alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1545 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1545

  To prohibit Federal officials from paying any Federal funds to any 
      individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2003

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit Federal officials from paying any Federal funds to any 
      individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions.

    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 ``Partial-Birth Abortion Funding Ban 
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO INDIVIDUALS OR 
              ENTITIES THAT PERFORM PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS.

    (a) Prohibition.--Consistent with the just compensation clause of 
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, no Federal official may pay 
any Federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-
birth abortions.
    (b) Definition.--The term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an 
abortion in which--
            (1) the person performing the abortion deliberately and 
        intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the 
        case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is 
        outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech 
        presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is 
        outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an 
        overt act that the person knows will kill the partially 
        delivered living fetus; and
            (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of 
        delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.
                                 <all>
```
November 17, 2014 Scott Faulk Secretary of Transportation U . S . Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave . , S.E. Washington D .C . 20590 Subject: Request for Extension 

# mart

m iddl e g eorgi a regio n al airpo rt

Order 2014-10-21 Served on October 24, 2014 City Of Macon, Middle Georgia Regional Airport Dear Mr. Faulk, As you already know, the U . S . Department of Transportation issued a RFP soliciting carriers interested in providing EAS at Macon , GA. The deadline for submitting proposals to the Department is currently November 24 , 2014 . In an effort to ensure the airlines have ample time to respond , we are request i ng the Department extend the due date until January 8, 2014 . We are hopeful this process wi ll result into a quality carrier serving Macon that is capable of achieving new requirements. Please feel free to contact me for any questions or concerns. Sincerely,

# ~~~cr~ Airport Manager

Middle Georgia Regional Airport • Macon Downtown Airport • TBJ A i rport Managem e nt In c . 1000 Termi nal Drive • Suite 100 ' Macon , Georgia 3 1 216 • (47 8) 803-0456
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-03-043 June 20, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC STAFF TO DISCUSS POINT BEACH INSPECTION PLANS JUNE 24

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Nuclear Management Company

officials on June 24 in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, to discuss plans for a special NRC inspection to review

performance at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The two-reactor facility is near Two Rivers, Wisconsin.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 4601 Calumet Avenue, Manitowoc. The

meeting is open to public observation; before the meeting is adjourned, members of the public may ask

questions and provide comments.

In addition to discussing the NRC’s inspection plans, the meeting will include a review by

Nuclear Management Company of its preparations for the inspection, the results of its internal

assessment of plant performance, and its initiatives for improving plant performance.

This special inspection results from the NRC’s determination that the possible failure of an

auxiliary cooling water system was of “high safety significance.” Normal plant operations were not

affected by the problem, which was initially discovered by plant personnel in 2001.

The auxiliary cooling water system is used to safely shut down the reactor if problems occur

during plant operations and to continue removing heat from the reactor after shutdown.

Even though the utility took prompt action to address the problem, the inspection is intended to

look at principal aspects of plant operations to see if there are other performance problems. The NRC

Reactor Oversight Process calls for such an inspection when there are problems of “high safety

significance.”

The NRC is continuing to evaluate a second problem with the auxiliary cooling water system

which was found by the utility last year. The agency’s preliminary evaluation is that this, too, is a

problem of “high safety significance.” The NRC staff met earlier this month with Nuclear

Management Company officials to discuss the safety significance of the second problem. The utility

will be providing additional information to the NRC before the agency makes its final determination of

the safety significance.

NRC inspection findings are evaluated using a four-level scale of safety significance, ranging

from "green" for a finding of very low significance, through "white" and "yellow" to "red," for a

finding of high safety significance. The 2001 auxiliary cooling water system problem was determined
- 2 -

to be a “red” finding; the preliminary safety significance of the 2002 problem is also “red,” but the

final determination remains under review.

 # # # #
### §1534. State, local, and tribal government input

#### (a) In general

Each agency shall, to the extent permitted in law, develop an effective process to permit elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates.

#### (b) Meetings between State, local, tribal and Federal officers

Chapter 10 of title 5 shall not apply to actions in support of intergovernmental communications where—

(1) meetings are held exclusively between Federal officials and elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities; and

(2) such meetings are solely for the purposes of exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the management or implementation of Federal programs established pursuant to public law that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental responsibilities or administration.

#### (c) Implementing guidelines

No later than 6 months after March 22, 1995, the President shall issue guidelines and instructions to Federal agencies for appropriate implementation of subsections (a) and (b) consistent with applicable laws and regulations.

(Pub. L. 104–4, title II, §204, Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 65; Pub. L. 117–286, §4(a)(1), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4305.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–286 substituted "Chapter 10 of title 5" for "The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)" in introductory provisions.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Authority To Issue Guidelines and Instructions

Memorandum of President of the United States, Aug. 25, 1995, 60 F.R. 45039, provided:

Memorandum for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 204(c) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) [2 U.S.C. 1534(c)] and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget the authority vested in the President to issue the guidelines and instructions to Federal agencies required by section 204(c) of that Act.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

William J. Clinton.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         896778
<NAME>                        Conceptus, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         11,761
<SECURITIES>                                   11,479
<RECEIVABLES>                                     749
<ALLOWANCES>                                      250
<INVENTORY>                                       327
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,384
<PP&E>                                          2,557
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,551
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       63,516
<OTHER-SE>                                    (39,440)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,943
<SALES>                                           167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  167
<CGS>                                             836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,456)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,456)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)
        


</TABLE>
§ 210.52 Motions for temporary relief. Requests for temporary relief under section 337 (e) or (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 shall be made through a motion filed in accordance with the following provisions: ( a ) A complaint requesting temporary relief shall be accompanied by a motion setting forth the complainant's request for such relief. In determining whether to grant temporary relief, the Commission will apply the standards the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit uses in determining whether to affirm lower court decisions granting preliminary injunctions. The motion for temporary relief accordingly must contain a detailed statement of specific facts bearing on the factors the Federal Circuit has stated that a U.S. District Court must consider in granting a preliminary injunction.
( b ) The motion must also contain a detailed statement of facts bearing on: ( 1 ) Whether the complainant should be required to post a bond as a prerequisite to the issuance of temporary relief; and
( 2 ) The appropriate amount of the bond, if the Commission determines that a bond will be required.
( c ) In determining whether to require a bond as a prerequisite to the issuance of temporary relief, the Commission will be guided by practice under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
( d ) The following documents and information also shall be filed along with the motion for temporary relief: ( 1 ) A memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion;
( 2 ) Affidavits executed by persons with knowledge of the facts asserted in the motion; and
( 3 ) All documents, information, and other evidence in complainant's possession that complainant intends to submit in support of the motion.
( e ) If the complaint, the motion for temporary relief, or the documentation supporting the motion for temporary relief contains confidential business information as defined in § 201.6(a) of this chapter, the complainant must follow the procedure outlined in §§ 210.4(a), 210.5(a), 201.6 (a) and (c), 210.8(a), and 210.55 of this part.
[59 FR 39039, Aug. 1, 1994, as amended at 59 FR 67629, Dec. 30, 1994; 60 FR 32444, June 22, 1995]
```

[106th Congress Public Law 328]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ328.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1295]]

Public Law 106-328
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
2000 Vassar Street in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 19, 2000 -  [H.R. 4169]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2000 
Vassar Street in Reno, Nevada, shall be known and designated as the 
``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post 
Office Building''.

    Approved October 19, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4169:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            July 11, 12, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 6, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### SUBCHAPTER VII—ORDERS
*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders; nevertheless, an order may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 28 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID SERNA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondent-Appellee.

No.04-6102

N.D. of Okla.

(03-CV-1370-HE)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before KELLY , HENRY , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. ** 

Plaintiff-Appellant David Serna, an Oklahoma prisoner, brings this pro se

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition alleging that he did not knowingly and voluntarily agree

to his plea bargain. The district court denied the petition on March 25, 2004. For

the reasons stated in our September 15, 2004 Order filed in the related case,
-2-

04-6045, we deny this application for a Certificate of Appealability, and dismiss

Serna’s petition.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge
### §778. Dependency and disability decisions

The General Counsel of the Government Accountability Office shall decide a question of dependency, disability, or dependency and disability under sections 773–776 of this title. A decision under this section is final.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 778 | 31:43b(h). | June 10, 1921, ch. 18, 42 Stat. 20, §319(h); added July 13, 1959, Pub. L. 86–87, 73 Stat. 198. |

The words "arising" and "and conclusive" are omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 10632 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Michael Stratton,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14
- CR
- 188 - 1

**____________________ __________**  Before **Higginbotham, Stewart,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Stratton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Stratton has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 20, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10632 Document: 00516974918 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023No. 23
- 10632

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further re sponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-10632 Document: 00516974918 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2023
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. 03-105 August 18, 2003

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON FANSTEEL DECOMMISSIONING PLAN;

ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comments on a proposed plan by

Fansteel, Inc., to decommission its facility near Muskogee, Oklahoma, that formerly processed ores to

extract tantalum, niobium and scandium for use in industrial products. Interested persons may also

request a hearing on the proposal. 

Fansteel proposes to remove radiological contamination at the facility resulting from uranium

and thorium in the ores, so that the site can be released for unrestricted use. The company holds an

NRC license for possession of the uranium and thorium. 

On July 24, 2003, Fansteel submitted a request for NRC to amend its license to approve its site

decommissioning plan submitted on January 14 of this year (as amended on May 8). A copy of the

plan and related documents are accessible from the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html . Help in using the reading room is available by calling the NRC Public Document Room at

301/415-4737 or 800/397-4209. 

Comments on the decommissioning proposal and its associated environmental impacts may be

submitted to J.C. Shepherd, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555-001; or by fax: 301/415-5398; or e-mail; jcs2@nrc.gov , by September 10.

Affected persons may also submit a request by September 10 for a hearing on the

decommissioning plan. A hearing request must describe in detail:

-- The interest of the requester in the proceeding;

-- How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding;

-- The requester’s areas of concern about the proposal and

-- Other information as described in a Federal Register notice on this subject, published on

August 11.
- 2 -

Hearing requests should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, and also by fax to 301/415-1101 or e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov . 

A copy of the request must also be sent to Fansteel, Inc., and the NRC staff at the addresses specified in

the Federal Register notice. 

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93023, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 159.1 Definition of liquidation.

*Liquidation* means the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries.

[T.D. 01-24, 66 FR 16400, Mar. 26, 2001, as amended by CBP Dec. 11-02, 76 FR 2576, Jan. 14, 2011]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-04-028 April 30, 2004

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO MEET WITH EXELON GENERATION COMPANY 

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE OF LASALLE NUCLEAR PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Exelon

Generation Company, on Thursday, May 6, to discuss the results of the agency’s assessment of safety

performance at the LaSalle nuclear plant during 2003. The two-unit facility is located in Marseilles,

Illinois.

The meeting will be held at 3:30 p.m. at Brookfield Township Hall, 2099 E. 27th Road, in Seneca.

The public is invited to observe the meeting and NRC officials will be available before the conclusion of

the meeting to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of the plant. In addition, the

NRC staff will provide an overview of how the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process works.

The NRC concluded that the plant operated safely last year. Plant performance does not require

additional inspections beyond the normal inspection program. Routine inspections are performed by the

two resident inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from Region III office in Lisle,

Illinois. 

A March 4 letter from the NRC to Exelon Generation Company officials addresses the performance

of the plant during this period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/lasa_2003q4.pdf

With regard to security issues, the NRC has issued several orders and threat advisories to enhance

security capabilities and improve guard force readiness since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The agency has also conducted inspections to review the implementation of these requirements and has

monitored the action of plant operators in response to changing threat conditions. The NRC will continue

security inspections during 2004.

Current performance indicators and inspection findings for LaSalle are available on the NRC web

site at: (Unit 1)http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LASA1/lasa1_chart.html

and (Unit 2)http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LASA2/lasa2_chart.html

###