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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 723 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 723

To amend the Small Business Act and the CARES Act to extend the covered 
  period for the paycheck protection program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 2021

Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Cardin, and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act and the CARES Act to extend the covered 
  period for the paycheck protection program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``PPP Extension Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF COVERED PERIOD FOR PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 7(a)(36)(A)(iii) of the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(A)(iii)) is amended by striking ``March 31, 
2021'' and inserting ``June 30, 2021''.
    (b) Funding.--Section 1102(b)(1) of the CARES Act (Public Law 116-
136), as amended by section 323 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small 
Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (title III of division N of 
Public Law 116-260), is amended by striking ``March 31, 2021'' and 
inserting ``June 30, 2021''.
    (c) Restriction.--From June 1, 2021, through June 30, 2021, the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall not accept new 
lender applications for loans under paragraph (36) or (37) of section 
7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) and shall only 
process such lender applications that have been submitted to the 
Administrator before June 1, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
## FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

DATE: March 1 4 , 2024

CASE OF: IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA FAMILY LAW

RULES OF PROCEDURE

- FORMS 12.900(H) AND

12.928

DOCKET NO.: SC 202 4

- 0072

OPINION FILED: February 2 2 , 20 24

ATTENTION: ALL PUBLISHERS

THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION S HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE

ABOVE OPINION:

On p. 10, line 1 , (C) was deleted before “ 61, Florida Statutes, other

than simplified dissolution. ”

On p. 10, line 2, ( D ) was changed to (C)

. On p. 10, line 4 , ( E ) was changed to ( D ).

On p. 10, line 6 , ( F ) was changed to ( E ).

On p. 10, line 8 , ( G ) was changed to ( F ).

On p. 10, line 10 , ( H ) was changed to ( G ).

On p. 10, line 1 2, ( I ) was changed to ( H ).

On p. 10, line 17 , ( J ) was changed to ( I ).

On p. 10, line 19 , ( K ) was changed to (J ).

On p. 10, line 21 , ( L ) was changed to ( K ).

On p. 10, line 2 3 , ( M ) was changed to ( L ).

On p. 10, line 2 5 , ( N ) was changed to ( M ).

On p. 10, line 3 2, ( O ) was changed to ( N ).

On p. 10, line 35 , ( P ) was changed to ( O ).

On p. 10, line 37 , ( Q ) was changed to ( P ).

On p. 10, line 39 , ( R ) was changed to ( Q ).

On p. 10, line 41 , ( S ) was changed to ( R ).

On p. 10, line 4 2, ( T ) was changed to ( S ).

On p. 10, line 44 , ( U ) was changed to ( T ).

On p. 1 1 , line 1 , ( V ) was changed to ( U ).

On p. 11, line 2, ( W ) was changed to ( V ).

On p. 11, line 4 , ( X ) was changed to ( W ).On p. 11, line 6 , ( Y ) was changed to ( X ).

On p. 11, line 8 , ( Z ) was changed to ( Y ).

SIGNED: OPINION CLERK
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-10 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, January 15, 1998)

NRC SCHEDULES THIRD WORKSHOP

ON DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH CLEANUP CRITERIA

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled the third in a series of

workshops on methods for demonstrating compliance with its recently issued regulation

on radiological criteria for license termination.

The workshop will be held January 26 from 9:00 a.m. until about 5:00 p.m. in the

NRC’s auditorium at Two White North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland..

Purpose of the workshop is to receive suggestions from the public and licensees

on an NRC working paper the staff is developing as a section of a future NRC

regulatory guide on “Demonstrating Compliance with the Radiological Criteria for

License Termination.”

The meeting will focus on methods for demonstrating compliance with portions of

the regulations that require that:

-- For all types of license termination, licensees must show that radiation

doses from contamination remaining on the property after license

termination and unrestricted release of the site will be as far below the

required limits as reasonably achievable;

-- For licensees who propose restricted release of the site, licensees must

show that further reductions in remaining radioactivity would result in net

public or environmental harm.

-- For licensees who propose to use the provision that, if the institutional

controls required by the rule for restricted release fail, the radiation dose

could be as high as 500 millirems per year, licensees must demonstrate

that further reductions in remaining radioactivity would result in net public

or environmental harm, are not technically achievable or would be

prohibitively expensive.
The NRC expects to hold in February a fourth, final workshop in this series on

demonstrating compliance with radiological criteria for license termination. Details will

be announced soon.

###
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-39 June 12, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT SALEM, HOPE CREEK NUCLEAR PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a meeting for Thursday, June 15, to

discuss the NRC Reactor Oversight Program Annual Assessments for the Salem and Hope Creek

nuclear power plants. The plants are located in Hancocks Bridge, N.J., and operated by Public Service

Electric & Gas Company.

Scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in the auditorium of the Processing Center at the site, the

meeting will be open to the public for observation. Following the session, NRC staff will be available

to answer questions from interested observers.

Issuance of the reviews was announced in NRC news release No. 00-085, which can be found

on the agency’s web site at www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/00-085.html

The Assessment Letter for Hope Creek can be found at

www.nrc.gov/OPA/prr/salem2000.html, for Salem at www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/hopecreek2000.html

Salem and Hope Creek were among the 13 nuclear power plants that participated in a sixmonth pilot evaluation of the NRC’s revised reactor oversight program. No significant performance

problems were identified at any of the 13 plants.

All commercial nuclear power plants (with the exception of the two D.C. Cook plants, due to

their extended shutdown) are now being evaluated under the revised reactor oversight process initiated

on April 2. The NRC expects to make additional refinements to the program during its first year of

implementation.

As part of the new program, each plant will receive an assessment letter every six months

which will include a 12-month inspection plan that may be updated periodically to reflect changes in

nuclear power plant performance and NRC resource allocations. Updated information on plant

performance is being posted to the NRC web site every quarter at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html

#
#### § 123.0 Scope.

This part contains special regulations pertaining to Customs procedures at the Canadian and Mexican borders. Included are provisions governing report of arrival, manifesting, unlading and lading, instruments of international traffic, shipments in transit through Canada or Mexico or through the United States, commercial traveler's samples transiting the United States or Canada, baggage arriving from Canada or Mexico including baggage transiting the United States or Canada or Mexico, and electronic information for rail and truck cargo in advance of arrival. Aircraft arriving from or departing for Canada or Mexico are governed by the provisions of part 122 of this chapter. The arrival of all vessels from, and clearance of all vessels departing for, Canada or Mexico are governed by the provisions of part 4 of this chapter. Fees for services provided in connection with the arrival of aircraft, vessels, vehicles and other conveyances from Canada or Mexico are set forth in § 24.22 of this chapter. Regulations pertaining to the treatment of goods from Canada or Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement are contained in part 181 of this chapter. The requirements for the United States Postal Service to transmit advance electronic information for inbound international mail shipments are set forth in § 145.74 of this chapter.

[CBP Dec. 21-04, 86 FR 14277, Mar. 15, 2021]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ESTATE OF KATHLEEN BURKE,

DECEASED.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00209-CV

Appeal from the

Probate Court No. 1

of Bexar County, Texas 

(TC# 2008-PC-1547) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal. See

TEX.R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. Costs of appeal are

assessed against Appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

August 31, 2011

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
§ 122.112 Definitions. The following definitions apply in this subpart: ( a ) *Transit air cargo.* “Transit air cargo” is cargo, including manifested baggage, transported under the requirements of this subpart.
( b ) *Port of arrival.* The “port of arrival” is the port in the U.S. where imported cargo must be documented for further transportation under this subpart.
( c ) *Transfer or transferred.* “Transfer or transferred” means the change of documentation of cargo to transit air cargo for transportation. The terms also include the physical movement of the cargo from one carrier to another, and thereafter by air or surface movement to the port of destination.
( d ) *Transit air cargo manifest.* “Transit air cargo manifest” is used in this subpart as the shortened title for the transportation entry and transit air cargo manifest.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.21 Updating cost data and other information.

When a claim for the exemption is predicated on estimated cost data furnished either in advance of or at the time of entry, this fact should be clearly stated in writing at the time of entry, and suspension of liquidation may be requested by the importer or his agent pending the furnishing of actual cost data. Actual cost data must be submitted as soon as accounting procedures permit. To insure that information used for Customs purposes is reasonably current, the importer shall ordinarily be required to furnish updated cost and assembly data at least every six months, regardless of whether he considers that significant changes have occurred. The 6-month period for the submission of updated cost or other data may be extended by the Center director if such extension is appropriate for the type of merchandise involved, or because of the accounting period normally used in the trade, or because of other relevant circumstances.

[T.D. 75-230, 40 FR 43025, Sept. 18, 1975]
#### § 111.35 Acceptance of fees from attorneys.

With respect to customs transactions, a broker must not demand or accept from any attorney (whether directly or indirectly, including, for example, from a client as a part of any arrangement with an attorney) on account of any case litigated in any court of law or on account of any other legal service rendered by an attorney any fee or remuneration in excess of an amount measured by or commensurate with the time, effort and skill expended by the broker in performing his services.
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


Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural
National Historic Site
New York


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Operating Hours & Seasons
 **Operating Hours & Seasons**
Open year round. Reservations are highly recommended. Reservations may be made through the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation.
Tours are scheduled every hour at the bottom of the hour, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Mon.-Fri. and 11:30 a.m. weekends. Last tour at 3:30 p.m
**Tour schedule:**
Mon.-Fri. tours at 9:30, 10:30, 11:30, 12:30, 1:30, 2:30, 3:30.
Sat.-Sun. tours at 11:30, 12:30, 1:30, 2:30, 3:30.
The TR Inaugural Site can be visited by guided tour only.
Tour size is limited by the size of historic rooms. RESERVATIONS ARE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED. See TRSite.org for reservations**.**Walk-ins will be accommodated as space permits, but may not be able to be accommodated on demand.
Please note that space is limited and this schedule may be altered due to scheduled groups.
Closed on New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
 Last updated: June 6, 2023
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site
641 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo,
NY
14202
 Phone: 716 884-0095 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
-cr-06219-WDF Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2000 P
-cr-06219-WDF Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2000 P
§ 111.42 Relations with person who is notoriously disreputable or whose license is under suspension, canceled “with prejudice,” or revoked. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a broker must not knowingly and directly or indirectly: ( 1 ) Accept employment to effect a customs transaction as associate, correspondent, officer, employee, agent, or subagent from any person who is notoriously disreputable or whose broker license was revoked for any cause or is under suspension or was cancelled “with prejudice;”
( 2 ) Assist in the furtherance of any customs business or transactions of any person described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
( 3 ) Employ, or accept assistance in the furtherance of any customs business or transactions from, any person described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, without the approval of the Executive Assistant Commissioner, or his or her designee, (see § 111.79);
( 4 ) Share fees with any person described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
( 5 ) Permit any person described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to participate, directly or indirectly and whether through ownership or otherwise, in the promotion, control, or direction of the business of the broker.
( b ) *Client exception.* Nothing in this section will prohibit a broker from transacting customs business on behalf of a bona fide importer or exporter who may be notoriously disreputable or whose broker license is under suspension or was cancelled “with prejudice” or revoked.
[T.D. 00-17, 65 FR 13891, Mar. 15, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63318, Oct. 18, 2022]
§ 302.9 Inter-governmental review of projects. ( a ) When an Eligible Applicant is not a State, Indian Tribe, or other general purpose governmental authority, the Eligible Applicant must afford the appropriate general purpose local governmental authority (the “*Authority*”) in the Region a minimum of 15 days to review and comment on a proposed Project under EDA's Public Works and Economic Development program or a proposed construction Project or RLF Grant under EDA's Economic Adjustment Assistance program. Under these programs, the Eligible Applicant shall furnish the following with its application: ( 1 ) If no comments are received from the Authority, a statement of efforts made to obtain such comments; or
( 2 ) If comments are received from the Authority, a copy of the comments and a statement of any actions taken to address such comments.
( b ) As required by 15 CFR part 13 and Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” as amended, if a State has adopted a process under Executive Order 12372 to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development (commonly referred to as the “single point of contact review process”), all Eligible Applicants also must give State and local governments a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Project, including review and comment from area-wide planning organizations in metropolitan areas, as provided for in 15 CFR part 13.
[79 FR 76128, Dec. 19, 2014]
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued May 22, 2018 Decided February 27 , 2019

Before
JOEL M. FLAUM , C ircuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE , Circuit Judge

ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN , District Judg e *

No. 1 7

- 2207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v
.
MATTHEW ELDER , Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division

.
No. 3:13

- c r - 00017

- RLY

- CMM

- 8 Richard L. Young , Judge

.
O R D E R On August 15, 2018, this court ordered a limited remand under the procedure set forth in United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471, 483

– 84 (7 th Cir. 2005), so that the district court could state on the record whether it would impose the same sentence in ligh t of this court’s conclusion that the appellant , Matthew Elder, was not subject to a twenty

- year mandatory minimum sentence. United States v. Elder , 900 F.3d 491, 504 (7 th Cir. 2018). The district court has replied that it wishes to further review its sentencing determination in light of this court’s conclusio n and requests that the case be remanded

* O f the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No

. 1 7

- 2207 Page 2 for resentencing. Accordingly, pursuant to Paladino , the court VACATE S Mr. Elder’s sentence and REMAND S the case to the district court for resentencing.
130°W

130°W

128°W

128°W

126°W

126°W

124°W

124°W

122°W

122°W

120°W

120°W

118°W

118°W

116°W

116°W

30°N 30°N

32°N 32°N

34°N 34°N

36°N 36°N

38°N 38°N

40°N 40°N

42°N 42°N

44°N 44°N

46°N 46°N

48°N 48°N

130°W

130°W

128°W

128°W

126°W

126°W

124°W

124°W

122°W

122°W

120°W

120°W

118°W

118°W

116°W

116°W

30°N 30°N

32°N 32°N

34°N 34°N

36°N 36°N

38°N 38°N

40°N 40°N

42°N 42°N

44°N 44°N

46°N 46°N

48°N 48°N

Note:

The Maritime boundaries and limits shown above,

as well as the division between planning areas,

are for initial planning purposes only and do not

prejudice or affect United States jurisdiction in

any way.

OFFSHORE ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES

PACIFIC REGION

WA

OR

CA

NV

Washington-Oregon

Planning Area

Northern California

Planning Area

Central California

Planning Area

Southern California

Planning Area

Offshore Administrative Boundaries

U.S. 200 NM Limit

Planning Areas

PACIFIC OFFSHORE ADMINISTRATIVE

BOUNDARIES (PRELIMINARY)

LEGEND

March, 2006

Projection Geographic

North American Datum 1983

0 50 100 150 Statute Miles

0 50 100 150 200 250 Kilometers
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Report ofoversight plans [electronic resource] : pursuant to clause 2(d)(1) of Rule X**** 
SuDoc:Y 4.AP 6/1:OV 2/
ItemNumber:1011-B(online)
CGPsystem Number:000913145
 
111thCongress
112thCongress
113th Congress**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro Rodolfo MARTINEZ LAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40886.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

*259James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Avaro Rodolfo Martinez Layton appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after a previous deportation. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We need not decide the applicability of the plea-agreement waivers in this case because the issue that Layton raises is foreclosed.

Layton’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ut. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Athough Layton contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410*F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Layton properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.