alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.01
           SUBSIDIARIES OF CONSOLIDATION CAPITAL CORPORATION ("CCC")

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME OF COMPANY                                 INCORPORATED IN   DIRECT PARENT
---------------------------------------------   ---------------   -------------
<S>                                             <C>               <C>
Service Management USA, Inc. ("SMUSA")               Virginia          CCC
Diversified Management Services, U.S.A., Inc.        Virginia         SMUSA
Alliance Supply Co., LLC                             Virginia         SMUSA
Interstate Building Services, LLC                   Virginia         SMUSA
Consolidated Electrical Group, Inc. ("CEG")          Delaware          CCC
Garfield Electric Company                              Ohio            CCC
Indecon, Inc.                                          Ohio            CCC
Riviera Electric Construction Co.                    Colorado          CCC
SKC Electric, Inc.                                    Kansas           CCC
SKCE, Inc.                                            Kansas      SKC Electric, Inc.
Town & Country Electric Inc.                         Wisconsin         CCC
Tri-City Electrical Contractors, Inc.                 Florida          CCC
Wilson Electric Company, Inc.                          Arizona          CCC
Walker Engineering, Inc.                              Texas            CCC
CCC3 Acquisition Corp.                               Delaware          CCC
CCC4 Acquisition Corp.                               Delaware          CCC
CCC5 Acquisition Corp.                               Delaware          CCC
CCC6 Acquisition Corp.                               Delaware          CCC
CCC7 Acquisition Corp.                               Delaware          CCC

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 575 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 575

          To provide Federal criminal penalties for lynching.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2021

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To provide Federal criminal penalties for lynching.

    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 ``Marie Thompson Antilynching Act''.

SEC. 2. LYNCHING.

    (a) Offense.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 250. Lynching
    ``Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 249 and 
willfully causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury (as defined 
in section 1365(h)) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed 
violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of 
imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the 
person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.''.
    (b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the 
item relating to section 249 the following:

``250. Lynching.''.
                                 <all>
```
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-03-053 July 31, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM DISPATCHED 

TO HEMATITE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the former Hematite

Fuel Fabrication Facility in Festus, Missouri, to review the circumstances around an inadvertent

shipment of nuclear fuel pellets, which were included in a shipment of metal for reprocessing, from the

facility to a recycling facility in Canada. The special inspection will also review the facility’s methods

for controlling and accounting for nuclear material and its shipment verification methods.

The Hematite Fuel Fabrication Facility, owned by Westinghouse Electric Company, has been

shut down since June 2001. The facility is currently developing a plan to decommission the site and

will submit it to the NRC for review and approval.

Earlier this month, approximately 30,000 used zirconium tubes were shipped for recycling from

the Hematite facility to Mississauga Metals and Alloys, Inc., a recycling company located in Brampton,

Ontario, Canada. Mississauga Metals and Alloys, Inc. is under the regulation of the Canadian Nuclear

Safety Commission and has proper controls to handle nuclear materials.

All nuclear fuel pellets were supposed to be removed from the zirconium tubes before being

shipped from Festus, Missouri, to Ontario, Canada. When the Mississauga Metals and Alloys

employees opened one of the shipping boxes, they discovered 36 fuel pellets containing low-enriched

uranium in the tubes. The pellets pose no threat to public health and safety.

At the time the fuel pellets were discovered, Mississauga Metals and Alloys had processed about

50 percent of the zirconium tubes. The remaining tubes were placed in a secure location, and further

processing was halted.

The report of the inspection will be publically available when it is issued, about 30 days after the

inspection is complete. It will be posted on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams/web-based.html. Assistance in using the web reading room is available by calling the NRC

Public Document Room at 800-397-4209.

###
§ 182.13 Importer obligations. ( a ) *General.* An importer who makes a claim for USMCA preferential tariff treatment: ( 1 ) Will be deemed to have made a statement based on a valid certification of origin that the good qualifies as an originating good;
( 2 ) Is responsible for the truthfulness of the claim and of all the information and data contained in the certification of origin provided for in § 182.12; and
( 3 ) Is responsible for submitting supporting documents requested by CBP, and for the truthfulness of the information contained in those documents. When a certification of origin prepared by an exporter or producer forms the basis of a claim for preferential tariff treatment and CBP requests the submission of supporting documents, the importer will provide to CBP, or arrange for the direct submission by the exporter or producer of, information relied on by the exporter or producer in preparing the certification.
( b ) *Exemption from penalties.* An importer will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 for making an incorrect claim for preferential tariff treatment or submitting an incorrect certification of origin, provided that the importer promptly and voluntarily corrects the claim or certification of origin, pays any duties and merchandise processing fees, if applicable, that may be due, and submits a statement either in writing or via a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system to the CBP office where the original claim was filed in accordance with § 182.124 (*see* §§ 182.122 and 182.124).
[CBP Dec. 21-10, 86 FR 35585, July 6, 2021]
§ 1201.58 Order of hearing. ( a ) In cases in which the agency has taken an action against an employee, the agency will present its case first.
( b ) The appellant will proceed first at hearings convened on the issues of: ( 1 ) Jurisdiction;
( 2 ) Timeliness; or
( 3 ) Office of Personnel Management disallowance of retirement benefits, when the appellant applied for those benefits.
( c ) The judge may vary the normal order of presenting evidence.
[54 FR 53504, Dec. 29, 1989. Redesignated at 80 FR 4496, Jan. 28, 2015]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsL band push broom microwave radiometer:  Soil moisture verification and time series experiment Delmarva PeninsulaThe verification of a multi-sensor aircraft system developed to study soil moisture applications is discussed. This system consisted of a three beam push broom L band microwave radiometer, a thermal infrared scanner, a multispectral scanner, video and photographic cameras and an onboard navigational instrument. Ten flights were made of agricultural sites in Maryland and Delaware with little or no vegetation cover. Comparisons of aircraft and ground measurements showed that the system was reliable and consistent. Time series analysis of microwave and evaporation data showed a strong similarity that indicates a potential direction for future research.Document ID19840011887Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJackson, T. J.*(Agricultural Research Center Beltsville, Md., United States)*Shiue, J.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Oneill, P.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Wang, J.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Fuchs, J.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Owe, M.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1984Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberE84-10084NASA-TM-86068NAS 1.15:86068Accession Number84N19955Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840011887.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
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,437-01

EX PARTE SHERRON DONDRIEL PHILLIPS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-566-12-D(1) IN THE 206TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HIDALGO 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 possession of

marihuana and sentenced to forty-two months’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

In a single ground, Applicant contends that the Board of Pardons and Paroles’ written notice

of its decision not to release him to parole violates due process. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 508.1411. 

We order that this application be filed and set for submission to determine the following questions:

(1) whether an applicant who contends that under § 508.1411 the Board of Pardons and Paroles’
2

written notice violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution has an adequate

remedy on habeas when there is not a presumption of release to parole; (2) assuming for the sake 1

of argument that an applicant does have an adequate remedy on habeas, whether § 508.1411

implicates due process and the written notice provided by the Board of Pardons and Paroles satisfies

due process; and (3) whether an application for a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy for such

claims. The parties shall brief these issues. The Board of Pardons and Paroles is invited to submit

a brief.

The trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If he is indigent and desires

to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent him. TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art 26.04. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 days of the date of this

order, a supplemental transcript containing either the order appointing counsel or a statement that

Applicant is not indigent. All briefs shall be filed with this Court within 90 days of the date of this

order.

Filed: December 17, 2014

Do not publish

See Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); TEX. GOV’T CODE §

1

508.141(a).
###### Editorial Note on Part 174

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 174.28 Consideration of additional arguments.

In determining whether to allow or deny a protest filed within the time allowed, a reviewing officer may consider alternative claims and additional grounds or arguments submitted in writing by the protesting party with respect to any decision which is the subject of a valid protest at any time prior to disposition of the protest. In any case in which alternative claims or additional grounds or arguments are submitted orally, they shall be considered in the allowance or denial of the protest only if submitted in writing in conjunction with, or no later than 60 days after, such oral submission.

(R.S. 251, as amended, secs. 514, 624, 46 Stat. 734, as amended, 759; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1514, 1624)

[T.D. 71-15, 36 FR 778, Jan. 16, 1971]
### Summary of selected computer programs produced by the U.S. Geological Survey for simulation of ground-water flow and quality, 1994

By: Charles A. AppelThomas E. Reilly

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1104

#### 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.
### §1424. Monitoring of activities of licensees and permittees

Each license and permit issued under this subchapter shall require the licensee or permittee—

(1) to allow the Administrator to place appropriate Federal officers or employees as observers aboard vessels used by the licensee or permittee in exploration or commercial recovery activities (A) to monitor such activities at such time, and to such extent, as the Administrator deems reasonable and necessary to assess the effectiveness of the terms, conditions, and restrictions of the license or permit, and (B) to report to the Administrator whenever such officers or employees have reason to believe there is a failure to comply with such terms, conditions, and restrictions;

(2) to cooperate with such officers and employees in the performance of monitoring functions; and

(3) to monitor the environmental effects of the exploration and commercial recovery activities in accordance with guidelines issued by the Administrator and to submit such information as the Administrator finds to be necessary and appropriate to assess environmental impacts and to develop and evaluate possible methods of mitigating adverse environmental effects.

(Pub. L. 96–283, title I, §114, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 572.)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1572 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1572

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 4, 2003

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 North Palafox 
 Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. Arnow United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 100 North Palafox Street in 
Pensacola, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Winston E. 
Arnow United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winston E. 
Arnow United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 3, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### §1736. Shared civil penalties

An amount equal to 50 per centum of any civil penalty collected by the Federal Government under this chapter resulting from activities conducted by a State or Indian tribe pursuant to a cooperative agreement under section 1732 of this title or a State under a delegation under section 1735 of this title, shall be payable to such State or tribe. Any payments under this section shall be reduced by an amount equal to any payments provided or due to such State or Indian tribe under the cooperative agreement or delegation, as applicable, during the fiscal year in which the civil penalty is received, up to the total amount provided or due for that fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 97–451, title II, §206, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2460; Pub. L. 113–76, div. G, title I, §121, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 314.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–76 substituted "Any payments under this section shall be reduced by an amount equal to any payments provided or due to such State or Indian tribe under the cooperative agreement or delegation, as applicable, during the fiscal year in which the civil penalty is received, up to the total amount provided or due for that fiscal year." for "Such amount shall be deducted from any compensation due such State or Indian tribe under section 1732 of this title or such State under section 1735 of this title."
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Giovanina Introne, Respondent, against Nick Carbisello et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

— This is an appeal by the employer and insurance carrier from an award filed June 16, 1947, of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, allowing death benefits to the widow and children of Ralph Introne, deceased employee. Decedent was employed as a “shovel oiler”. The employer’s principal office was located in Binghamton, N. Y., and the nature of his business was highway construction. Introne, the deceased employee, worked for the employer in different places throughout the State of New York and, at the time of the accident from which he received the injuries resulting in his death, in Natalie, Pennsylvania, on a construction job. The board found that decedent’s work was transitory and not conducted at a fixed place outside the State of New York. Decedent’s work outside the State of New. York was temporary, and incidental to the general employment in New York State. *(Matter of Cameron*v. *Ellis Construction Co.,*252 N. Y. 394, 398.) The evidence sustains the finding of the board. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Poster and Russell, JJ.
#### § 205.1 Applicability of part.

This part 205 applies to functions and duties of the Commission under sections 131, 301(e)(3), and 503(a) of the Trade Act of 1974. For other applicable rules, see part 201 of this chapter.
§ 1201.135 Contents of stay request. The Special Counsel, or that official's representative, must sign each stay request, and must include the following information in the request: ( a ) The names of the parties;
( b ) The agency and officials involved;
( c ) The nature of the action to be stayed;
( d ) A concise statement of facts justifying the charge that the personnel action was or will be the result of a prohibited personnel practice; and
( e ) The laws or regulations that were violated, or that will be violated if the stay is not issued.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of eMagin Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10- K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











October 7, 2011
By:
/s/ Paul CampbellPaul CampbellChief Financial Officer(Chief Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies
that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ WILLIAM V. CAREYWilliam V. CareyChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerJuly 10, 2009
### §77a. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §204(22)(A)(iii), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1733

Section, based on H. Res. No. 8, par. (3), Ninety-fifth Congress, Jan. 4, 1977, enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 95–94, title I, §115, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 668, related to compensation of Sergeant at Arms of House.

A prior section 77a, based on H. Res. No. 890, Ninety-second Congress, Oct. 4, 1972, enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 92–607, ch. V, Oct. 31, 1972, 86 Stat. 1509, set forth the compensation of the Sergeant at Arms at equal to the annual rate of basic pay fixed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.