alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2340. Revision of project partnership agreement; cost sharing

#### (a) Federal allocation

Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a water resources project or an increase in the total cost of a water resources project authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall enter into a revised partnership agreement for the project to take into account the change in Federal participation in the project.

#### (b) Cost sharing

An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a water resources project, or an increase in the total cost of a water resources project, authorized to be carried out by the Secretary shall not affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project.

#### (c) Cost estimates

The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of water resources projects authorized to be carried out by the Secretary before, on, or after November 8, 2007, are for informational purposes only and shall not be interpreted as affecting the cost-sharing responsibilities established by law.

(Pub. L. 110–114, title II, §2008, Nov. 8, 2007, 121 Stat. 1073.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, and not as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Reference to Partnership Agreement Deemed Reference to Cooperation Agreement

Reference to partnership agreement deemed to be reference to cooperation agreement, see section 2003(f)(3) of Pub. L. 110–114, set out as a note under section 1962d–5b of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of Pub. L. 110–114, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
### Part A—Individuals With Significant Disabilities
Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 78 FR 62418, Oct. 22, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 89 FR 20832, Mar. 25, 2024.

§ 351.415 Conversion of currency. ( a ) *In general.* In an antidumping proceeding, the Secretary will convert foreign currencies into United States dollars using the rate of exchange on the date of sale of the subject merchandise.
( b ) *Exception.* If the Secretary establishes that a currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale under consideration, the Secretary will use the exchange rate specified with respect to such foreign currency in the forward sale agreement to convert the foreign currency.
( c ) *Exchange rate fluctuations.* The Secretary will ignore fluctuations in exchange rates.
( d ) *Sustained movement in foreign currency value.* In an antidumping investigation, if there is a sustained movement increasing the value of the foreign currency relative to the United States dollar, the Secretary will allow exporters 60 days to adjust their prices to reflect such sustained movement.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 05-072 April 26, 2005

NRC CHAIRMAN STRESSES SAFETY WHILE UPDATING SENATE

ON NEW REACTOR LICENSING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

WASHINGTON – Chairman Nils J. Diaz, testifying on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, told a Senate committee Tuesday the agency has a solid process in place to license new

nuclear power plants in the United States, but could face challenges in assigning resources to handle a

possible influx of license applications.

Available components of the NRC’s licensing structure for new reactors – design certification,

early site permits and the combined construction/operating license – “are providing a means to enhance

safety for nuclear power generation in the future,” Diaz told the Senate Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources. 

The agency expects industry demand for such activity to grow more rapidly than previously

planned. The NRC may be faced with a significant increase in its workload for new reactor licensing,

including receipt of up to five combined license applications in the next few years.

The NRC’s regulations should provide a stable, efficient and predictable framework for

licensing and overseeing reactors, Diaz added. The committee’s hearing concerned the Energy

Department’s “Nuclear Power 2010" initiative for new U.S. nuclear power generation.

The NRC’s Part 52 licensing process is designed to resolve safety and environmental issues,

including emergency preparedness and siting issues, early in the process, for utilities that might wish to

pursue a new reactor license. 

The NRC’s reactor design certification process has already approved three designs, is in the

process of certifying a fourth, and expects to start reviewing a fifth design this summer. The agency

could see several more design applications in the near future. The NRC is also reviewing three early

site permit applications.

U.S. utilities have yet to submit applications under the agency’s combined

construction/operating license process, which if completed would allow a new reactor to be built. This

process allows applicants to seek, in a single application, a license authorizing both construction and

operation prior to construction. 

###
#### In the Matter of Alexander Cumming.

Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ.
§ 1303.93 Miscellaneous fee provisions. ( a ) *Charging interest—notice and rate.* OMB may begin assessing interest charges on an unpaid bill starting on the 31st day after OMB sends the bill. If OMB receives the fee within the thirty-day grace period, interest will not accrue on the paid portion of the bill, even if the payment is unprocessed. Interest will be at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing.
( b ) *Charges for unsuccessful search.* OMB may properly charge for time spent searching even if it does not locate any responsive records or if OMB determines that the records are entirely exempt from disclosure.
( c ) *Aggregating requests.* When OMB reasonably believes that a requester, or a group of requesters acting in concert, is attempting to divide a single request into a series of requests for the purpose of avoiding fees, OMB may aggregate those requests and charge fees accordingly. OMB may presume that multiple requests of this type made within a 30-day period have been made in order to avoid fees. For requests separated by a longer period, OMB will aggregate them only where there is a reasonable basis for determining that aggregation is warranted in view of all the circumstances involved. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters shall not be aggregated.
( d ) *Advance payments.* ( 1 ) OMB will not require a requester to make an advance payment, *i.e.,* payment before work is commenced or continued on a request, unless OMB estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may be required to pay will exceed $250 or the requester has previously failed to make a payment due within 30 days of billing.
( 2 ) In cases in which OMB requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of OMB's fee determination, the request will be closed.
( e ) *Effect of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365).* OMB will comply with applicable provisions of the Debt Collection Act, including disclosure to consumer reporting agencies and use of collection agencies, where appropriate, to encourage repayment.
[84 FR 22951, May 21, 2019, as amended at 89 FR 48826, June 10, 2024]
#### § 190.131 Drawback allowance.

Section 313(g) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313(g)), provides for drawback on imported materials used in the construction and equipment of vessels and aircraft built for foreign account and ownership, or for the government of any foreign country, notwithstanding that these vessels or aircraft may not be exported within the strict meaning of the term.
No. 3821

#### W. T. Jones, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 15, 1944.*

Claimant, pro se.

George F. Barrett, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Eckert, J.

The claimant, W. T. Jones, is employed by William G. Stratton, Treasurer of the State of Illinois. Part of the duties assigned to him are to guard automobiles belonging to employees of the Treasurer’s Office while parked near the north entrance to the State Capitol Building, to keep the traffic lane open for free entrance *154to and departure from this entrance, and to assist and serve the employees of the Treasurer’s Office in approaching or leaving the space provided for the parking of automobiles. On April 2, 1943, while assisting in the separation of two automobiles in the parking space, claimant received a right inguinal hernia.

After notification to the State Treasurer of the injury and the diagnosis made by Dr. M. 0. Otten of Springfield, claimant submitted to an operation at St. John’s Hospital, Springfield, on October 4, 1943. He remained in the hospital for sixteen days and was thereafter confined to his home for a period of eleven days. As a result of the accident, claimant incurred necessary expenses for hospital services in the amount of $91.55, and expenses for necessary medical services in the amount of $85.00.

At the time of the injury, claimant and respondent were operating under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of this State. It appears from the record that the hernia was of recent origin; that its appearance was accompanied by pain; that it was immediately preceded by trauma arising out of and in the course of the employment; and that the hernia did not exist prior to the injury. Notice of the injury was given to the State Treasurer within fifteen days after its occurrence.

Award is therefore made in favor of the claimant in the total sum of $176.55, payable as follows :

The sum of $85.00 for the use of Dr. Harry Otten, of Springfield, Illinois.

The sum of $91.55 for the use of St. John’s Hospital, Springfield, Illinois.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted**

**pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofEastern American Natural Gas Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individualcapacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theTrust at the dates and for the periods presented.

 

The above certification is furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) andis not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

 
|   | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,  Trustee,            |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Trustee for Eastern  American Natural Gas Trust |
|   |                                            |   |
|   | By:                                             | /s/ Mike Ulrich |   |
|   |                                            | Vice President |
|   |                                            | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Trustee |

 

 

Date: November 8, 2005

 

----
### **CHAPTER 25—PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY PROGRAM**
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00428-CR

Ashton Harry Matthews

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 78th District Court

of Wichita County (53745-B)

July 2, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 145

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 19, 2003

Received 

MARCH 27, 2003

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 290 Broadway 

in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ted Weiss Federal 

Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 145 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building located at 290 Broadway in 

3 New York, New York, shall be known and designated as 

4 the ‘‘Ted Weiss Federal Building’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

9 a reference to the ‘‘Ted Weiss Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
### §3305. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary—

(1) to carry out sections 3302, 3303a(c), 3303a(d), 3303a(e), and 3303a(f) of this title, $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023;

(2) to carry out section 3303 of this title, $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023; and

(3) to carry out section 3303a(h) of this title, $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023.

(Pub. L. 110–114, title IX, §9008, formerly §9006, Nov. 8, 2007, 121 Stat. 1291; renumbered §9008 and amended Pub. L. 113–121, title III, §3016(e)(1), (f), June 10, 2014, 128 Stat. 1293, 1300; Pub. L. 115–270, title I, §1144(2), Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3785.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–270 substituted "2019 through 2023" for "2015 through 2019" in pars. (1) to (3).

2014—Pub. L. 113–121, §3016(f)(2), substituted "Secretary—" for "Secretary to carry out this chapter $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013." and added pars. (1) to (3).

Pub. L. 113–121, §3016(f)(1), which directed the substitution of "is" for "are", could not be executed because "are" does not appear in text.

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of Pub. L. 110–114, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
### §503. Reservations required by law; atomic energy materials

The rights under any mining claim given force and effect by this chapter shall also be subject to the reservation to the United States specified in section 5(b)(7) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, and, in addition, any reservation or reservations required by any other provision or provisions of law; and any patent issued for such mining claim shall contain such reservations.

(Aug. 12, 1953, ch. 405, §3, 67 Stat. 540.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 5(b)(7) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, referred to in text, was formerly classified to section 1805(b)(7) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and prohibited any benefit to a person from confidential information acquired from participation in development of atomic energy program respecting deposits of fissionable source materials on public lands. Such provisions are covered in section 68(a), (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which is classified to section 2098(a), (b) of Title 42.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.55

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

         This Termination Agreement (this "Agreement") is signed in 27 November,
2003 between the following two parties.

PARTY A:          LINKTONE LTD.
ADDRESS:          Cayman Islands, British West Indies

PARTY B:          DU MINSHENG
ADDRESS:          Room 601, No. 10, Lane 288, Macao Road, Shanghai

         1. WHEREAS, Party A and Party B signed the equity transfer agreement
(the "Equity Transfer Agreement" ) in April 28th, 2003.

         2. WHEREAS, Party A and Party B intent to terminate the Equity Transfer
Agreement.

         NOW THEREFORE, both parties agree as follows:

1.       Party A and Party B agree to terminate the Equity Transfer Agreement
         and the Equity Transfer Agreement shall terminate automatically upon
         this Agreement coming into effect.

2.       Rights and obligations of Party A and Party B under the Equity Transfer
         Agreement shall terminate upon the termination of the Equity Transfer
         Agreement.

3.       This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution.

4.       This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of People's Republic of
         China.

5.       This Agreement is executed by Chinese and English in duplicate, and in
         case of confliction, the Chinese version shall prevail.

PARTY A: LINKTONE LTD.

Representative: /s/ Jun Wu

PARTY B: /s/ Du Minsheng

                                       1
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  the
undersigned officer of Talon  International,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report") that:

         (1)      the  10-K  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 10-K Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
                  of operations of the Company.


Date:  April 9, 2009                     /S/ LONNIE D. SCHNELL
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                            Lonnie D. Schnell
                                            Chief Executive Officer and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
### §42. Patents for nonmineral lands: application, survey, notice, acreage limitation, payment

#### (a) Vein or lode and mill site owners eligible

Where nonmineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith, subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to veins or lodes; but no location made on and after May 10, 1872, of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres, and payment for the same must be made at the same rate as fixed by sections 21, 22 to 24, 26 to 28, 29, 30, 33 to 48, 50 to 52, 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43 for the superficies of the lode. The owner of a quartz mill or reduction works, not owning a mine in connection therewith, may also receive a patent for his mill site, as provided in this section.

#### (b) Placer claim owners eligible

Where nonmineral land is needed by the proprietor of a placer claim for mining, milling, processing, beneficiation, or other operations in connection with such claim, and is used or occupied by the proprietor for such purposes, such land may be included in an application for a patent for such claim, and may be patented therewith subject to the same requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to placers. No location made of such nonmineral land shall exceed five acres and payment for the same shall be made at the rate applicable to placer claims which do not include a vein or lode.

(R.S. §2337; Pub. L. 86–390, Mar. 18, 1960, 74 Stat. 7.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 21, 22 to 24, 26 to 28, 29, 30, 33 to 48, 50 to 52, 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43, referred to in subsec. (a), were in the original "this chapter", meaning chapter 6 of title 32 of the Revised Statutes, consisting of R.S. §§2318 to 2352.

#### Codification

R.S. §2337 derived from act May 10, 1872, ch. 152, §15, 17 Stat. 96.

#### Amendments

1960—Pub. L. 86–390 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
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. 05-079 May 12, 2005

NRC RENEWS OPERATING LICENSES FOR FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT,

UNITS 1 AND 2, FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating licenses of the Joseph M.

Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an additional 20 years. 

The Farley plant is located about 18 miles southeast of Dothan, Ala. The licensee, Southern

Nuclear Operating Co., submitted its license renewal applications for both reactors on Sept. 15, 2003.

With the renewals, the license for Farley Unit 1 is extended to June 25, 2037, and the license for Unit 2

is extended to March 31, 2041.

The NRC’s environmental review is described in a site-specific supplement to the NRC’s

“Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG1437, Supplement 18), issued March 9. The review concluded there were no environmental impacts

that would preclude renewal of the licenses for environmental reasons. Two public meetings to discuss

the environmental review were held near the plant on Jan. 8 and Sept. 30, 2004.

After carefully reviewing the plant’s safety systems and specifications, the staff concluded that

there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal, because the licensee had

demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging. The “Safety Evaluation Report

Related to the License Renewal of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,” was published

March 3. In addition, NRC conducted inspections of the plants to verify information submitted by the

licensee. The reports relating to the Farley renewals are available on the NRC Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/farley.html .

On April 14, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards – an independent body of

technical experts which advises the Commission – issued its recommendation that the operating

licenses for Farley be renewed. That recommendation is contained in “Report on the Safety Aspects of

the License Renewal Application for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.” This

document is available on the NRC Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/letters/2005/ .

The Farley license renewals bring the total number of renewals to 32 reactor units. A complete

listing of renewal applications can be found on the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html .

###