the intended application is 

likely to contain SGI. Fees submitted in connection with the pre-clearance process are not 

refundable for any reason.
### **CHAPTER 19—DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS AND DIGESTS**

Sec.
411.
Supreme Court reports; printing, binding, and distribution.
412.
Sale of Supreme Court reports.
413.
Publications; distribution to courts.
414.
Transmittal of books to successors.
[415.
Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1982**—Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §113, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 29, struck out item 415 "Court of Claims decisions".

**1952**—Act July 10, 1952, ch. 632, §3, 66 Stat. 540, amended analysis to conform it to amendments of sections 411 to 413 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23113]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Identification 
Technologies will meet in closed session on November 4-5, 2004, at 
Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. The Task 
Force will assess current technologies and operational concepts to 
identify and track individuals and materiel.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. In this 
assessment, the task force's investigation will encompass defense, 
intelligence, and commercial systems, including compartmented 
technology in development and promising technologies in the lab that 
are not yet deployed. Technologies will include passive/active, line of 
sight/non-line of sight, and cooperative/non-cooperative. Potential 
mechanisms include predictive behavior modeling based on threat 
characteristics (attack modality, ideological makeup, social, ethnic, 
religious and political tendencies, etc.), identification technologies 
such as biometrics (iris scans, facial features, voice prints, etc.), 
DNA matching, and advanced non-identification technologies such as EO, 
RF, hyperspectral, and fluid surface assembly (FSA) sensors.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: October 8, 2004.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-23113 Filed 10-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### § 101.407 May the Administrator waive these regulations?

The Administrator may waive any provision of §§ 101.400 through and including 101.406 in an emergency.
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–106 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 27—WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 

JUNE 7, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 304] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 304, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 27, 

Withdrawing the Approval of the United States from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, a closed rule. 

The rule provides two hours of debate equally divided among and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means, Representative Paul of Texas, and Representative Sanders of Vermont. 

Section 2 of the resolution provides that during consideration of 

H.J. Res. 27 pursuant to the resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1209 Evidence beyond the record, discovery, and oral hearings. ( a ) Generally, the Judge may not admit evidence beyond the administrative record.
( b ) Neither discovery nor oral hearings will be permitted in appeals from final SBA loan review decisions.
( c ) All appeals under this subpart will be decided solely on a review of the administrative record, the appeal petition, any response, any reply or supplemental pleading, and filings related to objection to the administrative record.
### §7457. Witness fees

#### (a) Amount

Any witness summoned or whose deposition is taken under section 7456 shall receive the same fees and mileage as witnesses in courts of the United States.

#### (b) Payment

Such fees and mileage and the expenses of taking any such deposition shall be paid as follows:

#### (1) Witnesses for Secretary

In the case of witnesses for the Secretary, such payments shall be made by the Secretary out of any moneys appropriated for the collection of internal revenue taxes, and may be made in advance.

#### (2) Other Witnesses

In the case of any other witnesses, such payments shall be made, subject to rules prescribed by the Tax Court, by the party at whose instance the witness appears or the deposition is taken.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 886; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.