alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §384. Service and filing of papers other than notice of contest

#### (a) Modes of service

Except for the notice of contest, every paper required to be served shall be served upon the attorney representing the party, or, if he is not represented by an attorney, upon the party himself. Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made:

(1) by delivering a copy to him personally;

(2) by leaving it at his principal office with some person then in charge thereof; or if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of discretion not less than sixteen years of age then residing therein; or

(3) by mailing it addressed to the person to be served at his residence or principal office. Service by mail is complete upon mailing.

#### (b) Filing of papers with clerk

All papers subsequent to the notice of contest required to be served upon the opposing party shall be filed with the Clerk either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter.

#### (c) Proof of service

Papers filed subsequent to the notice of contest shall be accompanied by proof of service showing the time and manner of service, made by affidavit of the person making service or by certificate of an attorney representing the party in whose behalf service is made. Failure to make proof of service does not affect the validity of such service.

(Pub. L. 91–138, §5, Dec. 5, 1969, 83 Stat. 286.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to any general or special election for Representative in, or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States occurring after Dec. 5, 1969, see section 19 of Pub. L. 91–138, set out as a note under section 381 of this title.
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. 02-080 July 2, 2002

NRC ACCEPTS APPLICATION FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION 

OF WESTINGHOUSE AP1000 ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGN

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has accepted a design certification application 

submitted by the Westinghouse Electric Company for its AP1000 standard plant design after

determining that it contains sufficient information to be formally “docketed” and processed. 

 The AP1000 design is a nuclear power plant capable of producing about 1,100 megawatts of 

electricity. The plant features enhanced safety systems that rely on gravity and natural processes

to safely shut down the reactor or mitigate the effects of an accident. It is designed for a 60-year

operating life.

 If certification is granted, a company that wished to build and operate a new nuclear power plant 

could choose to use the design and reference it in a license application. Safety issues resolved within the

scope of the design certification are not subject to litigation with respect to that individual license

application, although site-specific design information and environmental impacts associated with

building and operating the plant at a particular location could be litigated. NRC has certified three other

standard reactor designs.

 In submitting its application for design certification on March 28, Westinghouse referenced the

AP600 standard design, which was certified by NRC in 1999. It made changes necessitated by the

requirements of the larger size of the AP1000. Additional details are available in a notice published in

the Federal Register on June 28.

 The staff will now start to review the application, request any additional information if

necessary, and then issue a draft Safety Evaluation Report to address any technical and safety questions. 

A final Safety Evaluation Report will be issued when all technical and safety questions have been

resolved. The design can then be certified through NRC's rulemaking process, which includes an

opportunity for public participation. The certification process is described in Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 52, Subpart B. 

###
§ 18.22 Procedure at port of exportation. ( a ) *Transfer of bonded merchandise to another conveyance.* If in-bond merchandise must be transferred to another conveyance at the port of exportation, the procedure will be as prescribed in §§ 18.3 and 18.4(c).
( b ) *Transfer of baggage by express shipment.* An express consignment carrier that is bonded as a common carrier and is responsible under its bond for delivery to the CBP officer in charge of the exporting conveyance of articles shown to be baggage in the in-bond record may transfer the baggage by express shipment without a permit from the port director and without the use of a transfer ticket or other CBP formality from its terminal to the exporting conveyance for lading under CBP supervision. The in-bond record must be updated to reflect the name of the owner of the baggage or article and the name of the conveyance transporting the owner of the baggage. See § 18.1.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-64,007-09

EX PARTE STEVEN EDWARD VILLNAVE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W11-22458-U (A) IN THE 291 DISTRICT COURT st

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

felony driving while intoxicated and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. 

The Applicant alleges, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in this

case. The State responded to this allegation as follows, in pertinent part:

The State contends that Applicant was provided with effective assistance of

counsel. The State, however, recognizes that further evidence may be needed

regarding counsel’s representation of Applicant. Therefore, the State requests that

this Court issue an order designating issues and gather evidence, as is customary, by

way of affidavit from defense counsel or hearing should the Court deem such to be

necessary. 
On May 17, 2014, a timely order designating issues was signed by the trial court ordering,

in part, that the issue of whether Applicant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel be

resolved. The habeas record has was then properly forwarded to this Court, but without the

designated issue having been resolved by the trial court. We remand this application to the 291st

District Court of Dallas County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and

enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: April 29, 2015

Do not publish
### §1327. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated $11,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, and for each of the five succeeding fiscal years. For payments for the initial awarding of fellowships awarded under this subchapter, there are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, and for each of the five succeeding fiscal years, such sums as may be necessary in order that fellowships already awarded might be completed.

(Pub. L. 95–87, title IX, §907, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 531.)
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-02-043 October 18, 2002

CONTACT: Roger Hannah E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NANCY SALGADO NAMED NRC SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR AT PALO VERDE

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, have

selected Nancy Salgado as the Senior Resident Inspector at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant west of

Phoenix, Arizona. 

Ms. Salgado began her career at NRC in 1991 in the Region II (Atlanta, GA) Reactor Engineer

Intern Program and completed rotations in the Region II Division of Reactor Projects and Division of

Reactor Safety as well as the Division of Reactor Projects in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in

Rockville, Maryland. After graduating from the intern program in 1993, she was permanently assigned

to the Division of Reactor Safety, Region II, as a reactor inspector. In 1995, Salgado accepted a position

as a resident inspector at the Oconee Nuclear Station in South Carolina, and in 1997 became a resident

inspector at Palo Verde. 

Salgado holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from New Mexico State University. She lives in

Goodyear, Arizona, with her husband, and their two children.

Every U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve

as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring significant work

projects and writing periodic reports which are available to the public. 

The NRC resident inspectors at Palo Verde can be reached at 623-386-3638. 

###
EXHIBIT 12.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Rafael Miranda Robredo, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Endesa, S.A.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4.     Endesa,
S.A.'s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Endesa, S.A. and have:



5.     Endesa,
S.A.'s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Endesa, S.A.'s auditors
and the audit committee of Endesa, S.A.'s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
June 30, 2004

| |  | By: |  | /s/Rafael Miranda Robredo
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------
| |  |     |  | Name:                    
| |  |     |  | Title:                   

---



QuickLinks
### §5121. Expense allowance of Speaker of House of Representatives

There shall be paid to the Speaker of the House of Representatives in equal monthly installments an expense allowance of $10,000 per annum to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties, for which no accounting, other than for income tax purposes, shall be made by him.

(Jan. 19, 1949, ch. 2, §1(e), 63 Stat. 4; Oct. 20, 1951, ch. 521, title VI, §619(c), 65 Stat. 570; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §203(1), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1725.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 31b of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–186 struck out "(which shall be in lieu of the allowance provided by section 601(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended)" after "per annum".

1951—Act Oct. 20, 1951, made Speaker's expense allowance taxable.

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

#### Effective Date of 1951 Amendment

Amendment by act Oct. 20, 1951, effective at noon, Jan. 3, 1953, see section 619(e) of act Oct. 20, 1951, set out as a note under section 102 of Title 3, The President.

#### Effective Date

Section effective at noon, Jan. 20, 1949, see section 3 of act Jan. 19, 1949.
```

[House Report 110-733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-733

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 3195) TO RESTORE THE 
 INTENT AND PROTECTIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

                                _______
                                

   June 24, 2008.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Sutton, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1299]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 1299, by a non-record vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3195, the 
``ADA Restoration Act of 2007,'' under a closed rule. The rule 
provides one hour of debate in the House, with 40 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor and 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 
that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill 
shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
of the bill, as amended, are waived. This waiver does not 
affect the point of order available under clause 9 of rule XXI 
(regarding earmark disclosure).
    The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. The rule provides that, notwithstanding the 
operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
Speaker.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    The waiver of all points of order against consideration of 
the bill (except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI) includes a 
waiver of clause 4 of rule XIII, requiring a three-day layover 
of the committee report. Although the rule waives all points of 
order against the provisions of the bill, as amended, the 
Committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver of 
all points of order is prophylactic.

                                  

```
### §285e. Compensation

The Law Revision Counsel shall be paid at a per annum gross rate determined by the Speaker not to exceed the greater of $173,900 or the rate of pay in effect for such position under an order issued by the Speaker pursuant to the authority of section 4532 of this title; and members of the staff of the Office other than the Law Revision Counsel shall be paid at per annum gross rates fixed by the Law Revision Counsel with the approval of the Speaker or in accordance with policies approved by the Speaker, but not in excess of the applicable rate of pay in effect under an order issued by the Speaker pursuant to the authority of such section.

(Pub. L. 93–554, title I, ch. III, §101, Dec. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1777; Pub. L. 116–94, div. E, title II, §212(b)(3)(B), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2777.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 205(f) of House Resolution No. 988, Ninety-third Congress, Oct. 8, 1974, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 93–554.

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 116–94 substituted "Law Revision Counsel shall be paid at a per annum gross rate determined by the Speaker not to exceed the greater of $173,900 or the rate of pay in effect for such position under an order issued by the Speaker pursuant to the authority of section 4532 of this title; and members of the staff of the Office other than the Law Revision Counsel shall be paid at per annum gross rates fixed by the Law Revision Counsel with the approval of the Speaker or in accordance with policies approved by the Speaker, but not in excess of the applicable rate of pay in effect under an order issued by the Speaker pursuant to the authority of such section." for "Law Revision Counsel shall be paid at a per annum gross rate not to exceed level IV of the Executive Schedule of section 5315 of title 5; and members of the staff of the Office other than the Law Revision Counsel shall be paid at per annum gross rates fixed by the Law Revision Counsel with the approval of the Speaker or in accordance with policies approved by the Speaker, but not in excess of a per annum gross rate equal to level V of such schedule."

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

#### Effective Date of 2019 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–94 effective on the later of the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2020, or the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after Dec. 20, 2019, see section 212(c) of Pub. L. 116–94, set out as a note under section 282b of this title.

#### Increases in Compensation

Increases in compensation for House officers and employees under authority of Federal Salary Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90–206), Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91–656), and Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 (Pub. L. 100–202), see sections 4531 and 4532 of this title, and Salary Directives of Speaker of the House, set out as notes under those sections.
#### § 19.31 Bulk wheat of different classes and grades not to be commingled in storage.

All wheat shall be stored by class and grade according to the Official Grain Standards of the United States or the official standards of the Canadian Board of Grain Commissioners, in bins, compartments, or other enclosed spaces identified by clearly distinguishable insignia securely affixed thereto, so as to facilitate the maintenance of identity of the wheat. There shall be no mixing or commingling of different classes or grades of wheat in the same bin, battery of bins, or other bonded space. If the wheat is stored in bags or other transportation containers, such bags or containers shall be so marked and so placed in the warehouse that the identity of the wheat will not be lost while in storage, to permit easy access to all lots, and to facilitate inspecting, sampling, and the identification of each lot.

Cross Reference:

For regulations relating to the Official U.S. Standards for Grain, see [7 CFR part 810](/on/2024-09-10/title-7/part-810).
<PAGE>
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     Each person whose signature appears below authorizes Paul R. Skubic,
Chairman of the Board and President, to execute in the name of each such person
who is then an officer or director of the registrant, and to file, the 2002
Harris Preferred Capital Corporation Annual Report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Form 10-K pursuant to the requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.



/s/ David Blockowicz                          /s/ Delbert Wacker
-------------------------------               -------------------------------
David Blockowicz                              Delbert Wacker
Director                                      Director


/s/ Frank M. Novosel                          /s/ Forrest M. Schneider
-------------------------------               -------------------------------
Frank M. Novosel                              Forrest M. Schneider
Director                                      Director


/s/ Paul R. Skubic
-------------------------------
Paul R. Skubic
Director
### §1467. Jurisdiction of courts

The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any case or controversy arising under the provisions of this chapter. These courts may, at any time—

(1) enter restraining orders or prohibitions;

(2) issue warrants, process in rem, or other process;

(3) prescribe and accept satisfactory bonds or other security; and

(4) take such other actions as are in the interest of justice.

(Pub. L. 96–283, title III, §307, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 580.)
#### § 404.33 How much Federal funding can Reclamation provide for the completion of a feasibility study?

In general, Reclamation will be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of a feasibility study conducted under § 404.11(a) or (b). You will be responsible to pay for the remaining 50 percent of the cost of the study using non-Federal funding.
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-003 January 31, 2002 

 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 or Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING WITH VIRGINIA POWER TO DISCUSS INITIAL

PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL INSPECTION FOR SURRY AND NORTH ANNA

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Virginia Power Company officials at 9:00

a.m. on February 8 at the companyís Innsbrook Technical Center near Richmond to discuss the results

of the agencyís initial inspection of the companyís license renewal program for Surry and North Anna.

 The meeting will be open to observation by the public. The Innsbrook Technical Center is located

at 5000 Dominion Boulevard in the Richmond suburb of Glen Allen.

 NRC officials say the inspection is the first of three planned license renewal reviews for Surry and

North Anna and was conducted to verify that the companyís license renewal program is implemented

consistent with its license renewal application and pertinent regulations. Subsequent NRC inspections

will verify that programs are in place to manage the material condition of plant systems, structures and

components.

 NRC officials will also discuss the license renewal process and the schedule for both Surry and

North Anna.

###
DENY; and Opinion Filed September 6, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00941-CV

IN RE VENKY VENKATRAMAN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF04-11968

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Before the Court is relator’s August 9, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus complaining of 

the trial court’s May 6, 2019 final modification order in a suit affecting parent-child relationship. 

Relator contends the trial court abused its discretion by signing the May 6 order because it does 

not comply with this Court’s August 30, 2017 opinion and subsequently issued mandate.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show that the trial court has clearly abused 

its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition and 

mandamus record, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. 
–2–

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)

(the court must deny the petition if court determines relator is not entitled to relief sought). 

190941F.P05

/Ken Molberg/

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE