alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4228

_____________________________
T IMOTHY R ANDALL W ILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit C ourt for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

. March 22, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and W OLF and R AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. Ap p. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Rachael E. Bushey of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
### §1185l. Air ambulance report requirements

#### (a) In general

Each group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage shall submit to the Secretary, jointly with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of the Treasury—

(1) not later than the date that is 90 days after the last day of the first calendar year beginning on or after the date on which a final rule is promulgated pursuant to the rulemaking described in section 106(d) of the No Surprises Act, the information described in subsection (b) with respect to such plan year; and

(2) not later than the date that is 90 days after the last day of the plan year immediately succeeding the calendar year described in paragraph (1), such information with respect to such immediately succeeding plan year.

#### (b) Information described

For purposes of subsection (a), information described in this subsection, with respect to a group health plan or a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, is each of the following:

(1) Claims data for air ambulance services furnished by providers of such services, disaggregated by each of the following factors:

(A) Whether such services were furnished on an emergent or nonemergent basis.

(B) Whether the provider of such services is part of a hospital-owned or sponsored program, municipality-sponsored program, hospital independent partnership (hybrid) program, independent program, or tribally operated program in Alaska.

(C) Whether the transport in which the services were furnished originated in a rural or urban area.

(D) The type of aircraft (such as rotor transport or fixed wing transport) used to furnish such services.

(E) Whether the provider of such services has a contract with the plan or issuer, as applicable, to furnish such services under the plan or coverage, respectively.

(2) Such other information regarding providers of air ambulance services as the Secretary may specify.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §723, as added Pub. L. 116–260, div. BB, title I, §106(b)(2)(A), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2853.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 106(d) of the No Surprises Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is section 106(d) of div. BB of Pub. L. 116–260, which is set out as a note under section 300gg–118 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.1007 Maintenance of records. ( a ) *General.* An importer claiming preferential tariff treatment for a good (based on either the importer's certification or its knowledge, or on the certification issued by the exporter or producer) imported into the United States under § 10.1003(b) of this subpart must maintain for a minimum of five years from the date of importation of the good, all records and documents that the importer has demonstrating that the good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under the UKFTA. These records are in addition to any other records that the importer is required to prepare, maintain, or make available to CBP under part 163 of this chapter.
( b ) *Method of maintenance.* The records and documents referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must be maintained by importers as provided in § 163.5 of this chapter.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Technical Assistance Request, Schering Plough Corporation, Release of a Facility for Unrestricted Use

## HPPOS-277 PDR-9306140177

See the memorandum from J. E. Glenn to J. D. Kinneman dated August 7, 1991, and the memorandum from J. H. Austin to J. E. Glenn dated July 24, 1991.

These memos respond to the TAR by Region I, dated July 19, 1992 (enclosures), regarding the release of a facility for unrestricted use by the Schering Plough Corporation. The Schering Plough Corporation (Schering) Animal Health Research Center in Cream Ridge, New Jersey, was a satellite location for activities authorized by License No. 29-00244-02. The laboratories used for small quantities of H-3, C-14, and I-125 were decommissioned, and a request submitted to release the site for unrestricted use. Confirmatory surveys indicated that the laboratories can be released, but records describe the burial of four cows carcasses on the property. Information regarding the burial is provided in the Schering correspondence (enclosures). However, the burial site at the Schering facility in Cream Ridge cannot be released for unrestricted use by Region I without the concurrence of NMSS.

Based on the information submitted by the licensee, especially the memorandum dated November 21, 1989 (enclosures), Region I recommends that you concur in the release without further information from or action by the license. NMSS concurred that the submitted information demonstrates compliance with "0.5 microcuries or less of hydrogen-3 or carbon-14, per gram of animal tissue averaged over the weight of the entire animal..." in accordance with 10 CFR 20.306 (b), and agreed that the request should be approved. This health physics position also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.2005 (a).

**Regulatory references:**10 CFR 20.306, 10 CFR 20.2005

**Subject codes:** 3.6, 5.8, 9.0, 9.7

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2017
### SUBCHAPTER III—REVIEW OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Editorial Note on Part 126
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 126.602 Must a certified HUBZone small business concern maintain the employee residency percentage during contract performance? ( a ) A certified HUBZone small business concern that has not received a HUBZone contract must have at least 35% of its employees residing within a HUBZone at the time of certification and annual recertification. Such a concern need not meet the 35% HUBZone residency requirement at all times while certified in the program. A certified HUBZone small business concern that has received a HUBZone contract must “attempt to maintain” (*see* § 126.103) having 35% of its employees residing in a HUBZone during the performance of any HUBZone contract awarded to the concern on the basis of its HUBZone status. Such a concern must have at least 20% of its employees residing within a HUBZone at the time of its annual recertification.
( b ) For orders under indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts, including orders under multiple award contracts, a certified HUBZone small business concern must “attempt to maintain” the HUBZone residency requirement during the performance of each order that is set aside for HUBZone small business concerns.
( c ) A certified HUBZone small business concern eligible for the program pursuant to § 126.200(c)(2)(ii) must have at least 35% of its employees engaged in performing a HUBZone contract residing within any Indian reservation governed by one or more of the concern's Indian Tribal Government owners, or residing within any HUBZone adjoining any such Indian reservation.
( d ) A certified HUBZone small business concern that has less than 20% of its total employees residing in a HUBZone during the performance of a HUBZone contract has failed to attempt to maintain the HUBZone residency requirement. Such failure will result in proposed decertification pursuant to § 126.503.
[84 FR 65247, Nov. 26, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 66197, Oct. 16, 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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 04-113] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the Aviation Safety Reporting System Subcommittee (ASRSS). 

# DATES:

Wednesday, November 3, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

National Air Traffic Controllers Association, 1325 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Linda Connell, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, (650) 960-6059. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows: 

—Opening Remarks 

—Program Status 

—Strategic Planning 

—Closing Comments 

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. 04-23407 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
Mr.BarryRStephensDirectorUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGION4ATLANTAFEDERALCENTER61FORSYTHSTREETATLANTA,GEORGIA30303-8960JUN1 92Dt4TennesseeDivisionofAirPollutionControl312RosaL.ParksAvenue15thFloorNashville,Tennessee37243DearMr.Stephens:OnMarch17,2014,wereceivedarevisiontotheTennesseeStateImplementationPlansubmittedbyyouragencyonMarch13,2014.ThatrevisionpertainstoCleanAirAct(CAA)requirementsforsection110(a)(2)(A-C),D(i)(II),D(ii),(E-H),and(J-M)forthe2010nitrogendioxidestandards.Wehavecompletedourreviewofthissubmissionandhavedeterminedthatalloftherequiredadministrativeandtechnicalcomponentsfortheseaforementionedelementsarepresent.ConsistentwithCAAtimeframes,wewillreviewthesubmissionforapprovabilitypriortopreparingarulemakingnoticetotakeactionontherevision.Ifyouhavequestionsaboutthisletter,contactmeorLynoraeBenjamin,ChiefoftheRegulatoryDevelopmentSection,at(404)562-9040.Sincerely,Air,PesticidesandTaxiesManagementDivisionInternetAddress(URLI•http://www.epa.govRecycled/Recyclable•PrintedwithVegetableOilBasedInksonRecycledPaper(Minimum30%Postconsumer)
### §§48c to 48g. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 48c, act Feb. 10, 1931, ch. 117, §4, 46 Stat. 1085; Ex. Ord. No. 6623, Mar. 1, 1934; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. I, §§4, 6, eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2727, 53 Stat. 1423, related to basis of action of the National Resources Planning Board which was abolished. See note below.

Section 48d, act Feb. 10, 1931, ch. 117, §5, 46 Stat. 1086; Ex. Ord. No. 6623, Mar. 1, 1934; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. I, §§4, 6, eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2727, 53 Stat. 1423, related to public works emergency appropriations during existence of depression periods.

Section 48e, act Feb. 10, 1931, ch. 117, §6, 46 Stat. 1086, related to use of emergency appropriations authorized by section 48d of this title.

Section 48f, act Feb. 10, 1931, ch. 117, §7, 46 Stat. 1086, related to acceleration of emergency construction work.

Section 48g, act Feb. 10, 1931, ch. 117, §8, 46 Stat. 1086; Ex. Ord. No. 6623, Mar. 1, 1934; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. I, §§4, 6, eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2727, 53 Stat. 1423, related to advance planning by construction agencies of the government and submission of programs, plans, and estimates to the National Resources Planning Board which was abolished. See note below.

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

#### National Resources Planning Board

The National Resources Planning Board was abolished August 31, 1943, by act June 26, 1943, ch. 145, title I, §1, 57 Stat. 170, and it was expressly provided that its functions were not to be transferred to any other agency, that the Director should exercise until January 1, 1944, such authority as was necessary to effectuate the discontinuance of the Board, and that the records and files of the Board should be transferred to the national archives.
EXHIBIT 10.8.3

                              VALUESTAR CORPORATION
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                SECOND AMENDMENT

On August 31, 1999 the Board of Directors  authorized  this second  amendment of
the 1997 Stock Option Plan. The 1997 Stock Option Plan was originally adopted by
the Board of  Directors on March 20, 1997 and  ratified by the  shareholders  on
April 16, 1997. The 1997 Stock Option Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section
5 in its entirety to be replaced by the following Section 5:


5. Shares Subject to the Plan.

For  purposes of the Plan,  the  Committee  is  authorized  to grant  Options to
purchase not more than one million two hundred fifty thousand (1,250,000) shares
of the Company's  common stock,  $.00025 par value per share  ("Common  Stock"),
either  treasury or authorized  but unissued  shares,  or the number and kind of
shares of stock or other securities  which, in accordance with Section 13, shall
be substituted  for such shares of Common Stock or to which such shares shall be
adjusted.  The  Committee is  authorized  to grant  Options  under the Plan with
respect to such shares.  Any or all unsold shares subject to an Option which for
any reason expires or otherwise  terminates  (excluding  shares  returned to the
Company in payment of the  exercise  price for  additional  shares) may again be
made subject to grant under the Plan.

Consistent  with  Section 3.2 all options  granted  under this Plan in excess of
options on 500,000 common shares previously  ratified by the stockholders of the
Company,  are subject to, and may not be exercised before,  the approval of this
Second  Amendment  by the  holders of a majority  of the  Company's  outstanding
shares on or before the expiration of twelve months from the date of this Second
Amendment of this Plan by the Board,  and if such approval is not obtained,  all
Options previously granted in excess of options on 500,000 common shares,  shall
be void.

                                     * * * *

By signature below, the undersigned  officers of the Company hereby certify that
the  foregoing  is a true and correct  copy of the Second  Amendment to the 1997
Stock Option Plan of the Company.

DATED:  August 31, 1999

VALUESTAR CORPORATION



By       /s/ JAMES STEIN
         ---------------
         James Stein, President and CEO



By       /s/ JAMES A. BARNES
         -------------------
         James A. Barnes, Secretary



<PAGE>




                CERTIFICATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT ADOPTION BY THE
                      SHAREHOLDERS OF VALUESTAR CORPORATION


I, the  undersigned  Secretary  of this  Corporation,  hereby  certify  that the
foregoing  Second  Amendment to the 1997 Stock Option Plan was duly  approved by
the requisite  number of holders of the issued and  outstanding  common stock of
this corporation as of the date below.

Date of Shareholder Approval of the Second Amendment:  NOVEMBER 19, 1999


/s/ JAMES A. BARNES
 ------------------
James A. Barnes, Secretary
#### § 15.3 Access to Mt. Weather.

Mt. Weather contains classified material and areas that we must protect in the interest of national security. The facility is a restricted area. We deny access to Mt. Weather to the general public and limit access to those persons having official business related to the missions and operations of Mt. Weather. The Administrator or the Mt. Weather Executive Director must approve all persons and vehicles entering Mt. Weather. All persons must register with the Mt. Weather Police/Security Force and must receive a Mt. Weather identification badge and vehicle parking decal or permit to enter or remain on the premises. No person will enter or remain on Mt. Weather premises unless he or she has received permission from the Administrator or the Mt. Weather Executive Director and has complied with these procedures.
#### Anthony Slawinski, Appellant, v. Rita Slawinski, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### §112g. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 112g was editorially reclassified as section 5537 of this title.
#### Randall JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Larry ROWLEY, Appellee.

No. 01-3296.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Randall Johnson appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. For the reasons stated by the district court, we agree that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Lawrence O. Davis, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.
### SUBCHAPTER VII—OTHER ENTITIES AND SERVICES
#### § 360.3 Eligible applicants.

Each of the 50 States, independent commonwealths, and territories is eligible to participate in a State Cooperative Agreement with FEMA. The department, division, or agency of the State government assigned the responsibility for State training in comprehensive emergency management should file the application.
May 29, 1945.

#### Philpot v. Philpot.

Hiram H. Owens, and S. V. Little for appellant.

G. H. Eversole for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Tilford

Affirming.

Appellant sued appellee for an absolute .divorce on the ground of cruelty. She also sought $5,000 alimony, the custody of their four year old daughter and $20 per month for her support. The appellee traversed the material allegations of the petition, and by counterclaim asked that he be awarded the custody of the infant and granted a divorce from the appellant on the ground that -she had been guilty of such lewd and lascivious conduct with one Robert Hunt as proved her to be unchaste. The Chancellor dismissed the petition and granted appellee a divorce' and the custody of his child. Hence, this appeal.

Appellant admitted in her testimony that appellee had never mistreated her in any way except by “fussing” at her; that he did not drink nor gamble, and it is not disputed that he was hard-working and industrious. Even her own mother stated that he had treated her well. One of appellant’s witnesses characterized him as a “good boy”, which seems to have been the general opinion of all who testified, except appellant, whose principal complaint was that he insisted upon having sexual intercourse with her too frequently, and that she was compelled ,to consent in order to induce him to buy her clothes.

*115In appellee’s behalf five witnesses testified to having seen appellant in company with Hunt at times and places and under circumstances indicating that her relations with bim transcended the Platonic. One witness testified that she saw them at night sitting on the back seat of a parked automobile, and that as she passed them appellant “ducked her head dowii in his lap and he put his arm around her.” While we cannot say that she was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,, a perusal of the testimony leaves no doubt whatsoever that the child’s welfare will be best secured by affirming the Chancellor’s award of its custody to appellee.

One of the grounds for reversal urged is that the credibility or good character of appellee’s witnesses was not certified in the manner required by KES 403.030, the sole statement on this subject being the certificate of the notary who took the depositions that the witnesses were “known of” by her, and that “their reputation for truth and veracity is good so far as I know. ’ ’ However, if no attempt whatsoever had been made to comply with KES 403.030, the testimony contained in the depositions was, nevertheless, competent in view of appellant’s failure to file exceptions. Keeling v. Keeling, 299 Ky. 540, 186 S. W. 2d 18. Moreover, this court has no power to reverse a judgment granting a divorce. KRS 21.060. As before indicated, appellant was in fault, and hence, not entitled to alimony, and the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration we are not disposed to disturb what we regard as the Chancellor’s correct disposition of this branch of the case.

Judgment affirmed.
S' J~,jED STq2,, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

# JUN - 8 2010

OFFICE OF AIR ANDRADIATION 

### The Honorable DonYoung U .S. Houseof Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Young: Thank you for your letter of May 3, 2010, to Administrator Jackson regarding our recent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Lead Emissions fromPiston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline. The Administrator has asked that I respond to your letter. We appreciate your comments about potential impacts on Alaskan communities and economic impacts to the general aviation community. We will be placing your letter in the docket for this rulemaking, and will consider your comments as part of our formal analysis and response to public comments. In addition, we agree to extend the comment period on the ANPR for another 60 days, as you request. We will issue a Federal Register notice to announce the formal extension. 

### I want to assure you that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the value of piston-engine general aviation in Alaska and elsewhere. Any EPAaction to require piston-engine aircraft to be able to operate safely and effectively on unleaded aviation gasoline in the future will involve a thorough process of identifying options andwill consider economic and other impacts. This would be done in concert with the Federal Aviation Administration, states, industry groups and user groups. Ifwe decide to act, the next step would be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would present a specific regulatory proposal and analysis and provide another opportunity for public comment . 

### Again, thank you for your letter. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or your staff maycall Diann Frantz in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-3668.

Gina McCarthy Assistant Administrator

Internet Address (URL) * http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable ta Printed with VegetableOil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper