alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §138. Law library; hours kept open

The law library shall be kept open every day so long as either House of Congress is in session.

(July 11, 1888, ch. 615, §1, 25 Stat. 262.)
### §111. Suspension of certain provisions of this title

In time of war, or of emergency declared by Congress, the President may suspend the operation of any provision of sections 307(e), 309, 310, and 323(d) and (e) 1 of this title with respect to the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard.

(Added Pub. L. 85–861, §2(3), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1543.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 111 | 50:1199 (as applicable to National Guard). | Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1257, §209 (as applicable to National Guard), 68 Stat. 1152. |

Reference to the exception in section 307(a) is omitted as unnecessary because a suspension of section 307(e) of this title, or of section 8365 or 8366 of Title 10, will in effect suspend that exception so far as it refers to the suspended section. A reference to the remainder of section 307(a) is omitted as unnecessary because the general rule that it states exists independently of that part of the source law for section 307(a) that is suspendible under this section. A reference to section 307(f) is omitted as unnecessary because a suspension of section 307(e) will in effect suspend section 307(f) so far as it applies to section 307(e). 50:1199 (2d sentence) is omitted as inapplicable to the National Guard.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 323(e) of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1630(2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2964.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

Functions of President under this section delegated to Secretary of Defense, see section 1(11) of Ex. Ord. No. 11390, Jan. 22, 1968, 33 F.R. 841, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.

1 See References in Text note below.
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

No. 06-093 July 11, 2006

NRC PUBLISHES INFORMATION NOTICE ONGROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION DUE TO LEAKS

The NRC is informing all operators of nuclear power plants and research and test reactors,including those currently undergoing decommissioning, about recent examples of groundwatercontamination at reactor sites due to undetected leaks from facility structures, systems or components.

Nuclear power plant operators have recently informed the NRC of several leaks from spent fuelpools and underground pipes. None of these events has impacted public health, but given one exampleof contamination migrating off a reactor site, the NRC is sharing its plans for addressing the issue aswell as lessons learned to this point in time.

The NRC’s Information Notice reminds plant operators that while the agency’s regulationsrequire environmental monitoring related to planned releases of slightly radioactive water fromfacilities, operators should not assume information from that monitoring will provide fullunderstanding of potential undetected contamination.

The notice describes several lessons learned, including:– Variable evaporation rates from spent fuel pools, as well as water transfer activities duringrefueling operations, can complicate efforts to detect small leaks;– Plant operators should consider monitoring groundwater that leaks into rooms below groundlevel, in order to exclude contaminated leakage from the plant as the leak source;– Groundwater monitoring and sample analysis should be able to detect isotopes common tonuclear power plant operation; and,– Onsite monitoring and sampling programs could be the only reliable method for detectingrepeated leakage, particularly underground leakage.

The notice is available on the agency’s Web site, by entering accession number ML060540038at this address: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm .  Questions should be directed to TimothyFrye (phone 301-415-9676 or tjf@nrc.gov ). The agency also recently announced the creation of a taskforce to examine the issue of inadvertent, unmonitored releases of radioactive liquids containingtritium from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. General information regarding groundwatercontamination is available on the NRC’s Web site at this address:http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html  . 

###
### Part E—Sexual Abuse Prevention Program

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 106–71, §3(n)(1)(C), Oct. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1040, added part heading.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part E of title III of Pub. L. 93–415 was redesignated part F by Pub. L. 106–71, §3(n)(1)(B), Oct. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1040.
§ 330.706 Other agency ICTAP responsibilities. ( a ) Before appointing any other candidate from outside the agency's permanent competitive service workforce, the agency must first fulfill its obligation to any employees entitled to selection priority under subparts B and F of this part.
( b ) In accordance with the conditions of part 300, subpart E, of this chapter, an agency may not procure temporary help services under that subpart until a determination is made that no ICTAP eligible is available.
( c ) An agency must announce all vacancies it intends to fill from outside its permanent competitive service workforce. Vacancy announcements must meet the requirements of subpart A of this part.
( d ) An agency must provide an ICTAP eligible who applied for a specific vacancy written notice of the final status of his or her application, including whether the eligible was determined to be well-qualified. The agency notice must include the results of the independent second review under § 330.703(b), if applicable; whether another ICTAP selection priority candidate was hired; whether the position was filled under an exception listed in § 330.707; and whether the recruitment was cancelled.
§ 2422.11 How do you challenge the status of a labor organization? ( a ) *Basis of challenge to labor organization status.* Non-compliance with 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(4) is the only basis on which you may challenge the status of a labor organization.
( b ) *Format and time for filing a challenge.* If you file a challenge to the status of a labor organization involved in the processing of a petition you must do so in writing to the Regional Director or the Hearing Officer before the hearing opens, unless you show good cause for granting an extension. If no hearing is held, you must file challenges before action is taken under § 2422.30.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 8, 2018

No. 04-18-00280-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.O., A CHILD

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013EM503255

Honorable Eric Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s motion to modify judgment 

is denied. This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. It is ORDERED that no 

costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because appellant qualifies as indigent 

under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

It is so ORDERED on August 8, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of August, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
NRC NEWS                U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                              Office of Public Affairs, Region I

                                          475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.www.nrc.gov 

No. I-07-004                                                                                                                     January 23, 2007Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330                      E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

      NRC TO DISCUSS PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF LICENSE RENEWAL INSPECTIONFOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The preliminary results of an NRC inspection associated with the license renewal applicationfor the Pilgrim nuclear power plant will be presented during a public meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 30.  Thepurpose of the inspection, which was conducted from Sept. 8 to Dec. 5, 2006, was to examine whetherthe plant’s program for managing the effects of aging on key safety systems, structures and componentsis adequate and appropriate for a 20-year license extension.

NRC staff will discuss the results of the inspection with representatives of Entergy NuclearOperations, Inc., which owns and operates the Plymouth, Mass., facility.  The meeting is scheduled tobegin at 6:30 p.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn, located at 4 Home Depot Drive (near Long Pond Road) inPlymouth.  There will also be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions about thereview prior to the meeting’s adjournment.

On Jan. 25, 2006, Entergy submitted an application to renew the operating license for thePilgrim plant for an additional 20 years.  The current operating license for the Pilgrim plant is due toexpire on June 8, 2012.  Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a commercialnuclear power plant has a term of 40 years.  The license can be renewed for up to an additional twodecades if NRC requirements are met. 

The aging management inspection is one of a number of NRC activities involved in evaluatinga license renewal application.

Additional information concerning license renewal in general and the Pilgrim application inparticular can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html . 

###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
Third District Court of Appeal 

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 9, 2019. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D17-1567 

Lower Tribunal No. 15-265 

________________ 

Rafael Cendan, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

The State of Florida, 

Appellee. 

 An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stacy D. Glick, 

Judge. 

 Rafael Cendan, in proper person. 

 Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Marlon J. Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LUCK, JJ. 

 PER CURIAM. 
 2 

 Rafael Cendan appeals an order denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his 

postconviction motion alleging claims for ineffective assistance of defense counsel. 

See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. We affirm. 

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Cendan must 

demonstrate both that defense counsel’s performance was deficient and that the 

deficiency prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); 

Chandler v. State, 848 So. 2d 1031, 1035 (Fla. 2003). Cendan asserts that his 

defense counsel was ineffective for counsel’s alleged failure to advise Cendan of 

available defenses prior to Cendan pleading guilty to the underlying charges. To 

prevail on this claim, Cendan was required to prove both: (i) that defense counsel’s 

performance was deficient; and (ii) that under “the totality of the circumstances 

surrounding the plea,” there was a reasonable probability that, but for defense 

counsel’s deficiency, Cendan would have gone to trial instead of entering a plea. 

Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1181-82 (Fla. 2004). 

Based on the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing conducted below, 

the trial court concluded that defense counsel was not at all deficient and denied 

Cendan’s rule 3.850 motion. Having reviewed the record, we find no error in the 

trial court’s determination. See Mungin v. State, 932 So. 2d 986, 998 (Fla. 2006) 

(“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling after an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim, this Court defers to the factual findings of the trial court 
 3 

to the extent that they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviews 

de novo the application of the law to those facts.”). We therefore affirm the order 

denying Cendan’s motion for postconviction relief. 

Affirmed.
§ 351.502 Order of retention—excepted service. ( a ) Competing employees shall be classified on a retention register in tenure groups on the basis of their tenure of employment, veteran preference, length of service, and performance in descending order as set forth under § 351.501(a) for competing employees in the competitive service.
( b ) Groups are defined as follows: ( 1 ) Group I includes each permanent employee whose appointment carries no restriction or condition such as conditional, indefinite, specific time limit, or trial period.
( 2 ) Group II includes each employee: ( i ) Serving a trial period; or
( ii ) Whose tenure is equivalent to a career-conditional appointment in the competitive service in agencies having such excepted appointments.
( 3 ) Group III includes each employee: ( i ) Whose tenure is indefinite (*i.e.,* without specific time limit), but not actually or potentially permanent;
( ii ) Whose appointment has a specific time limitation of more than 1 year; or
( iii ) Who is currently employed under a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less, but who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under a temporary appointment with no break in service of 1 workday or more.
[60 FR 3063, Jan. 13, 1995]
### **CHAPTER 73—ADMINISTERING BLOCK GRANTS**

Sec.
7301.
Purpose.
7302.
Definitions.
7303.
Reports and public hearings on proposed uses of amounts.
7304.
Availability of records.
7305.
State auditing requirements.
Exhibit 10.2



Exhibit 10.2


BRITISH COLUMBIA

Ministry of Employment and Investment

Energy and Minerals Division

Minerals Titles Branch



Minerals Tenure Act

Section 52


BILL OF SALE ABSOLUTE


 

	
INDICATE TYPE OF TITLE:
	

MINERAL

	

MINING DIVISION:
	

CARIBOO






SELLER


I, Glengarry Development Corp. 1102-1010 Howe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6V 1P5, (604) 209-6565 - Client Number 145065


PURCHASE


Woodburn Holdings Ltd., 885 Pyrford Road, West Vancouver, British Columbia V7V 2A2, (604) 925-0220.


For and in consideration of the sum of Seven Thousand Five Hundred US($6,800.00) paid to me. Do hereby sell the interest as specified below in the following mineral title:


	
Claim Name of Lease Type
	

Tenure Number
	

Percentage of title being sold

	

 

	
K2
	

406354
	

100%






I declare that I have a good title to these tenures and every right to sell the same, in witness whereof have today signed my legal name.


	
/s/ Gary MacDonald
	

/s/ R. M. Baker

	

Gary MacDonald

Glengarry Development Corp.
	

R. M. Baker

Witness

	


Dated:
	


November 18, 2003
EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of Ambient Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, John J. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



March 28, 2007





| |                                            | 
| | ------------------------------------------ | 
| | /S/ JOHN J. JOYCE                          | 
| | JOHN J. JOYCE                              | 
| | PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER      | 
| | (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL | 
| | FINANCIAL OFFICER)                         |
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1493 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1493

      To revoke an Executive Order relating to procedures for the 
  consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against 
                  disclosure of Presidential records.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2003

Mr. Ose (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Clay, Mr. 
    LaTourette, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Paul, and Ms. Watson) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To revoke an Executive Order relating to procedures for the 
  consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against 
                  disclosure of Presidential records.

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

SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001.

    Executive Order number 13233, dated November 1, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 
56025), shall have no force or effect, and Executive Order number 
12667, dated January 18, 1989 (54 Fed. Reg. 3403), shall apply by its 
terms.
                                 <all>
```
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

 

No. 06-060 May 4, 2006

NRC PROPOSES ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON INFORMATION

REQUIRED IN LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS

The NRC has issued for public comment interim staff guidance covering license renewal

applications for boiling water reactors with Mark I containments that have steel drywell shells.

The proposed guidance would require applicants to include a specific aging management

program to address potential corrosion in inaccessible areas of the drywell shell, an important safetyrelated structural component. Concrete in close proximity to the shell makes visual inspection difficult

in those areas. The drywell shell issue has already been addressed for reactors’ initial 40-year licenses

and for relevant plants that have received a renewed license for an additional 20 years of operation. The

proposed guidance will clearly identify the information that must be submitted for NRC staff to

evaluate future license renewal applications.

Comments should be submitted within 30 days of the proposed guidance’s publication in the

Federal Register, expected shortly. Comments received after that date will be considered if practical.

Comments may be submitted to: Chief Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001. Comments can be hand-delivered to:

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays, or sent

via e-mail to LNT@nrc.gov . The proposed guidance will be available through the NRC’s electronic

document database, ADAMS, by entering accession number ML061120003 at this address:

http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm . For further information on the proposed guidance,

contact Linh Tran, telephone 301-415-4103 or e-mail LNT@nrc.gov .

###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin Clyde COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-7119.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 23, 2002.

Before SEYMOUR, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

*822This is a direct appeal by defendant Melvin Clyde Collins from his conviction of kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201, and the sentence imposed. We dismiss the appeal.

Collins’ appellate counsel filed an *Anders*brief in which he stated he “is of the opinion that no meritorious issue can be found to support an appeal.” Br. at 1. On November 15, 2001, counsel filed a motion to withdraw, stating that he had mailed a copy of his motion and of the appellate brief to Collins. On January 11, 2002, Collins filed a pro se “Motion to Withdraw Appeal,” agreeing “there [are] no meritorious issues to support the appeal and [he] has no objections to bring forth.”

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Collins’ motion to withdraw the appeal is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment 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 and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
§ 2423.34 Decision and record. ( a ) *Recommended decision.* Except when bench decisions are issued pursuant to § 2423.31(d), the Administrative Law Judge shall prepare a written decision expeditiously in every case. All written decisions shall be served in accordance with § 2429.12 of this subchapter. The decision shall set forth: ( 1 ) A statement of the issues;
( 2 ) Relevant findings of fact;
( 3 ) Conclusions of law and reasons therefor;
( 4 ) Credibility determinations as necessary; and
( 5 ) A recommended disposition or order.
( b ) *Transmittal to Authority.* The Judge shall transmit the decision and record to the Authority. The record shall include the charge, complaint, service sheet, answer, motions, rulings, orders, prehearing conference summaries, stipulations, objections, depositions, interrogatories, exhibits, documentary evidence, basis for any sanctions ruling, official transcript of the hearing, briefs, and any other filings or submissions made by the parties.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES B. QUILLIAMS, )

)

 Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2762

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

 Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed February 2, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Chris Helinger, Judge. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.