alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §558. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums,1 as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this chapter.

(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1156, §8, 68 Stat. 1011; Pub. L. 102–486, title XXV, §2504(d)(3), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3106.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–486 struck out "not to exceed $500,000 annually," after "such sums,".

1 So in original. The comma probably should not appear.
#### § 7.925 Special benefits for children and the elderly.

If a recipient operating a program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to children, such use of age distinctions shall be presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity, notwithstanding the provisions of § 7.921.

[55 FR 23078, June 6, 1990, as amended at 68 FR 51380, Aug. 26, 2003]
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 702 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 702

 To prohibit Federal funding of State firearm ownership databases, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 2021

 Mrs. Hyde-Smith (for herself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Blackburn, 
Mr. Cramer, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Rounds, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Hagerty, and Mr. 
Thune) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Federal funding of State firearm ownership databases, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Owner Registration Information 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF STATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP 
              DATABASES.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
        States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
        American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and any 
        other territory or possession of the United States.
            (2) State firearm ownership database.--The term ``State 
        firearm ownership database'' means a comprehensive or partial 
        database of a State or political subdivision of a State that 
        lists--
                    (A) firearms lawfully owned or possessed by 
                individuals; or
                    (B) individuals who lawfully own or possess 
                firearms.
    (b) Prohibition.--A Federal agency may not fund or otherwise 
support the establishment or maintenance of a State firearm ownership 
database.
    (c) Exception.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to a database of a 
State or political subdivision of a State that lists--
            (1) firearms that have been reported as lost or stolen; or
            (2) individuals who have reported their firearms as lost or 
        stolen.
                                 <all>
```
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

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

No: II-98-30 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Tuesday, April 14, 1998)

NRC NAMES NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT SUMMER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have announced the assignment of

Mark S. King as a resident inspector at the V.C. Summer nuclear power plant near Jenkinsville, South

Carolina.

Before joining the NRC, Mr. King worked for 10 years at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant

in Florida as a senior engineer, shift technical advisor, and system engineer. Prior to that, he worked

for five years at Newport News Shipbuilding on new construction of Los Angeles class nuclear

submarines as a mechanical test engineer and shift test engineer. He joined the NRC in November

1997 as a project engineer in the NRC’s region office in Atlanta and is part of the agency’s Resident

Inspector Development Program. Mr. King received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical

Engineering from the University of Maryland.

Mr. King joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Brian Bonser at the Summer plant. The NRC

inspectors at Summer can be reached at 803-345-5683.

#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-23081-CMA 

Africa Growth Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Republic of Angola, 

Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

AND CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Plaintiff Africa Growth Corporation (“AFGC”), a publicly-traded, U.S. shareholderowned Nevada corporation, pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby 

submits its Corporate Disclosure Statement and Certificate of Interested Parties. 

1. Plaintiff AFGC hereby certifies that there are no parent corporations and/or 

publicly held corporations owning 10 percent or more of its stock. 

2. AFGC identifies the following interested parties, which are persons, associated 

persons, firms, partnerships or corporations that have a financial interest in the outcome of this 

case, including all subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and other 

identifiable legal entities related to AFGC: 

a. Africa International Capital Ltd., a British Virgin Islands company; 

b. ADV Holding Ltd., a British Virgin Islands company; 

Case 1:20-cv-23081-CMA Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 1 of 2
2 

Dated: August 10, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 

200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Tel.: (305) 358-6300 

Fax: (305) 381-9982 

By: /s/ Harold E. Patricoff 

Harold E. Patricoff 

Fla. Bar No. 508357 

hpatricoff@shutts.com 

Kristin Drecktrah Paz 

Fla. Bar No. 91026 

kpaz@shutts.com 

Aleksey Shtivelman 

Fla. Bar No. 099159 

ashtivelman@shutts.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff Africa Growth 

Corporation

Case 1:20-cv-23081-CMA Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Raphael S. Spano, Respondent, against Harold S. Close et al., Constituting the Common Council of the City of Middletown, Appellants.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary information extracted from
                  the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated
                  Balance Sheets of Vista Technologies Inc. and Subsidiaries
                  and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                  consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>             0000895725
<NAME>            VISTA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER>      1000
<S>                                 <C>         
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Mar-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                        Apr-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>  Jun-30-1997 
<PERIOD-TYPE> 3-MOS 
<CASH>          617 
<SECURITIES>      0 
<RECEIVABLES>   209 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8)
<INVENTORY>                                     0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              944 
<PP&E>                                      3,330 
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,291 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,123 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,367 
<BONDS>                                     1,839 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0 
<PREFERRED>                                     0 
<COMMON>                                       39 
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,370)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,123 
<SALES>                                     1,230 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,230 
<CGS>                                           0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,391 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (57)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             79 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (219)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0 
<CHANGES>                                       0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 (219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.03)

        

</TABLE>
§ 171.55 Notice provisions. ( a ) *Special notice provision.* At the time of seizure of property defined in § 171.51, written notice must be provided to the possessor of the property regarding applicable statutes and Federal regulations including the procedures established for the filing of a petition for expedited procedures as set forth in section 6079 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and implementing regulations.
( b ) *Notice provision.* The notice as required by section 1607 of Title 19, United States Code and applicable regulations shall be made at the earliest practicable opportunity after determining ownership of, or interest in, the seized property and shall include a statement of the applicable law under which the property is seized and a statement of the circumstances of the seizure sufficiently precise to enable an owner or interested party to identify the date, place and use or acquisition which makes the property subject to forfeiture.
[T.D. 89-86, 54 FR 37602, Sept. 11, 1989; 54 FR 43424, Oct. 25, 1989]
#### William A. Evans, as Trustee, etc., Respondent, v. Rubber Goods Manufacturing Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Wupatki
National Monument
Arizona


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Basic Information
 Wupatki National Monument preserves dozens of ancestral Puebloan sites, several of which are open to visitors. The Plan Your Visit page is a great place to start, and be sure to check Current Conditions for any changes and alerts.

Physical Address
Directions
Operating Hours & Seasons
Weather
Fees & Passes
Visitor Centers
Internet & Cellular Access
Internet & Cellular Access Details

A smiling National Park Ranger speaks with a visitor in front of the visitor center kiosk.Fees and Passes
Detailed fee and pass information.
A smiling woman stands at a trail head with her dog on a leash. Pets
Tips for visiting with pets.
A gravel trail leading to the base of Citadel Pueblo Accessibility
Learn about accessibility at Wupatki National Monument
 Last updated: November 9, 2023
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: 6400 U.S. 89
Flagstaff,
AZ
86004
 Phone: 928-679-2365 Contact Us
 Tools Site Index
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1393 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1393

  To ensure that tax-exempt status and other benefits afforded under 
  Operation Enduring Freedom are also provided to United States Armed 
                      Forces personnel in Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2003

Mr. Janklow (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Mario Diaz-
    Balart of Florida, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Platts) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure that tax-exempt status and other benefits afforded under 
  Operation Enduring Freedom are also provided to United States Armed 
                      Forces personnel in Israel.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness and 
Justice Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF BENEFITS UNDER OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

    For purposes of all benefits afforded, as a result of the 
Operational Deployment Order issued by the President in January 2003, 
to United States Armed Forces personnel participating in Operation 
Enduring Freedom, the geographic area encompassed by the applicability 
of those benefits shall be deemed to include Israel.

SEC. 3. RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE.

     Section 2 shall take effect as of February 1, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
### §74–2. Omitted

Section, Pub. L. 88–248, §103, Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 817; Pub. L. 89–90, §103, July 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 81; Pub. L. 90–417, §103, July 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 413, was based on House Resolutions No. 603, Apr. 16, 1962, and No. 685, Apr. 14, 1964, related to messengers in Office of Speaker, and was omitted for lack of general applicability.
### Part C—Claims for Benefits After December 31, 1973
-1-

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-97-21 March 6, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF RATES VERMONT YANKEE "GOOD" IN THREE AREAS,

"SUPERIOR" IN ONE AREA IN LATEST ASSESSMENT

The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station received performance

ratings of "good" in three areas and "superior" in the fourth area of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's latest systematic assessment of

licensee performance (SALP) of the facility.

The SALP report was sent yesterday (March 5) to Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Corporation, which operates the facility in Vernon, Vt.

It evaluates the plant's performance from July 16, 1995, through

January 18, 1997.

The NRC staff will meet with Vermont Yankee officials to discuss

the SALP at 3 p.m. on March 12 in the Vernon Town Hall. It will be

open for public observation.

NRC SALP reports rate licensee performance in four functional

areas ˇ plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support ˇ and assign ratings of Category 1 (superior), 2 (good) or 3

(adequate). This report gives Vermont Yankee a Category 2 (good)

rating in operations, maintenance and engineering, and a Category 1

rating in plant support, indicating "superior" performance.

In a letter to Vermont Yankee, NRC Region I Administrator Hubert

J. Miller said, "Vermont Yankee's overall performance remained

essentially constant over the course of this SALP period. Operators

performed well during planned evolutions and unplanned transients.

While performance in the area of problem identification was somewhat

mixed, improvements were noted, particularly regarding identification

of problems related to design basis conformance and engineering

program adequacy. In addition, some improvements were noted in the

material condition of the plant as indicated by a reduction in plant

trips and transients caused by equipment problems. Radiological

controls and other plant support programs continued to be implemented

effectively."

Mr. Miller continued, "Notwithstanding these performance

improvements, human performance problems continued to be noted. For

example, maintenance and modification activities resulted in several

unexpected plant challenges due to poor communications and

coordination among the maintenance, operations, and engineering

staffs. Also, weaknesses were found in surveillance test procedure

adequacy and adherence. Further, inconsistencies were noted in the

scope and depth of root cause analyses and in the prioritization of

corrective actions.
SAL

yourfirstn

listproc

report

(http
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-76 November 3, 2000

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

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

NRC DISPATCHES SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM TO SEABROOK NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending a special inspection team to the Seabrook

nuclear power plant to review the plant operator’s response to a disabled emergency diesel generator.

The problem was discovered recently at the reactor in Seabrook, N.H., which is operated by North

Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (NAESCO).

One member of the team, an NRC resident inspector at the plant, is already on site. Other

members of the four-man team are expected to arrive next week. The team will monitor and assess

the company’s root cause evaluation and corrective actions, independently evaluate the risk

significance of the problem, and determine whether there are generic implications.

Between October 29 and November 1, the company unsuccessfully attempted to conduct a

required test on one of the plant’s 2 emergency diesel generators. During the November 1 test,

operators in the diesel room noted a flash and heavy smoke from one of the diesels. According to

NAESCO, the diesel sustained some damage. The plant remains shutdown, in a refueling outage, with

the fuel removed from the vessel. There were no other consequences and no other equipment was

affected.

The NRC team will issue a written report, which will be available to the public, several weeks

after the completion of the inspection.

###
#### § 207.42 Investigation continued upon request.

Upon receipt of advice from the administering authority that it has received a request for the continuation of a suspended investigation pursuant to section 704(g) or 734(g) of the Act, the Commission shall continue the investigation. The procedures set forth in subparts B and C of this part, including applicable time limitations, shall apply to all continued investigations within this rule.
AAM

- 13

- 250

- E March 07, 2013

Exemption No. 10216A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0128

Ms. Lesl ey Taylor

Helicopter Flight Services, Inc.

Heliport Pier 6, East River

New York, NY 10004

De ar Ms. Taylor :

This letter is to inform you that we have g ranted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10216 . It explains the basis for our decision , describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By date pos ted February 25, 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalf Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. ( HFS )

, for an extension of Exemption No. 10216.

That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows HFS

, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety

- sensitive

employees under one testing program

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest a nd safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the reque sted extension of the exemption would not set a

preceden t, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to HFS

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10216

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. There fore, under the

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has

delegat ed to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. E mployees of HFS are subject to the d rug and alcohol regulations at all times

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of

the HFS part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our de cision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10216 to March 31, 2015, unless

so oner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

James R. Fraser

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-70 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, May 16, 1996)

NRC ISSUES POLICY STATEMENT

ON PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES FROM RETALIATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a policy

statement to set forth its expectation that NRC licensees will

establish and maintain safety-conscious environments in which

employees have the freedom to raise safety concerns, both to

their management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation.

The policy statement is applicable to the NRC-regulated

activities of all NRC licensees and their contractors and

subcontractors.

One key point in the policy statement is that NRC has the

authority to investigate allegations that employees of licensees

or contractors have been discriminated against for raising

concerns and will take enforcement action if discrimination is

substantiated.

The policy statement is only one of several steps the NRC

has taken to improve the handling of allegations and to protect

those who raise safety concerns from retaliation or

discrimination. The agency is also issuing a revised, separate

policy statement on protecting the identity of allegers and

confidential sources; has named a full-time agency allegations

advisor; has put additional emphasis on training NRC staff in the

handling of allegations; is completing revision of an NRC

management directive on the allegation process; and is giving

higher priority to investigations of allegations of

discrimination.

To further enhance protection for employees in the nuclear

industry, NRC is also coordinating with the Department of Labor

(DOL) to achieve improvements in the DOL discrimination complaint

process. DOL has authority under Section 211 of the Energy

Reorganization Act to order a personal remedy, such as back pay

or reinstatement for individuals in NRC-licensed activities who

successfully argue that they have been discriminated against for

reporting safety concerns either to their employer or to the NRC.
Under a trial program, DOL has transferred responsibility

for investigating complaints to the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, which has considerable experience in

handling such complaints. DOL has also proposed a rule change

which would allow discretion to choose to defend its initial

finding of discrimination if challenged by the employer.

#
### §68d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 68d was editorially reclassified as section 6511 of this title.