alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1533

AN ACT

To amend the securities laws to permit church

pension plans to be invested in collective trusts.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1533

AN ACT

To amend the securities laws to permit church pension plans

to be invested in collective trusts.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1533 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS FOR CHURCH

2 PLAN PARTICIPATION IN COLLECTIVE

3 FUNDS.

4 (a) AMENDMENT TO THE INVESTMENT COMPANY

5 ACT OF 1940.—Section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Com6 pany Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(11)) is amended

7 by striking ‘‘such trusts or government plans, or both’’

8 and inserting ‘‘one or more of such trusts, government

9 plans, or church plans, companies or accounts that are ex10 cluded from the definition of an investment company

11 under paragraph (14) of this subsection’’.

12 (b) AMENDMENTS TO THE SECURITIES ACT OF

13 1933.—Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15

14 U.S.C. 77c(a)(2)) is amended—

15 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (B);

16 and

17 (2) by inserting before ‘‘other than any plan de18 scribed in clause (A)’’ the following: ‘‘or (D) a

19 church plan, company, or account that is excluded

20 from the definition of an investment company under

21 section 3(c)(14) of the Investment Company Act of

22 1940,’’.

23 (c) AMENDMENTS TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE

24 ACT OF 1934.—
3

•HR 1533 EH

1 (1) Section 3(a)(12)(C) of the Securities Ex2 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12)(C)) is

3 amended—

4 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause

5 (ii); and

6 (B) by inserting before ‘‘other than any

7 plan described in clause (i)’’ the following: ‘‘or

8 (iv) a church plan, company, or account that is

9 excluded from the definition of an investment

10 company under section 3(c)(14) of the Invest11 ment Company Act of 1940,’’.

12 (2) Section 12(g)(2)(H) of the Securities Ex13 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l(g)(2)(H)) is

14 amended—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause

16 (i); and

17 (B) by inserting before the period at the

18 end the following: ‘‘, or (iii) a church plan, com19 pany, or account that is excluded from the defi20 nition of an investment company under section
4

•HR 1533 EH

1 3(c)(14) of the Investment Company Act of

2 1940’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 3,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 02-095 August 22, 2002

NRC DEVELOPS THREAT ADVISORY AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES SYSTEM

BASED ON OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY COLOR-CODED SYSTEM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has developed a new Threat Advisory System to

communicate and respond to threats affecting NRC licensees and NRC facilities in response to 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 3. The new system replaces the NRC’s 1998 system, and

covers additional classes of licensees not included in NRC’s 1998 system.

The NRC’s system is based on the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) which provides

a consistent national framework for allowing government officials to communicate the nature and

degree of terrorist threats. It uses the HSAS five color-coded threat conditions to reflect varying levels

of threat and identifies specific protective actions to be taken by NRC licensees for each color-coded

threat level to counter and respond to projected terrorist threats. 

In a parallel effort, the NRC has conformed its system for activating the agency’s Incident

Response Center to the HSAS and has developed steps to be taken to enhance security at NRC

buildings for various threat conditions. 

The five color-coded threat conditions are:

-- Green (Low), Low risk of terrorist attack.

-- Blue (Guarded), General risk of terrorist attack.

-- Yellow (Elevated), Significant risk of terrorist attack.

-- Orange (High), High risk of terrorist attack. 

-- Red (Severe), Severe risk of terrorist attack.

The threat condition will be determined by the Attorney General, in consultation with the

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and the NRC has an obligation under a Presidential

Homeland Security Directive to establish appropriate protective measures. The current threat condition

is yellow (elevated). When a new HSAS threat condition is declared, the NRC will promptly notify

affected licensees of the change and refer them to recommended protective measures commensurate

with the threat level. The agency may also find it prudent to notify affected licensees to establish

certain additional protective measures even in the absence of a new HSAS declaration. For example,

the NRC could take such a step to respond to a site-specific situation.
The new system for NRC licensees will be communicated to licensees via issuance of

Regulatory Issue Summaries, portions of which will be available on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov . 

Details of the protective measures associated with various threat conditions will not be made

public because of their sensitive nature. 

The new NRC Threat Advisory System and Protective Measures System was implemented

August 20th. 

###
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpace station definitions, design, and development. Task 5: Multiple arm telerobot coordination and control: Manipulator design methodologyA proposed methodology applicable to the design of manipulator systems is described. The current design process is especially weak in the preliminary design phase, since there is no accepted measure to be used in trading off different options available for the various subsystems. The design process described uses Cartesian End-Effector Impedance as a measure of performance for the system. Having this measure of performance, it is shown how it may be used to determine the trade-offs necessary to the preliminary design phase. The design process involves three main parts: (1) determination of desired system performance in terms of End-Effector Impedance; (2) trade-off design options to achieve this desired performance; and (3) verification of system performance through laboratory testing. The design process is developed using numerous examples and experiments to demonstrate the feasability of this approach to manipulator design.Document ID19900017261Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsStoughton, R. M.*(Martin Marietta Space Systems, Inc. Denver, CO, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1990Subject CategoryCyberneticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:182043MCR-88-612NASA-CR-182043Accession Number90N26577Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 590-11-41-01CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18230Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017261.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §2006. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this chapter, to remain available until expended—

(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and

(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

(Pub. L. 106–193, §7, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title IX, §968(a), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 898.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7 of Pub. L. 106–193 was set out in a note under section 1902 of this title prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 106–193 by Pub. L. 109–58.
Microsoft Word 11.0.6359;


                                                                   Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that:

1)   This periodic report does not fully comply with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in that
     it is  being  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
     "Commission")  beyond the time period prescribed by the Commission's  rules
     and forms.

2)   To the best of our knowledge and after reviewing the periodic  report,  the
     information  contained in this  periodic  report  fairly  presents,  in all
     material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of
     Ridgewood Electric Power Trust II.

Date:  July 15, 2005           /s/ Robert E. Swanson
                             --------------------------------
                             Robert E. Swanson
                             Chief Executive Officer

Date:  July 15, 2005          /s/ Douglas Wilson
                             --------------------------------
                             Douglas Wilson
                             Chief Financial Officer
### Geochemical reconnaissance study of Vassar Meadow (Adams Rib) wetlands and vicinity, Eagle County, Colorado

By: Douglass E. OwenGeorge N. Breit**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1122

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 13, 2023

No. 04-23-00882-CR

Wesley HENDERSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR4006

Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Appellant’s motion for leave to file an out-oftime notice of appeal is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on December 13, 2023.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of December, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
#### § 191.157 Landing certificates.

When required, a landing certificate shall be filed within the time prescribed in § 191.76 of this part.
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:24 AM

To: 'mikejohnsonadjuster@gmail.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA) ; Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha

(FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information: Mike Johnson dba B.E.V. Roof Inspections



### February 2, 2015

Mr. Mike Johnson Mike Johnson dba B.E.V. Roof Inspections

248 Columbine Drive Carlisle, KY 40311

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0888). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide description of proximity to airports.

 Describe the process used to document UAS discrepanc ies and the corrective acti on taken in the aircraft record. Examples of processes incl ude (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain its UAS and ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and inspection recommendations.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by February 17, 2015. If we do not rece ive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW2 Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-135 September 6, 2000

NRC SCHEDULES WORKSHOP ON FUEL FACILITY OVERSIGHT PROGRAM

The NRC has scheduled a workshop on September 13 in Rockville, Maryland, to obtain further

suggestions from the public on improving the agency’s oversight program for nuclear fuel cycle

facilities.

This workshop is one of several to be held to factor public and other stakeholder comments into

a revised fuel facility oversight program.

This meeting will focus on:

ˇ Status of the evolving revision of the oversight program;

ˇ Safety and safeguards problem identification, resolution, and correction;

ˇ Revision of the NRC inspection program;

ˇ Revision of the NRC overall performance assessment process;

ˇ Communication plans for informing stakeholders about the oversight program revision;

ˇ Next actions/schedule to complete revision of the oversight program.

The goals of the oversight program are to focus oversight on activities where potential risks are

greatest, obtain more objective indicators of risk-related performance, increase public confidence in the

NRC’s oversight program, and increase regulatory effectiveness, efficiency, and realism. This

initiative will employ lessons learned from the recently revised commercial nuclear reactor oversight

program.

The nuclear fuel cycle begins with the milling of uranium ore to produce uranium concentrate

called “yellowcake.” The yellowcake is converted into uranium hexafluoride gas at a special facility

and loaded into cylinders. The cylinders are sent to a gaseous diffusion plant, where uranium is

enriched for use as reactor fuel. The enriched uranium is then converted into oxide powder, fabricated

into fuel pellets, loaded into fuel rods, and bundled into reactor fuel assemblies at a fuel fabrication

facility. Assemblies are then transported to nuclear power plants, non-power research reactor facilities,

and naval propulsion reactors for use as fuel.
The NRC currently inspects these fuel facilities several times a year in a variety of technical

areas, such as chemical process safety, fire protection, nuclear criticality safety, radiation safety, and

nuclear material safeguards. Results of these NRC inspections are available to the public.

The workshop, which is open to the public, will be held from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. in Room

3B43 of the agency’s headquarters at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike. Visitor parking is

limited; however, the building can be readily reached via the Red Line Metro to the White Flint station.

Those who seek background information on this initiative may obtain transcripts and

presentations for past meetings at www.nrc.gov/NMSS/FCSS/FCOB/INSP/REVISED/fcindex.htm on

the NRC’s web site.

Interested persons can also access a related NRC paper, SECY 99-188, “Evaluation and

Proposed Revision of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Safety Inspection Program,” from the agency’s web site,

or from the Public Document Room, telephone 202-634-3273.

###
FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATION

                                 EXHIBIT 31

                               CERTIFICATIONS

I, Helen M. Dickens, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fund America
Investors Corporation II;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and


5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls, over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and


b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.




Date:    May 14, 2004                        /s/ Helen M. Dickens
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Helen M. Dickens
                                             President/(Principal
                                             Financial Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan SANTIAGO, aka Alberto Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50287.

D.C. No. CR-99-00412-MMM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jonathan Santiago appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. Santiago’s attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Santiago has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel mentions three potential issues for review, the first being whether the district court erred in its application of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) to Santiago’s sentence. We find no evidence in the record that *634indicates that the district court erred in this regard.

Counsel next mentions the potential issue of whether the district court plainly-erred by not *sua sponte*applying a mitigating role adjustment to Santiago’s guideline calculations. There is nothing in the record, however, that indicates Santiago was less culpable than any other conspirator. Indeed, Santiago declined to describe his role in the conspiracy beyond admitting his involvement in the transaction described in the plea agreement. Thus, there was no plain error. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2; *United States v. Howard,*894 F.2d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that defendant bears burden of showing entitlement to downward adjustment).

Finally, counsel mentions the potential issue of the district court’s denial of Santiago’s departure requests. As counsel correctly notes, however, the district court denied the requests in an exercise of its discretion. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision. *See United States v. Webster,*108 F.3d 1156, 1158 (9th Cir.1997).

Our independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no other issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.