alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1330.402 Definitions.

In this subpart—

*Appraisal system* means the policies, practices, and procedures an agency establishes under 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 and 5 CFR part 430, subparts B and C, or other applicable legal authority, for planning, monitoring, developing, evaluating, and rewarding employee performance. This includes appraisal systems and appraisal programs as defined at § 430.203 and performance management systems as defined at § 430.303.

*GPRA* means the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

*OMB* means the Office of Management and Budget.

*OPM* means the Office of Personnel Management.

*Outstanding performance* means performance that substantially exceeds the normally high performance expected of any senior employee, as evidenced by exceptional accomplishments or contributions to the agency's performance.

*Performance evaluation* means the comparison of the actual performance of senior employees against their performance expectations and may take into account their contribution to agency performance, where appropriate.

*Performance expectations* means critical and other performance elements and performance requirements that constitute the senior executive performance plans (as defined in § 430.303) established for senior executives, the performance elements and standards that constitute the performance plans (as defined in § 430.203) established for senior professionals, or other appropriate means authorized under performance appraisal systems not covered by 5 U.S.C. chapter 43 for communicating what a senior employee is expected to do and the manner in which he/she is expected to do it, and may include contribution to agency performance, where appropriate.

*Program performance measures* means results-oriented measures of performance, whether at the agency, component, or function level, which include, for example, measures under the Government Performance and Results Act.

*PRB* means Performance Review Board, as described at § 430.310.

*Relative performance* means the performance of a senior employee with respect to the performance of other senior employees, including their contribution to agency performance, where appropriate, as determined by the application of a certified appraisal system.

*Senior employee* means a senior executive or a senior professional.

*Senior executive* means a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) paid under 5 U.S.C. 5383.

*Senior professional* means an employee in a senior-level (SL) or scientific or professional position (ST) paid under 5 U.S.C. 5376.
### §1381. Grants to States for establishment of revolving funds

#### (a) General authority

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, the Administrator shall make capitalization grants to each State for the purpose of establishing a water pollution control revolving fund to accomplish the objectives, goals, and policies of this chapter by providing assistance for projects and activities identified in section 1383(c) of this title.

#### (b) Schedule of grant payments

The Administrator and each State shall jointly establish a schedule of payments under which the Administrator will pay to the State the amount of each grant to be made to the State under this subchapter. Such schedule shall be based on the State's intended use plan under section 1386(c) of this title, except that—

(1) such payments shall be made in quarterly installments, and

(2) such payments shall be made as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than the earlier of—

(A) 8 quarters after the date such funds were obligated by the State, or

(B) 12 quarters after the date such funds were allotted to the State.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title VI, §601, as added Pub. L. 100–4, title II, §212(a), Feb. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 22; amended Pub. L. 113–121, title V, §5001, June 10, 2014, 128 Stat. 1322.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–121 substituted "to accomplish the objectives, goals, and policies of this chapter by providing assistance for projects and activities identified in section 1383(c) of this title." for "for providing assistance (1) for construction of treatment works (as defined in section 1292 of this title) which are publicly owned, (2) for implementing a management program under section 1329 of this title, and (3) for developing and implementing a conservation and management plan under section 1330 of this title."

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

#### Effective Date of 2014 Amendment

Pub. L. 113–121, title V, §5006, June 10, 2014, 128 Stat. 1327, provided that: "This subtitle [subtitle A (§§5001–5006) of title V of Pub. L. 113–121, enacting section 1388 of this title and amending this section and sections 1382 and 1383 of this title], including any amendments made by the subtitle, shall take effect on October 1, 2014."
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Robert P.Akins, Chief Executive Officer of Cymer, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the“Registrant”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               The Registrant’s quarterly report on Form10-Q (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents in all material respects the results of operations of theRegistrant for the periods covered by the Report and the Registrant’s financialcondition as of the end of those periods.

 
| Date: August 11, 2003 |   | /s/  ROBERT P. AKINS                |   |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Robert P. Akins, Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCymer, Inc. and will be retained by Cymer, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANGEL FLORES,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00065

- CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20130D04898)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 201 9

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
----

*Sarbanes-Oxley Act of        2002*

| 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                  for the periods presented. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Allan J. Kent                                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                  |   |
|                                                                  |   |
| Allan                  J. Kent                                        |   |
| Executive                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November                  14, 2007                                    |   |

----
§ 2424.23 Post-petition conferences; conduct and record. ( a ) *Scheduling a post-petition conference.* The FLRA will, in its discretion, schedule a post-petition conference to be conducted by an FLRA representative by telephone, in person, or through other means. Unless the Authority or an FLRA representative directs otherwise, parties must observe all time limits in this part, regardless of whether a post-petition conference is conducted or may be conducted.
( b ) *Conduct of conference.* The post-petition conference will be conducted with representatives of the exclusive representative and the agency, who must be prepared and authorized to discuss, clarify, and resolve matters including the following: ( 1 ) The meaning of the proposal or provision in dispute;
( 2 ) Any disputed factual issue(s);
( 3 ) Negotiability dispute objections and bargaining obligation claims regarding the proposal or provision; and
( 4 ) Status of any proceedings—including an unfair labor practice charge under part 2423 of this subchapter, a grievance under the parties' negotiated grievance procedure, or an impasse procedure under part 2470 of this subchapter—that are directly related to the negotiability petition.
( c ) *Discretionary extension of time limits.* The FLRA representative may, on determining that it will effectuate the purposes of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 *et seq.,* and this part, extend the time limits for filing the agency's statement of position and any subsequent filings.
( d ) *Record of the conference.* After the post-petition conference has been completed, the FLRA representative will prepare, and the FLRA will serve on the parties, a written record that includes whether the parties agree on the meaning of the disputed proposal or provision, the resolution of any disputed factual issues, and any other appropriate matter.
( e ) *Hearings.* Instead of, or in addition to, conducting a post-petition conference, the Authority may exercise its discretion under § 2424.31 to hold a hearing or take other appropriate action to aid in decision making.
[88 FR 62457, Sept. 12, 2023; 88 FR 69873, Oct. 10, 2023]
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 3 , 202 3

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00410

- CV

KOFFI JUSTIN NGORAN , Appellant

V.

FLAN ROSELINE SEI MESSON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial C ou rt Cause No. 2020

- 28888

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 23, 2022, this court sent notice to the parties that this appeal would be dismissed for want of pro secution unless appellant filed a n ame nded
brie f complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 .1(i) on or before December 8, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i), 38.9(b), 42.3(b). No amended b rie f has been filed. Accordingl y, we dismiss this appeal for want of pro secut ion. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Ju st ices Spain, Poissa nt , and Wilson.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Change Notice 01-016.

Accession Number: ML012530151

Date Released: Tuesday, September 4, 2001

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML012530157 - Change Notice 01-016. (2 page(s), 8/24/2001)
    - ML012530183 - Manual Chapter 0301, "Coordination of NRC Visits to Commercial Reactor Sites." (5 page(s), 8/24/2001)
    - ML012530351 - Table of Contents. (32 page(s), 8/24/2001)
    - ML012530364 - Manual Chapter 2901, "Team Inspections." (4 page(s), 8/24/2001)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Elton J. Wiseman et al., as Coexecutors of Elsie H. Cornell, Deceased, Respondents. Middlebury College, Appellant.

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate of Chenango County, entered October 15, 1952, allowing the attorney for the executors of the estate the sum of $8,000 for his services for the estate. The appeal is taken by Middlebury College, the residuary legatee under the last will and testament of the decedent. The gross distributable estate was $85,969. A single executor’s commission of $1,739.38 was granted. There were no unusual features in the administration of the estate. We believe that an allowance of $4,000 would have been adequate. Decree, insofar as appealed from, reversed .upon the facts in the exercise of discretion and the amount allowed to the attorney for the estate reduced to the sum of $4,000. Poster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60285

Summary Calendar

GORDON ANTHONY STRAKER,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A34 989 174

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gordon Anthony Straker petitions for review of an order by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order that he

be removed from the United States. Straker also implicitly challenges the BIA’s

denial of his motion to reopen. Straker argues that his convictions under N.Y.

PENAL LAW § 221.40 for sale of marijuana in the fourth degree do not constitute

aggravated felonies that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60285

2

Straker has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his applications for

withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against

Torture. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), federal courts lack jurisdiction to review

a final order of removal against an alien who is removable because he was

convicted of an aggravated felony. Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir.

2001). Furthermore, to the extent that Straker challenges the BIA’s denial of his

motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to consider those arguments because

Straker did not file a separate petition for review. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450

F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). However, we retain jurisdiction to consider

constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D); Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 2009),

petition for cert. filed (July 15, 2009) (No. 09-60). Because the question whether

Straker’s conviction is an aggravated felony is a legal one, this court has

jurisdiction to review his petition. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 570 F.3d at 265.

Straker previously was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled

substance in the seventh degree and criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth

degree. This court recently held that a recidivist state misdemeanor conviction

for drug possession will render an alien ineligible for cancellation of removal

because the offense qualifies as an aggravated felony under the recidivist

enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Carachuri-Rosendo, 570 F.3d at

264, 266-67. Thus, Straker’s conviction of criminal sale of marijuana in the

fourth degree, which followed his prior state misdemeanor drug conviction, was

punishable as a federal felony under the recidivist provision of § 844(a). Straker

therefore committed an “aggravated felony” that rendered him removable under

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
### §1103. Budget ceiling

Congress reaffirms its commitment that budget outlays of the United States Government for a fiscal year may be not more than the receipts of the Government for that year.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 908.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1103 | 31:27. | Oct. 10, 1978, Pub. L. 95–435, §7, 92 Stat. 1053; restated Oct. 7, 1980, Pub. L. 96–389, §3, 94 Stat. 1553. |

The word "total" is omitted as surplus. The words "for a fiscal year" are substituted for "beginning with Fiscal Year 1981" because of the restatement and to eliminate executed words. The words "for that year" are added because of the restatement.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1701

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Tito Puente 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2003

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 167 East 124th Street in New York, New 

York, as the ‘‘Tito Puente Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. TITO PUENTE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 167 East 124th Street in New 

6 York, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Tito Puente Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•HR 1701 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Tito Puente Post Office 

3 Building.

Æ
§ 201.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to the Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), or section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 792), is not readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found;
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 201.170(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[51 FR 4575, 4579, Feb. 5, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 4576, Feb. 5, 1986; 68 FR 32975, June 3, 2003]
§ 2417.301 Fees. ( a ) *Generally.* The Chairman of the FLRA, the General Counsel, or the Chairman of the Panel, as appropriate, may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the costs.
( b ) *Fees for records.* Fees for producing records will include fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating records; costs for employee time spent reviewing the request; and expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information. The FLRA will calculate and charge these fees, costs, and expenses as it charges like fees and costs arising from requests made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act regulations in part 2411 of this chapter.
( c ) *Witness fees.* Fees for attendance by a witness will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based upon the rule of the Federal district court closest to the location where the witness will appear and on 28 U.S.C. 1821, as applicable. Such fees will include costs for time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, to travel to the legal proceeding, and to attend the legal proceeding.
( d ) *Payment of fees.* A requester must pay witness fees for current employees and any record certification fees by submitting to the Office of the Solicitor a check or money order for the appropriate amount made payable to the Treasury of the United States. In the case of testimony of former employees, the requester must pay applicable fees directly to the former employee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.
( e ) *Waiver or reduction of fees.* The Chairman of the FLRA, the General Counsel, or the Chairman of the Panel, as appropriate, in his or her sole discretion, may, upon a showing of reasonable cause, waive or reduce any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification of records.
( f ) *De minimis fees.* The FLRA will not assess fees if the total charge would be $10.00 or less.
[81 FR 63364, Sept. 15, 2016]
### §74a–10b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 74a–10b was editorially reclassified as section 5146 of this title.