alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §41301. Report to Congress on sexual exploitation of children

Beginning one hundred and twenty days after May 21, 1984, and every year thereafter, the Attorney General shall report to the Congress on prosecutions, convictions, and forfeitures under chapter 110 of title 18.

(Pub. L. 98–292, §9, May 21, 1984, 98 Stat. 206.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified as a note under section 522 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
NO. 07-01-0297-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	FEBRUARY 5, 2002

	______________________________

	DIGITAL PRESS, INC., APPELLANT

	V.

	PHIL FLOWERS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 706,596; HONORABLE CYNTHIA CROWE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	DISMISSAL

	By letter dated January 14, 2002, this Court directed Mr. Billy Strahan, President  of Digital Press, Inc.,1 to provide proof within 10 days that either payment or satisfactory arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record had been made, explaining that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a)(1). Mr. Strahan did not respond and the reporter’s record remains outstanding.  

	On July 26, 2001, Court Reporter Karen S. Field, indicated that partial payment for the reporter’s record had been made, but moved for an extension of time in which to file the record.  Since then a total of five extensions of time have been granted in which to file the record.  Upon withdrawal from this appeal, Mr. Strahan’s former counsel notified him by letter dated September 26, 2001, that $475 remained unpaid on the record and that it was his responsibility to remit that amount.  

	Accordingly, we now dismiss this appeal for failure to comply with this Court’s directive.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.
§ 2414.3 Definitions. When used in this part: ( a ) The term *person outside this agency,* to whom the prohibitions apply, shall include any individual outside the Authority, labor organization, agency, or other entity, or an agent thereof, and the General Counsel or his representative when prosecuting an unfair labor practice proceeding before the Authority pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7118.
( b ) The term *ex parte communication* means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, subject however, to the provisions of §§ 2414.5 and 2414.6.
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

No. 05-168 December 30, 2005

NRC APPROVES CERTIFICATION OF WESTINGHOUSE’S AP1000 

ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGN

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has voted to approve a final design certification rule for

the AP1000 advanced reactor design, submitted by Westinghouse Electric Co. in March 2002. The

certification, which will be contained in the NRC’s amended regulations, will be the fourth issued

under the agency's new reactor licensing process for standard design certification and will be valid for

15 years. The Commission’s action is subject to the approval of the information collection

requirements by the Office of Management and Budget. 

“Several utilities have said they’re interested in applying for licenses to build new reactors,”

said Jim Dyer, Director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “Once this design

certification is published as a final rule, a utility can reference the AP1000 in a combined license

application.”

With a certified design rule, safety issues within the scope of the design are not subject to

litigation, although site-specific environmental impacts associated with building and operating the

plant at a particular location are. No applications for a combined license referencing the AP1000 have

been filed with the NRC.

The NRC issued the proposed AP1000 design certification rule in April 2005, inviting the

public to submit comments on the AP1000 design control document, the proposed rule and the

environmental assessment. The rule certifying the AP1000 design will become effective 30 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

The NRC issued a final design approval for the AP1000 in September 2004, setting the stage

for the certification rulemaking. Further information on the AP1000 review can be found on the NRC’s

web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert/ap1000.html.

###
NRC NEWSUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No: II-07-035                                             July 3, 2007CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416      E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC SENDS SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM TO NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR PLANT TO ASSESS AND INSPECT JUNE 29 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN OF UNIT 2 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today dispatched a Special Inspection Team to the NorthAnna nuclear power plant, operated by Dominion Resources near Mineral, Va.  The team will  inspectand assess circumstances associated with a June 29 unplanned actuation of a Unit 2 safety injectionsystem, which caused an unplanned shutdown of the main turbine and the reactor.

NRC officials said the event appeared to be of low safety significance but that a three-personSpecial Inspection Team was established to provide the agency with a review of facts surrounding theevent; assess the company’s response and investigation; identify any generic issues and conduct anindependent review of the extent to which the event might affect other Unit 2 systems or those in Unit1, which was not affected.

The company initially reported to the NRC that the unplanned safety injection system actuationresulted in an increase in reactor cooling water which caused multiple actuations of the reactor coolingsystem pressurizer’s power operated relief valves to lower system pressure.  This water overfilled thepressurizer relief tank, causing its pressure relief disc to rupture, releasing water into the containmentbuilding sump.  Plant operators manually secured the malfunctioning injection system and maintained reactor system pressure and water level control by normal charging and letdown.

The NRC said all other reactor safety systems functioned as designed and that there were nopersonnel injuries and no abnormal release of radioactivity to the environment.

###

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.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 01, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 01, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0156. EDWARD M. DUNN, et al. v. M. SHANE LOVINGOOD, AS TRUSTEE OF THE GAYLE Y. CAMP IRREVOCABLE TRUST, et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 15CI0328
#### Samuel I. Posen et al., Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Stockholders of Universal Pictures Company, Inc., Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. J. Cheever Cowdin et al., Respondents, J. Arthur Rank et al., Defendants, and Maurice Deutsch, Intervener, Defendant-Appellant.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
### §30110. Improved investigative and forensic resources for enforcement of laws related to cybercrimes against individuals

Subject to the availability of appropriations to carry out this section, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secretary of Homeland Security, including the Executive Associate Director of Homeland Security Investigations, shall, with respect to cybercrimes against individuals—

(1) ensure that there are not fewer than 10 additional operational agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation designated to support the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in the investigation and coordination of cybercrimes against individuals;

(2) ensure that each office of a United States Attorney designates at least 1 Assistant United States Attorney as responsible for investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes against individuals; and

(3) ensure the implementation of a regular and comprehensive training program—

(A) the purpose of which is to train agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes and the enforcement of laws related to cybercrimes against individuals; and

(B) that includes relevant forensic training related to investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes against individuals.

(Pub. L. 117–347, title III, §321, Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6206.)

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

#### Definitions

For definition of "cybercrime against individuals" as used in this section, see section 30107(a) of this title, as made applicable by section 3 of Pub. L. 117–347, which is set out as a note under section 20145 of this title.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 28, 2020

NO. 03-19-00424-CV

NCWPCS MPL 23-Year Sites Tower Holding, LLC, Appellant

v.

Austin Independent School District, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES TRIANA, SMITH, AND SHANNON

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 24, 2019. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
### {In Archive} Re: Information Request - ExxonMobil MCU j ennifer.wilder to: Shaheerah Fateen 07/09/2004 12:41 PM

From: j ennife r .wilder@exxonmobil.com
To: Shaheerah Fateen/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

I just talked to my land man who has a legal description of the different leases - these descriptions are tied to township, section and range, so I will try and map them out on the map I plan on sending you. If the description is easy to read, I will simply fax it over to you.

Jennifer Wilder Baird Compliance Engineer ExxonMobil Production Company Office: (281) 654-1135 Fax: (281) 654-1147 jennifer.wilder@exxonmobil.com

Fateen.Shaheerah@epam ail.epa.gov To: jennifer.wilder@exxonmobil.com

cc:

Subject: Re: Information Request - ExxonMobil MCU 07/09/04 01:11 PM

Thanks for the update. In addition to the map, will you also be providing the TRS coordinates for the satellites? I'm wondering because I know we talked about this. But if the map shows the location of the satellites in relation to the other batteries and compression plant, the map may be fine.

Also, do you have any updates regarding the mineral leases and information about the surface sites for the satellites, batteries, and compression plant?Thanks.

Shaheerah Fateen U S EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-3) San Francisco, CA 94105 email: fateen.shaheerah@epa.gov Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579

jennifer.wilder@exx

onmobil.com To: Shaheerah Fateen/R9/USEPA/US@EPA
cc:

07/09/2004 09:06 AM Subject: Re: Information Request - ExxonMobil MCU

Shaheerah I am working on getting you a nice big map that lays out all the facilities with location information. Our drafting guy should have it for me next week and I will overnight it to you. In addition, I will send in the letter updating the contact information for everyone (I will put in a
copy for you with the map I will mail). I will let you know early next week when you can expect it. Thanks

Jennifer Wilder Baird Compliance Engineer ExxonMobil Production Company Office: (281) 654-1135 Fax: (281) 654-1147 jennifer.wilder@exxonmobil.com
# L_2017308EN.01003601.xml

| 23.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 308/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 308/36

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 129/2016

of 3 June 2016

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement [2017/2147]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/8 of 5 January 2016 specifying the technical characteristics of the 2017 ad hoc module on self-employment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/8 of 5 January 2016 specifying the technical characteristics of the 2017 ad hoc module on self-employment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 18au (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/459) of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘18av. | 32016 R 0008: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/8 of 5 January 2016 specifying the technical characteristics of the 2017 ad hoc module on self-employment (OJ L 3, 6.1.2016, p. 35).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘18av.

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/8 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 4 June 2016, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 3 June 2016.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 3, 6.1.2016, p. 35.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1985

AN ACT

To amend the National Housing Act to increase the

maximum mortgage amount limit for FHA-insured mortgages for multifamily housing locatedin high-cost areas.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1985

AN ACT

To amend the National Housing Act to increase the maximum mortgage amount limit for FHA-insured mortgages for multifamily housing located in high-cost areas.

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

•HR 1985 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FHA Multifamily Loan

3 Limit Adjustment Act of 2003’’.

4 SEC. 2. MAXIMUM MORTGAGE AMOUNT LIMIT FOR MULTI5 FAMILY HOUSING IN HIGH-COST AREAS.

6 In the National Housing Act, sections 207(c)(3),

7 213(b)(2)(B)(i), 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(II), 221(d)(3)(ii)(II),

8 221(d)(4)(ii)(II), 231(c)(2)(B), and 234(e)(3)(B) (12

9 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3), 1715e(b)(2)(B)(i),

10 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(II), 1715l(d)(3)(ii)(II),

11 1715l(d)(4)(ii)(II), 1715v(c)(2)(B)), and 1715y(e)(3)(B))

12 are each amended—

13 (1) by striking ‘‘110 percent’’ and inserting

14 ‘‘170 percent’’; and

15 (2) by striking ‘‘140 percent’’ and inserting

16 ‘‘170 percent’’.

17 SEC. 3. CATCH-UP ADJUSTMENTS TO CERTAIN MAXIMUM

18 MORTGAGE AMOUNT LIMITS.

19 (a) SECTION 207 LIMITS.—Section 207(c)(3) of the

20 National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3)) is amended

21 by striking ‘‘$11,250’’ and inserting ‘‘$17,460’’.

22 (b) SECTION 213 LIMITS.—Section 213(b)(2)(A) of

23 the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e(b)(2)(A)) is

24 amended—

25 (1) by striking ‘‘$38,025’’, ‘‘$42,120’’,

26 ‘‘$50,310’’, ‘‘$62,010’’, and ‘‘$70,200’’ and insert-
3

•HR 1985 EH

1 ing ‘‘$41,207’’, ‘‘$47,511’’, ‘‘$57,300’’, ‘‘$73,343’’,

2 and ‘‘$81,708’’, respectively; and

3 (2) by striking ‘‘$49,140’’, ‘‘$60,255’’,

4 ‘‘$75,465’’, and ‘‘$85,328’’ and inserting

5 ‘‘$49,710’’, ‘‘$60,446’’, ‘‘$78,197’’, and ‘‘$85,836’’,

6 respectively.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and President and Chief Financial Officer of New York & Company, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended August 2, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
September 11, 2008

/s/RICHARD P. CRYSTALRichard P. Crystal Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/RONALD W. RISTAURonald W. Ristau President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-04-050 November 30, 2004

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC DAVIS-BESSE OVERSIGHT PANEL TO MEET DEC. 6 IN OHIO

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Davis-Besse Oversight Panel will meet with FirstEnergy

Nuclear Operating Company officials on Monday, Dec. 6, in Oak Harbor, Ohio, to review recent

operating performance and NRC inspection activities at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant.

The plant resumed operation in March after a two-year shutdown to replace the reactor vessel

head and make other safety system and staff performance improvements. The NRC Oversight Panel

was formed in 2002 to coordinate the agency’s regulatory activities in response to the problems at

Davis-Besse; during the shutdown and startup process it held monthly public meetings with the utility

and continues to meet approximately bimonthly.

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Davis-Besse Administration Building, 5501 N. State

Route 2. The public is invited to observe the business portion of the meeting and will have an

opportunity to make comments and ask questions of the NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned. 

The staff will also be available after the meeting for informal discussions with the public.

“We expect to hear from utility officials how they assess their performance since the last

oversight panel meeting in September,” said John Grobe, Chairman of the NRC Oversight Panel. “In

addition, we will discuss the independent performance assessments being performed at the plant as

well as findings of recent NRC inspections.”

A transcript of the oversight panel meeting will be posted in several weeks on the NRC's web

site - http://www.nrc.gov. Select "Davis-Besse/Reactor Vessel Head Degradation" from the Key

Topics menu.

The NRC oversight panel includes NRC managers and staff from offices in Lisle, Illinois;

Rockville, Maryland; and the Davis-Besse site.

Documents on the Davis-Besse corrosion issue, including further details on NRC's oversight

panel activities, are posted on the NRC's web site.

###
No. 41,338

#### Carl F. Matzen, *Appellee,*v. State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas, *Appellant,*Cities Service Oil Company, Intervenor, *Appellant.*

(345 P. 2d 630)

Opinion denying rehearing filed November 7, 1959.

(For original opinion of affirmance, see *Matzen v. State Corporation Commission,*185 Kan. 206, 341 P. 2d 1031.)

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Robb, J.:

To prevent any misunderstanding in regard to the jurisdiction of the state corporation commission in attributing acreages to a particular gas well for the purpose of determining the allowable of such gas well for production of gas therefrom, the syllabus in *Matzen v. State Corporation Commission,*185 Kan. 206, 341 P. 2d 1031, is modified in the 4th, 5th, and 6th lines by substitution of the word *attributing*for the words “unitization and pooling” so the syllabus in pertinent part reads:

> *405“In a proceeding originating before the state corporation commission by reason of a producer fihng an application seeking an exception to paragraph V of the basic proration order of the Greenwood gas field for the attributing of non-contiguous and non-adjoining acreages and attributing the same to a particular gas well for the purpose of determining the allowable. . . .”

The corresponding portion of the court’s opinion in lines 3 and 4, page 206, is changed and modified by substitution of the word *attributing*for the words “unitization and pooling.” On page 207, line 23, the words “unitized the four tracts of land” are also stricken.

Since the record fails to affirmatively show any necessary elements of acquiescence or estoppel on the part of plaintiff, landowner, and in view of what was said in the original opinion in regard to mailing notice under G. S. 1949, 55-605, supplemented by *Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr.*Co., 339 U. S. 306, Syl. ¶ 3, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. ed. 865, the petition for rehearing is denied.

Price, J., dissents, being of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted.
#### Robert Wells, an Infant, by Pearls Wells, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Margaret McNamara et al., Respondents. Pearle Wells, Appellant, v. Margaret McNamara et al., Respondents.

All concur.
#### J. Edwin Goldman v. Louis Shulsky.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

KATIE SOPIQOTI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

November 20, 2018

v No. 339895

Oakland Circuit Court

THE KROGER COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, LC No. 2016-153793-NO

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and SAWYER and MARKEY, JJ.

M. J. KELLY, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-1998 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-035-AD

Helicopter Model: MD Model 500N and 600N Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 8 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions are intended to prevent operation of rotating cone assemblies past their life 

limits.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $0

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour to create a component 

history card and revise the 

appropriate records.)

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $85

Total US Fleet Cost $680

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Galib Abumeri