alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 401.2 Application for adjustment or exceptions.

Any person affected by any provisions of this order may file an application for an adjustment or exception upon the ground that such provision works an exceptional hardship upon him, not suffered by others, or that its enforcement against him would not be in the interest of the national defense program. Such an application may be made by letter or telegram addressed to the Assistant Secretary for Domestic and International Business, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 20230, reference T-1. If authorization is requested, any such application should specify in detail the material to be shipped, the name and address of the shipper and of the recipient of the shipment, the ports or places from which and to which the shipment is being made and the use to which the material shipped will be put. The application should also specify in detail the facts which support the applicant's claim for an exception.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1505 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1505

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2127 Beatties Ford Road in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Jim 
                       Richardson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2003

Mr. Watt (for himself, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Ballance, Mr. 
  Etheridge, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. 
   Burr, Mr. Coble, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Miller of North 
  Carolina, and Mr. Jones of North Carolina) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2127 Beatties Ford Road in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the ``Jim 
                       Richardson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JIM RICHARDSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2127 Beatties Ford Road in Charlotte, North Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Jim Richardson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Jim 
Richardson Post Office.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, 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.

July 29, 2019

t0722 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2019

158503

JUDY SANDERSON, ALBERT MORRIS,

ANTONYAL LOUIS, and MADELINE

BROWNE,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 158503

COA: 338983

Ct of Claims: 16

- 000083

- MM

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court , the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Anna V. Faust, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas C. Roop, Deceased, Respondent, v. Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., Appellant.

Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 1029.]
**EXHIBIT 8.1**

Novamerican Steel Inc. and Subsidiaries

| **Name**                                    | ** ** | ** **    | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|---------------------------------------------|------------|---------------|------------|------------------------------------|
| 156499 Canada Inc.                          |       | Canada        |
| American Steel and Aluminum Corporation     |       | Massachusetts |
| Argo Steel Ltd.                             |       | Québec   |
| Cresswell Industries Inc.                   |       | Canada        |
| Delta Tube and Company, Limited Partnership |       | Québec   |
| Integrated Steel Industries, Inc.      |       | Delaware      |
| Novamerican Tube Holdings, Inc.        |       | Delaware      |
| Nova Steel Ltd.                             |       | Québec   |
| Nova Steel Processing Centre Ltd.           |       | Canada        |
| Nova Tube and Steel, Inc.              |       | Delaware      |
| Nova Tube Inc.                              |       | Québec   |
| Nova Tube Indiana, LLC                      |       | Delaware      |
| Nova Tube  Ontario Inc.                     |       | Canada        |

 

----
#### § 165.2 Entries subject to this part.

Entries that may be the subject of an allegation made under § 165.11 or a request for an investigation under § 165.14 are those entries of allegedly covered merchandise made within one year before the receipt of an allegation under § 165.11 or of a request for an investigation under § 165.14. In addition, at its discretion, CBP may investigate other entries of such covered merchandise.
§ 191.71 Drawback on articles destroyed under Customs supervision. ( a ) *Procedure.* At least 7 working days before the intended date of destruction of merchandise or articles upon which drawback is intended to be claimed, a Notice of Intent to Export, Destroy, or Return Merchandise for Purposes of Drawback on Customs Form 7553 shall be filed by the claimant with the Customs port where the destruction is to take place, giving notification of the date and specific location where the destruction is to occur. Within 4 working days after receipt of the Customs Form 7553, Customs shall advise the filer in writing of its determination to witness or not to witness the destruction. If the filer of the notice is not so notified within 4 working days, the merchandise may be destroyed without delay and will be deemed to have been destroyed under Customs supervision. Unless Customs determines to witness the destruction, the destruction of the articles following timely notification on Customs Form 7553 shall be deemed to have occurred under Customs supervision. If Customs attends the destruction, it must certify the Notice of Intent to Export, Destroy, or Return Merchandise for Purposes of Drawback.
( b ) *Evidence of destruction.* When Customs does not attend the destruction, the claimant must submit evidence that destruction took place in accordance with the approved Notice of Intent to Export, Destroy, or Return Merchandise for Purposes of Drawback. The evidence must be issued by a disinterested third party (for example, a landfill operator). The type of evidence depends on the method and place of destruction, but must establish that the merchandise was, in fact, destroyed within the meaning of “destruction” in § 191.2(g) (*i.e.,* that no articles of commercial value remained after destruction).
( c ) *Completion of drawback entry.* After destruction, the claimant must provide the Customs Form 7553, certified by the Customs official witnessing the destruction in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, to Customs as part of the completed drawback claim based on the destruction (see § 191.51(a) of this part). If Customs has not attended the destruction, the claimant must provide the evidence that destruction took place in accordance with the approved Customs Form 7553, as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, as part of the completed drawback claim based on the destruction (see § 191.51(a) of this part).
CH

UNITED STATES

° NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Z WASHINGTON, D.C 20555-0001

September 13, 2002

AIRMAN

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to report on

the status of the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the NRC

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concerning remediation of.sites under

NRC regulatory authority and avoidance of dual regulation. In my letter to you of June 26,

2002, the Commission committed to providing a further status report.

We have delayed providing this most recent status report pending completion of the

Commission's review of the proposed MOU. The Commission, in approving the MOU with

certain minor changes, has sought to limit the potential for dual regulation. In this connection,

the proposed MOU, as approved by the Commission, provides for EPA to continue its policy of

deferral to NRC decommissioning decision-making for the majority of NRC licensees (i.e., those

not considering restricted release or alternate criteria for license termination, those sites without

radioactive contamination that exceeds certain levels at the time of license termination, and

those without ground-water contamination above EPA's drinking water maximum contaminant

levels at the time of license termination). It includes provisions governing consultation for the

sites for which EPA can not agree to defer.

This MOU does not fully meet the intent of the Appropriations Committee because the

threat of dual regulation remains for certain NRC licensees. The Committee's direction to the

two agencies was to enter into an MOU which would clarify the circumstances for EPA's

involvement at NRC sites "when requested by the NRC." EPA could not agree to such a limited

role. As a result, unnecessary dual regulation will continue under this MOU. Thus, the

Commission believes that legislation is still needed to eliminate dual regulation for these

remaining NRC licensees. In completing action on the proposed MOU, the Commission has

directed the NRC staff to continue to pursue such legislation.
-2-

The Commission is ready to sign the MOU with minor changes and has forwarded it to

EPA. The Commission will report to you by November 29, 2002, on the status of our efforts to

complete a final MOU. If you desire additional information or clarification, please contact me.

cc: Senator Fred Thompson
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 144 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 144

                    To control the sale of gun kits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

  Mr. Nadler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    To control the sale of gun kits.

    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 ``Ari's Law''.

SEC. 2. ARI'S LAW.

    Section 921(a)(3)(B) of title 18, United States Code is amended by 
striking ``or receiver'' and inserting, ``, receiver, barrel, stock, or 
any part of the action''.
                                 <all>
```
### §357. Report by Commission to President with respect to pay

The Commission shall submit to the President a report of the results of each review conducted by the Commission with respect to rates of pay for the offices and positions within the purview of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 356 of this title, together with its recommendations. Each such report shall be submitted on such date as the President may designate but not later than December 15 next following the close of the fiscal year in which the review is conducted by the Commission.

(Pub. L. 90–206, title II, §225(g), Dec. 16, 1967, 81 Stat. 644; Pub. L. 99–190, §135(c), Dec. 19, 1985, 99 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 101–194, title VII, §701(e), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1764.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–194 amended section catchline generally and in text substituted "Commission with respect to rates of pay for" for "Commission of" and "December 15 next following the close of the fiscal year in which the review is conducted by the Commission." for "December 15 of the fiscal year in which the review is conducted by the Commission."

1985—Pub. L. 99–190 substituted "December 15" for "January 1 next following the close".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 16, 1967, see section 220(a)(1) of Pub. L. 90–206, set out as a note under section 3110 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### 1985 Fiscal Year Recommendations on Pay Rates of Offices and Positions

Pub. L. 99–190, §135(g), Dec. 19, 1985, 99 Stat. 1323, provided that notwithstanding section 357 of this title, the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries should not make recommendations on the pay rates of certain offices and positions under section 356 of this title in connection with rate reviews in fiscal year 1985.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-174 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ciro ORTEGA-SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30309.

D.C. No. CR-00-02189-AAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*672Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ciro Ortega-Salinas appeals his 84-month sentence, imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of possession of 500 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Ortega-Salinas contends that the district court erroneously counted two prior uncounseled state misdemeanor convictions, which raised his criminal history score from II to IV. We are unpersuaded. The 1993 conviction for having no valid operator’s license is not properly before us because Ortega-Salinas failed to object below. *See United States v. Flores-Payon,*942 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir.1991). Nevertheless, it would have been properly included for the same reasons as the 1994 conviction discussed below.

This court reviews de novo the “district court’s determination that a particular conviction may be used in calculating a defendant’s criminal history score.” *United States v. Allen,*153 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.1998). The defendant bears the “ultimate burden of proof in demonstrating the constitutional infirmity” of the prior conviction at issue by a preponderance of the evidence. *Id.*at 1041.

Ortega-Salinas failed to satisfy his burden of proof. His only proof that he was not advised of his right to counsel was by way of citation to *United States v. Akins,*243 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.2001), *amended by*276 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.2002). There, we held that the procedures followed by Yakima County Superior Court during Akins’s plea agreement in 1989 did not adequately advise him of his right to counsel. However, Ortega-Salinas’s misdemeanor conviction was in Yakima County District Court in 1994. Therefore, even reading *Akins*broadly to condemn the procedures followed in Yakima County Superior Court more generally, as Ortega-Salinas suggests, Ortega-Salinas’s argument fails.

Ortega-Salinas offers no other evidence to call into doubt the constitutionality of his prior conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in thefollowing Registration Statements of OMNI Energy Services Corp. on Forms S-8 (No. 333-126679, No. 333-110198, No. 333-49409, No. 333-80973 and No. 333-35816), pertaining to the incentive plans of OMNI Energy Services Corp., and Form S-3 (No.333-131696) pertaining to the shelf registration with Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC, of our reports dated March 17, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements (which report includes an explanatory paragraph on the implementation of anew accounting standard) and the effectiveness of internal control over our financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of OMNI Energy Services Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Pannell Kerr Forster of Texas, P.C. 

Houston, Texas 

March 17, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          77,647
<SECURITIES>                                   129,831
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,486,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,192,463
<INVENTORY>                                 51,759,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            64,124,817
<PP&E>                                      48,812,374
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,914,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,998,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       75,032,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       556,691
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,565,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,998,153
<SALES>                                    144,057,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           144,057,316
<CGS>                                      119,504,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,504,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            35,600,223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               498,692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             960,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,507,011)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,690,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,197,011)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.73)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23589]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4874]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Iraq and China: Ceramics and Innovation''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459),Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, 
the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 
2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority 
No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of 
October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 (68 FR 19875), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Iraq and China: Ceramics and Innovation,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owners. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Arthur M. Sackler 
Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, from on or about 
December 4, 2004, to on or about April 24, 2005, and at possible 
additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. 
Public notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State (telephone: 
(202) 619-6981). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: October 12, 2004.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-23589 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-01-042 August 2, 2001

CONTACT: Breck Henderson 

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC DISCRIMINATION TASK GROUP TO HOLD MEETING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO

 Public comments on proposals to improve the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionís handling of

discrimination concerns will be accepted by members of an NRC task group at a public meeting

scheduled for Thursday, August 9, in San Luis Obispo, Calif. The session will take place from 7 to 9

p.m. at San Luis Obispo Public Library, 995 Palm St., San Luis Obispo.

 The NRC formed a Discrimination Task Group in April 2000 to evaluate and improve the agencyís

processes used in the handling of discrimination allegations made by nuclear industry workers. The

task group subsequently prepared a draft report containing about 40 proposed recommendations. A

copy of the report can be found at www.nrc.gov/OE, under the link for the Discrimination for Raising

Safety Concerns.

 To obtain public feedback on the proposals, the task group is holding a series of public meetings

across the country, including the session in San Luis Obispo. At the conclusion of the meetings, the

task group will develop final recommendations for consideration by the five-member, Presidentially

appointed commission that heads the NRC.

 Those members of the public who are unable to attend the San Luis Obispo meeting but who would

like to make comments on the draft report can submit them by Aug. 17 to the NRCís Office of

Enforcement web site, at www.nrc.gov/OE, or in writing to Barry Westreich, Office of Enforcement,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001.

 ###
#### § 125.0 Scope.

This part is concerned with cartage and lighterage of merchandise and the duties and liabilities of cartmen and lightermen, as well as those parties authorized in § 112.2(b) to engage in cartage. Provisions for licensing cartmen and lightermen are in part 112 of this chapter.

[T.D. 94-81, 59 FR 51495, Oct. 12, 1994]
#### Norris H. Mundy, Jr., Respondent-Appellant, v. Robert T. Norment et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.