alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §288e. Intervention or appearance

#### (a) Actions or proceedings

When directed to do so pursuant to section 288b(c) of this title, the Counsel shall intervene or appear as amicus curiae in the name of the Senate, or in the name of an officer, committee, subcommittee, or chairman of a committee or subcommittee of the Senate in any legal action or proceeding pending in any court of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof in which the powers and responsibilities of Congress under the Constitution of the United States are placed in issue. The Counsel shall be authorized to intervene only if standing to intervene exists under section 2 of article III of the Constitution of the United States.

#### (b) Notification; publication

The Counsel shall notify the Joint Leadership Group of any legal action or proceeding in which the Counsel is of the opinion that intervention or appearance as amicus curiae under subsection (a) is in the interest of the Senate. Such notification shall contain a description of the legal action or proceeding together with the reasons that the Counsel is of the opinion that intervention or appearance as amicus curiae is in the interest of the Senate. The Joint Leadership Group shall cause said notification to be published in the Congressional Record for the Senate.

#### (c) Powers and responsibilities of Congress

The Counsel shall limit any intervention or appearance as amicus curiae in an action or proceeding to issues relating to the powers and responsibilities of Congress.

(Pub. L. 95–521, title VII, §706, Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1880.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 3, 1979, see section 717 of Pub. L. 95–521, set out as a note under section 288 of this title.
### §2185. Estimates for improvements in grounds

All changes and improvements in the Capitol grounds, including approaches to the Capitol, shall be estimated for in detail, showing what modifications are proposed and the estimate cost of the same.

(Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 143, 22 Stat. 621.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 173 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

Section is based on act Mar. 3, 1883, popularly known as the "Sundry Civil Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1884".

#### Similar Provisions

Enlargement of the Capitol grounds by the acquisition of certain squares in the city of Washington, provided by the following Sundry Civil Appropriation Acts for the fiscal years 1911, 1912, 1913, and 1914.

June 23, 1913, ch. 3, 38 Stat. 44.

Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 355, 37 Stat. 454.

Mar. 4, 1911, ch. 285, 36 Stat. 1414.

June 25, 1910, ch. 384, 36 Stat. 738.
#### § 122.48 Air cargo manifest.

(a) *When required.* Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, an air cargo manifest need not be filed or retained aboard the aircraft for any aircraft required to enter under § 122.41. However, an air cargo manifest for all cargo on board must otherwise be available for production upon demand. The general declaration must be filed as provided in § 122.43.

(b) *Exception.* A cargo manifest is not required for merchandise, baggage and stores arriving from and departing for a foreign country on the same through flight. Any cargo manifest already on board may be inspected. All articles on board which must be licensed by the Secretary of State shall be listed on the cargo manifest. Company mail shall be listed on the cargo manifest.

(c) *Form.* The air cargo manifest, Customs Form 7509, must contain all required information regarding all cargo on board the aircraft, except that a more complete description of the cargo shipped may be provided by attaching to the manifest copies of the air waybills covering the cargo on board, including, if a consolidated shipment, any house air waybills. When copies of air waybills are attached, the statement “Cargo as per air waybills attached” must appear on the manifest. The manifest must reference an 11-digit air waybill number for each air waybill it covers. The air waybill number must not be used by the issuer for another air waybill for a period of one year after issuance.

(d) *Unaccompanied baggage.* Unaccompanied baggage arriving in the U.S. under a check number from any foreign country by air and presented timely to Customs may be authorized for delivery by the carrier after inspection and examination without preparation of an entry, declaration, or being manifested as cargo. Such baggage must be found to be free of duty or tax under any provision of Chapter 98, HTSUS (19 U.S.C. 1202), and cannot be restricted or prohibited. Unaccompanied checked baggage not presented timely to Customs or presented timely and found by Customs to be dutiable, restricted, or prohibited may be subject to seizure. Such unaccompanied checked baggage shall be added to the cargo list in columns under the following headings:

| Check No. | Description | Where from | Destination | Name of examining officer | Disposition |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |

The two columns, headed “Name of examining officer” and “Disposition,” are provided on the cargo manifest for the use of Customs officers. Unaccompained unchecked baggage arriving as air express or freight shall be manifested as other air express or freight.

(e) *Accompanied baggage in transit.* This section applies when accompanied baggage enters into the U.S. in one aircraft and leaves the U.S. in another aircraft. When passengers do not have access to their baggage while in transit through the U.S., the baggage is considered cargo and shall be listed on Customs Form 7509, Air Cargo Manifest.

[T.D. 88-12, 53 FR 9292, Mar. 22, 1988, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51255, Dec. 21, 1988; T.D. 02-51, 67 FR 55721, Aug. 30, 2002; CBP Dec. 03-32, 68 FR 68170, Dec. 5, 2003]
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-56   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 1 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-56   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 2 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-56   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 3 of 3
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 98-11 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson March 23, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH ENTERGY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

AT WATERFORD 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional enforcement

conference Thursday, March 26, with officials of Entergy Operations, Inc., the operator of

Waterford 3 nuclear power plant near Taft, La., to discuss six apparent violations of NRC

requirements.

The conference will begin at 1 p.m. at NRC Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas.

The meeting will be open to public observation; NRC officials will be available afterward for

questions.

The apparent violations were identified during an engineering inspection conducted

between December 1, 1997, and February 5 of this year. All the apparent violations concern

engineering related deficiencies with safety systems, including failure to conduct engineering

analyses and safety evaluations as required, failure to obtain NRC approvals for various

changes in equipment, and other problems involving corrective actions, test control and the

reporting of these problems to the NRC.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that

NRC has made a final determination that violations did occur or that enforcement action,

such as a monetary fine, will be taken. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the

apparent violations, their causes and safety significance, and to provide Entergy officials

with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection

report and present corrective actions that have been taken.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action will

be made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later

time.

###
#### Eureka Productions, Inc., Appellant, v. Elekta Film, A. G., et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
#### Carrie R. Hunter, Respondent, v. Grace S. Ramsay, Individually and as Administratrix, etc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Inasmuch as the order to which this order is related is reversed, this order is also reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs, and defendant permitted to answer in conformity with the decision in appeal No. 1 *(ante,*p. 953). No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Thomas, J., not voting.
### §61e. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61e was editorially reclassified as section 6591 of this title. Section 6591 of this title was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 116–94, div. E, title II, §212(a)(3)(H), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2776.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 61e, act Aug. 5, 1955, ch. 568, §1, 69 Stat. 501, prescribed gross annual compensation of Sergeant at Arms of Senate.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 10.72-10.73 [Reserved]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-3 January 12, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC, WASHINGTON (D.C.) HOSPITAL TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

Ten apparent violations of Nuclear Regulatory

Commission requirements by a Washington, D.C., medical facility

will be discussed during a meeting between agency staff and

representatives of the hospital on Thursday, January 14. The

apparent violations involve the handling of radioactive

material, specifically the apparent loss of a nuclear

pacemaker.

The predecisional enforcement conference regarding

Washington Hospital Center is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in

the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I office in King of

Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation.

On Nov. 30, Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving

Street, N.W., reported to the NRC that a nuclear pacemaker was

missing. During a follow-up review on December 2 and 3, NRC

inspectors learned that the device, powered by 175 milligrams

of plutonium-238, had been removed from a deceased patient at a

funeral home last August and returned to the medical facility

for disposal. Washington Hospital Center, in turn, shipped the

pacemaker on September 15 to St. Jude Medical in Sylmar,

Calif., via the U.S. Postal Service, believing St. Jude was the

proper recipient of the device. (Once removed, nuclear

pacemakers are supposed to be returned to the company that sold

them for proper disposal.)

However, when Washington Hospital Center contacted St.

Jude Medical on or about October 22 to confirm receipt of the

pacemaker, it was informed the device had not arrived.

Further, the hospital learned St. Jude was only supposed to

receive non-nuclear pacemakers; nuclear pacemakers were to be

shipped to a sister company in Colorado that has a storage

facility for the devices in Florida.

Despite searches for the pacemaker at Washington

Hospital Center, St. Jude Medical and postal facilities, the

device has still not been located. While the nuclear material

is housed in an extremely sturdy metal container, if someone
2

were to rupture the device they could be exposed to

radioactivity that could exceed NRC allowable limits.

The apparent violations are associated with the

packaging, shipping and transfer of radioactive materials.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean the NRC has determined a violation has

occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the

purpose is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an

opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in

the NRC inspection report; and to enable the licensee to

outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials

at a later time.

ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ̨
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee, Appellant, against Joseph Lilly et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. [13-16 Central Park West, Borough of Manhattan.] The People of the State of New York ex rel. City Bank Farmers Trust Company, as Trustee, Appellant, against Joseph Lilly et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. [17-20 Central Park West, Borough of Manhattan.]

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.2


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


I, Carene S. Kunkler, Chief Executive Officer of Sight Resource Corporation (the
"Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      1.    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
            ended September 28, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with
            the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) 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:  November 18, 2002


                                                  By: /S/  Carene S. Kunkler
                                                  -------  -----------------
                                                  Carene S. Kunkler
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Florida

MOUNTECH IP LLC

1:20-cv-23179-MGC

HMD AMERICA, INC.

HMD America, Inc. 

c/o Incorp Services, Inc. 

17888 67th Court North 

Loxahatchee, Florida 33470

Howard L. Wernow 

Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA 

Aegis Tower - Suite 1100 

4940 Munson Street NW 

Canton, Ohio 44718

07/31/2020 s/ C.Davis

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GERARDO OGAZ,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00137-CR

Appeal from

394th District Court

of Culberson County, Texas 

(TC# 1789)

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s 

right of appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with 

the trial court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s 

right of appeal as required by TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The trial court clerk shall 

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no 

later than August 10, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the 12 months ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Joseph D. Moore, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

            (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                        of the Exchange Act; and

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

/s/ Joseph D. Moore                            Joseph D. MooreExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerSeptember 19, 2007
### §281b. Functions

The functions of the Office shall be as follows:

(1) Upon request of the managers on the part of the House at any conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, to advise and assist the managers on the part of the House in the course of the conference, and to assist the committee of conference in the preparation of the conference report and any accompanying explanatory statement.

(2) Upon request of any committee of the House, or any joint committee having authority to report legislation to the House, to advise and assist the committee in the consideration of any legislation before it, and to assist the committee in the preparation of drafts of any such legislation, amendments thereto, and reports thereon.

(3) Upon request of any Member having control of time during the consideration of any legislation by the House, to have in attendance on the floor of the House not more than two members of the staff of the Office (and, in his discretion, the Legislative Counsel) to advise and assist such Member and, to the extent feasible, any other Member, in the course of such consideration.

(4) Upon request of any Member, subject to such reasonable restrictions as the Legislative Counsel may impose with the approval of the Speaker on the proportion of the resources of the Office which may be devoted to the requests of any one Member, to prepare drafts of legislation and to furnish drafting advice with respect to drafts of legislation prepared by others.

(5) At the direction of the Speaker, to perform on behalf of the House of Representatives any legal services which are within the capabilities of the Office and the performance of which would not be inconsistent with the provisions of section 281a of this title or the preceding provisions of this section.

(Pub. L. 91–510, title V, §503, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1202.)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-49 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 10, 1997

FORT CALHOUN RATED “SUPERIOR” IN ONE AREA, “GOOD” IN THREE OTHERS

IN LATEST NRC ASSESSMENT REPORT

Fort Calhoun Station, a nuclear power plant near Fort Calhoun, Nebraska, has received

performance ratings of “superior” in engineering and “good” in operations, maintenance and

plant support in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s latest systematic assessment of licensee

performance (SALP) for the facility.

The SALP report was sent September 4 to Omaha Public Power District, which operates

the plant. The report evaluates the plant’s performance from January 26, 1996, to August 2 of

this year.

NRC and OPPD officials will discuss the report during a meeting set for 9 a.m. on

Wednesday, September 24, in the Fort Calhoun Training Center auditorium. The meeting will

be open to public observation. NRC officials will be available afterwards to speak with

reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four functional areas -- plant

operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support -- and assigns ratings of Category 1,

2, or 3 depending on whether performance in those areas was superior, good or acceptable.

Fort Calhoun was given the following scores on the current SALP and previous SALP in 1996:

Functional areas & ratings

Current Previous

Plant Operations 2 2

Maintenance 2 2

Engineering 1 1

Plant Support 2 1
-2-

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional Administrator Ellis W. Merschoff said, the

plant continued to be operated in a generally safe and conservative manner, although he noted

“an overall decline in performance” in three of the four areas.

Performance in plant operations remained good, Mr. Merschoff said, and has been

characterized by safe and conservative operations. However, human performance deficiencies

have continued to occur throughout the period and represent an important challange to

improved performance.

Performance in the maintenance area declined but remained good overall, Mr.

Merschoff said. He cited notable instances in which the conduct of maintenance challenged

plant operations, and instances when poor maintenance planning left plant equipment off line

and resulted in unnecessary radiation exposure to maintenance personnel.

Plant support performance declined from a superior level, but remained good overall.

Actions taken in response to fuel failures were a strength, but inconsistent performance during

the biennial emergency exercise, weaknesses in implementing the access authorization

program, and a number of fire protection hardware problems led the decline in performance.

Although engineering remained a superior category, Merschoff noted a decline in

performance in that area as well. Engineers failed to identify problems in the fire protection and

process piping erosion/corrosion areas, he said.

###

Editors: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this office or via internet at

www.nrc.gov/OPA.