alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 25, 2004, Cambrex North Brunswick Inc., Technology Centre of New Jersey, 661 Highway One, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902, made application by renewal and on June 11, 2004 by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed: Drug
ScheduleN-Ethylamphetamine (1475)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)
I3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (7400)
I4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IICodeine (9050)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone Intermediate (9254)
IIMorphine (9300)
IISufentanil (9740)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA 
                    **Federal Register**
                     Representative (ODLR) and must be filed no later than December 28, 2004. Dated: October 1, 2004. William J. Walker, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 04-24154 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Keith ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Erlinda MARTINEZ, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1385.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

Keith Robertson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Keith Robertson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s prior order dismissing Robertson’s 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001), action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Robertson v. Martinez,*No. CA-01-3854-WMN (D.Md. Feb. 7, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Agnes D. Leseman, Appellant, v. Gnalbel Realty Corporation, Respondent.

No opinion. Present—Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ASECO
CORPORATION CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                           5,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                       770
<INVENTORY>                                     11,969
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,123
<PP&E>                                           8,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,178
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,748
<SALES>                                          4,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,395
<CGS>                                            3,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,917)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (347)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,570)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,570)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.96)
        

</TABLE>
| USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS    |
|-------------------------------------|
| NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species |
July 31, 2015

Jones Production

8747 Centerport Rd.

Weedsport NY

13166

Sirs,

 As a professional videographer and an owner of small video UAS, a Hubsan x4. I consider the 

UAS to be one more camera in my arsenal and look forward to investing in larger units with 

better video capabilities. I’m also looking forward to the untold uses for UAS’ large and small in 

the photography and video business. 

 I am petitioning the FAA for exemption from title 14 Code of Regulations in general as the 

UAS does not qualify as a “civil aircraft”.

 I feel a new “policy “ should be developed specific to the individual uses of quadcopter as it 

relates to an established business. As with any tool or piece of equipment necessary for a 

business to prosper it should be the responsibility of the company for maintenance and 

operation.

 With proper insurance ( specific to UAS), a 200’ height limit , remaining in sight and an able 

operator an established business should be granted an exemption. 

 This exemption would put the UAS in the hands of responsible operators with public safety and 

private satisfaction in mind. 

Summary:

 the UAS should not be subject to “civil aircraft” regulations.

 title 14 Code of Regulations should not apply to unmanned aircraft that operate for hire. There 

should be a new policy specifically for unmanned aircraft.

thank-you,

Michael W Jones

mjones165@twcny.rr.com

3157765790
#### In the Matter of the Application of James Kay Eagan, Jr., for Admission to Practice as an Attorney. (From the State of Maryland.)

— Application granted. Present — Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.

#### In the Matter of the Application of Howard H. Jacobson for Admission to Practice as an Attorney. (From the State of Ohio.)

— Application granted. Present — Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
#### § 1201.75 Taking depositions.

Depositions may be taken by any method agreed upon by the parties. The person providing information is subject to penalties for intentional false statements.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AS OF APRIL 26, 2002

   As of April 26, 2002 our listing of subsidiaries is as follows:

   Barbeques Galore Limited

   whose controlled entities are:

      Galore Group Nominees Pty Limited

      Vilbrent Pty Limited

      Barbeques Galore (Aust) Pty Limited

      whose controlled entities are:

          Galore Pty Limited

          The Galore Group (International) Pty Limited

          whose controlled entity is:

             The Galore Group (U.S.A.), Inc.

             whose controlled entities are:

                 Barbeques Galore, Inc.

                 Barbeques Galore Online, Inc.

      Barbeques Galore Services Pty Limited

      whose controlled entities are:

          Cook-on-Gas Products (Australia) Pty Limited

          whose controlled entities are:

             Bosmana Pty Limited

             Cougar Leisure Products Pty Limited

          G.L.G. Australia Pty Limited

          whose controlled entities are:

             Australian Enamellers Pty Limited

             Douglas Manufacturing Pty Limited

             Park-Tec Engineering Pty Limited

          Pricotech Leisure Brands Pty Limited

          Redgun Pty Limited

   (a): All the abovementioned subsidiaries are incorporated in Australia with
the exception of:

          The Galore Group (U.S.A.), Inc;

          Barbeques Galore, Inc; and

          Barbeques Galore Online, Inc.

       which are incorporated in the United States of America.

   (b): All the abovementioned subsidiaries have ordinary shares as issued
share capital and are 100% owned.
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-04-001 January 2, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY INSPECTION RESULTS FOR HONEYWELL’S 

ILLINOIS FUEL PLANT AT PUBLIC MEETING ON JANUARY 6

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of Honeywell International

on January 6 to discuss the preliminary results of an inspection the agency conducted following a

December 22 chemical release (uranium hexafluoride) at the company’s uranium processing plant near

Metropolis, Illinois. 

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will begin at 6:00 p.m. (CST) and be

held in the Second Floor Large Courtroom at the Massac County Courthouse at 1 Superman Square in

Metropolis. The public is invited to observe and NRC staff members will be available to answer

questions from members of the public before the close of the meeting. 

The NRC decided to send an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to the Honeywell facility to

review the December 22 event and assess the plant operators’ performance, the plant equipment

involved, company procedures and the company’s overall response including its own investigation and

any corrective actions.

The Honeywell plant’s uranium hexafluoride production remains shut down and an NRC

Confirmatory Action Letter issued to the company states that it will discuss with the NRC both the

results of its own investigation and proposed corrective actions prior to restarting the processes

involved in the incident.

The written report of the inspection team’s findings will be issued within 30 days of the

meetings and will be publicly available from the Region II Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC’s

web site at www.nrc.gov. Assistance in using the NRC’s web reading room is available by calling the

NRC Public Document Room at 800-397-4209.

 ###
462 P.2d 467

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fermin R. PADILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 382.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Nov. 26, 1969.

Glen L. Houston, Williams, Johnson, Houston & Reagan, Hobbs, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Oliver H. Miles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

OMAN, Judge.

The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in revoking defendant’s probation without a jury trial as to his identity.

The case is before this court oil appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying, after hearing, defendant’s motion under Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969)].

Defendant relies on State v. Peoples, 69 N.M. 106, 364 P.2d 359 (1961), wherein it was held a defendant in a revocation proceeding is entitled to a trial by jury on the question of identity. However, in the Peoples case, the defendant denied she was the same person charged with the commission of the felony which was relied upon as the basis for the revocation of the suspension of her sentence. Thus, there was an issue as to identity to be tried to a jury.

In the present case, the trial court, after a hearing on defendant’s Rule 93 motion, found defendant at all times admitted he was the person who had previously been convicted of aggravated battery and was also the same person who had committed the acts which constituted the basis for the revocation of his probation. This finding is clearly supported by the record and is not attacked. Therefore, there was no issue raised and no issue to be tried as to identity. See State v. Raines, 78 N.M. 579, 434 P.2d 698 (Ct.App.1967).

As in State v. Brusenhan, 78 N.M. 764, 438 P.2d 174 (Ct.App.1968), there has been no suggestion that the person appearing before the trial court in the re'-ocation proceedings, and who is now in the penitentiary, is not the same person who was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for aggravated battery. Defendant recites in his handwritten motion verified under oath that he is this person.

The judgment denying defendant’s motion for relief under Rule 93 should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.
### §1964. Constructive notice of pending actions

Where the law of a State requires a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a court of the State to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county or parish in order to give constructive notice of the action as it relates to the real property, and such law authorizes a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a United States district court to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in the same manner, or in the same place, those requirements of the State law must be complied with in order to give constructive notice of such an action pending in a United States district court as it relates to real property in such State.

(Added Pub. L. 85–689, §1(a), Aug. 20, 1958, 72 Stat. 683.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 85–689, §2, Aug. 20, 1958, 72 Stat. 683, provided that: "The amendments made by this Act [enacting this section] shall only be effective with respect to actions commenced in United States district courts more than one hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 20, 1958]."
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1363

To prohibit institutions of higher education from unfairly imposing sanctions 

on student athletes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2003

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself and Mr. ANDREWS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL

To prohibit institutions of higher education from unfairly 

imposing sanctions on student athletes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Athlete Fair5 ness Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES. 

7 Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

8 U.S.C. 1092) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing new subsection: 
2

•HR 1363 IH 

1 ‘‘(h) PROHIBITION ON UNFAIR IMPOSITION OF SANC2 TIONS ON STUDENT ATHLETES.—No institution of higher 

3 education that participates in any program under this 

4 title, and that has an intercollegiate athletic program, 

5 shall—

6 ‘‘(1) impose a penalty or other sanction on a 

7 student athlete (including by canceling or forfeiting 

8 games) for a violation of an intercollegiate athletics 

9 association’s rules or codes of conduct that was not 

10 committed by that student; 

11 ‘‘(2) submit to the imposition by an intercolle12 giate athletics association of any sanction on a stu13 dent athlete (including by canceling or forfeiting 

14 games) for a violation of an intercollegiate athletics 

15 association’s rules or codes of conduct that was not 

16 committed by that student; or 

17 ‘‘(3) be a member of an intercollegiate athletics 

18 association whose rules or codes of conduct authorize 

19 the imposition of a sanction on a student athlete (in20 cluding by canceling or forfeiting games) for a viola21 tion of an intercollegiate athletics association’s rules 

22 or codes of conduct that was not committed by that 

23 student.’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Urban Doxtater, Deceased. First National Bank of Dolgeville et al., Appellants; Hazel Sturnagle et al., Respondents.

Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 1087.]
§ 1655.20 Residential loans. ( a ) A residential loan will be made only for the purchase or construction of the primary residence of the participant, or for the participant and his or her spouse, and for the amount required to close on the purchase. The participant must actually bear all or part of the cost of the purchase. If the participant purchases a primary residence with someone other than his or her spouse, only the portion of the purchase costs that is borne by the participant will be considered in making the loan. A residential loan will not be made for the purpose of paying off an existing mortgage or otherwise providing financing for a previously purchased primary residence.
( b ) The participant's primary residence is his or her principal residence. A primary residence may include a house, a townhouse, a condominium, a share in a cooperative housing corporation, or a mobile home; a primary residence does not include a second home or vacation home. A participant cannot have more than one primary residence.
( c ) Purchase of a primary residence means acquisition of the residence through the exchange of cash or other property or through the total construction of a new residence. A residential loan will not be made for a lease-to-buy option, unless the option to buy is being exercised and the documentation states that the funds are being used to purchase the primary residence. Construction of an addition to or the renovation of a residence or the purchase of land only does not constitute the purchase of a primary residence.
( d ) The amount required to close on the purchase of a primary residence does not include points or loan origination fees charged for a loan. In addition, real estate taxes cannot be included.
( e ) The documentation required for a loan under this section is as follows: ( 1 ) For all purchases, except for construction, a signed sale/purchase contract/settlement offer or agreement or addendum; or
( 2 ) For construction, a signed builder's agreement/contract; and
( 3 ) For requests including closing costs and/or settlement charges, a loan estimate/worksheet/statement/closing disclosure from a mortgage company.
( f ) The documentation provided under this section must meet the requirements set forth by the TSP record keeper.
[87 FR 31694, May 24, 2022]
```

[106th Congress Public Law 340]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ340.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1314]]

Public Law 106-340
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 3030 Meredith Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Reverend J.C. Wade 
         Post Office''. <<NOTE: Oct. 19, 2000 -  [H.R. 4615]>> 

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3030 
Meredith Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska, and known as the Ames Station, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Reverend J.C. Wade Post Office''.

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 ``Reverend J.C. Wade Post 
Office''.

    Approved October 19, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4615:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                  <all>
```
### §2203. Use of the Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center

The Emancipation Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center may not be used for any event, except upon the passage of a resolution agreed to by both houses of Congress authorizing the use of the Emancipation Hall for that event.

(Pub. L. 110–437, title I, §103, Oct. 20, 2008, 122 Stat. 4986.)
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-97-115 September 2, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT INDIAN POINT 2 PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

Consolidated Edison Company of New York officials on Friday,

September 5, to discuss apparent violations at the Indian Point 2

nuclear power plant.

Scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. in the Division of

Nuclear Materials Safety meeting room at the NRC’s Region I

office in King of Prussia, Pa., the predecisional enforcement

conference will be open to the public for observation.

Three violations of agency requirements were identified

during a special inspection conducted by the NRC in July at the

Buchanan, N.Y., facility. They include: the operation of the

plant outside its technical specifications with regard to the

overpressure protection system and pressurizer safety valves, as

well as the degraded performance of a reactor recirculation pump.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,

the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at

a later time.

 #