alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2465 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2465

To extend for six months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of 
                  the United States Code is reenacted.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2003

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend for six months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of 
                  the United States Code is reenacted.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act 
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH CHAPTER 12 OF TITLE 11, 
              UNITED STATES CODE, IS REENACTED.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 
105-277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``July 1, 2003'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``January 1, 2004''; and
            (2) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting 
                ``June 30, 2003''; and
                    (B) by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and inserting 
                ``July 1, 2003''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect on July 1, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
NRC ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF LICENSE RENEWAL 

APPLICATION FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year 

renewal of the operating licenses for South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2 is available for 

public review. 

 South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 are both pressurized-water nuclear reactors, located 

12 miles southwest of Bay City, Texas. The plant’s current operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 

will expire on Aug. 20, 2027, and Dec. 15, 2028, respectively. 

 The licensee, STP Nuclear Operating Co., submitted the renewal application Oct. 26. 

The application is available on the NRC website at this address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/south-texas-project.html. 

 The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial review of the application to determine 

whether it contains enough information for the required formal review. If the application has 

sufficient information, the NRC will formally “docket,” or file, the application and will announce 

an opportunity to request a public hearing. 

 For further information, contact Carmen Fells or Tam Tran at the Division of License 

Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail 

Stop O11-F1, Washington, D.C. 20555; telephone (301) 415-6337 for Carmen Fells and 

telephone (301) 415-3617 for Tam Tran. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv 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. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 10-202 November 4, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00241]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Integrated Review Group; Imaging Technology 
Development Study Section.
    Date: February 12-13, 2019.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton Orlando North Hotel, 600 N Lake Destiny Drive, 
Maitland, FL 32751.
    Contact Person: Mehrdad Mohseni, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
0484, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8be6e4e3f8eee5e2e6cbe8f8f9a5e5e2e3a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c1113140f191215113c1f0f0e52121514521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This meeting notice is being published less than 15 days in 
advance of the meeting due to the partial Government shutdown of 
December 2018.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: January 23, 2019.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-00241 Filed 1-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §22307. Restrictions

(a) Stock and Dividends.—The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.

(b) Political Activities.—The corporation or a director or officer as such may not contribute to, support, or assist a political party or candidate for public office.

(c) Distribution of Income or Assets.—The income or assets of the corporation may not inure to the benefit of, or be distributed to, a director, officer, or member as such during the life of the corporation or on its dissolution or final liquidation. This subsection does not prevent the payment of compensation to an officer in an amount approved by the board of directors.

(d) Loans.—The corporation may not make a loan or advance to a director, officer, or employee. Directors who vote for or assent to making a loan or advance to a director, officer, or employee, and officers who participate in making the loan or advance, are jointly and severally liable to the corporation for the amount of the loan or advance until it is repaid.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1303.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 22307(a) | 36:3412. | Oct. 15, 1962, Pub. L. 87–817, §§9, 10, 12, 76 Stat. 932. |
| 22307(b) | 36:3410. | |
| 22307(c) | 36:3409(a). | |
| 22307(d) | 36:3409(b). | |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "any shares of" are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (c), the words "inure to the benefit of" are substituted for "inure to" for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (d), the words "or advance" are added in 2 places for consistency in the subsection.
# TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

**Foreword**

**Authors**

**Preface**

Chapter 1 -- **The Treaty and the Mission**

Chapter 2 -- **Initial Preparations**

Chapter 3 -- **Ratification Delayed**

Chapter 4 -- **Standing Up the Unit**

Chapter 5 -- **Final Preparations**

Chapter 6 -- **CFE Treaty Baseline**

Chapter 7 -- **Reduction Years**

Chapter 8 -- **The CFE Treaty: A Durable Structure**

 

APPENDICES

**A. CFE Treaty (Text)**
**B. The CFE Treaty: Statements and Agreements (Text)**

**C. The CFE 1A Concluding Act (Text)**

**D. CFE ReviewConference: Final Document (Text)**

**E. CFE Treaty: NationalVerification Organizations**

**F. OSIA EuropeanOperations Command: Personnel Strength 1990-1992**

**G. Chronology: CFE TreatyNegotiations and Implementation, 1972-1996**

 

**BIBLIOGRAPHY**
**GLOSSARY**
 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publishing DataHarahan, Joseph P.Kuhn, John C. III

On-Site Inspections Under the CFE Treaty, AHistory of the On-Site Inspection Agency and CFE TreatyImplementation, 1990-1996Treaty History SeriesIncludes Bibliographical References

1. Treaties, Arms Control -- United States --History.2. United States -- CFE Treaty -- On-Site Inspections --History.3. Europe -- End of Cold War -- History.4. Russia -- post-Cold War -- History.5. United States Government -- History, Government.

I. United States. Treaties. CFE Treaty. II. Title

 
Go to History        PageGo to **OSIA*****Link***        -- the OSIA Home Page
§ 734.14 Reexport. ( a ) Except as set forth in §§ 734.18 and 734.20, *Reexport* means: ( 1 ) An actual shipment or transmission of an item subject to the EAR from one foreign country to another foreign country, including the sending or taking of an item to or from such countries in any manner;
( 2 ) Releasing or otherwise transferring “technology” or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign person of a country other than the foreign country where the release or transfer takes place (a deemed reexport);
( 3 ) Transferring by a person outside the United States of registration, control, or ownership of: ( i ) A spacecraft subject to the EAR that is not eligible for reexport under License Exception STA (*i.e.,* spacecraft that provide space-based logistics, assembly or servicing of any spacecraft) to a person in or a national of any other country; or
( ii ) Any other spacecraft subject to the EAR to a person in or a national of a Country Group D:5 country.
( b ) Any release outside of the United States of “technology” or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign person of another country is a deemed reexport to the foreign person's most recent country of citizenship or permanent residency, except as described in § 734.20.
( c ) The reexport of an item subject to the EAR that will transit through a country or countries to a destination identified in the EAR is deemed to be a reexport to that destination.
[81 FR 35604, June 3, 2016]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4525** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. TARREN RAMONE HUGHEY, a/k/a Ty , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00850

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : March 18, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tarren Ramone Hughey pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and was sentenced to 188 months ’ imprisonment . He now appeals, claiming that the
Government breac hed the plea agreement when it moved for an upward departure or variance from Hughey’s Guidelines range based on under

- representation of his criminal history . We affirm. Hughey concedes that the Government did not expressly agree not to request an upwar d departure and, contrary to Hughey’s assertion, no such promise was implied in the plea agreement. W e therefore conclude that Hughey has not met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a breach occurred. See United States v. S now , 234 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### § 18.22 Agency review.

Either the applicant or agency counsel may file a petition for review of the initial decision on the fee application, or the Department may decide to review the decision on its own initiative. The petition must be filed with the General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Administration, Rm. 5882, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, not later than 30 calendar days after the initial decision is issued. For purposes of this section, a document will be considered filed with the General Counsel as of the date of the postmark (or for government penalty mail, as shown by a certificate of mailing), if mailed, or if not mailed, as of the date actually delivered to the Office of General Counsel. A petition for review must be accompanied by a full written statement in support thereof, including a precise statement of why the petitioner believes the initial decision should be reversed or modified, and proof of service upon all parties. A response to the petition may be filed by another party to the proceeding and must be filed with the General Counsel at the above address not more than 30 calendar days after the date of service of the petition for review. The General Counsel may request any further submissions deemed helpful in resolving the petition for review. If neither the applicant nor agency counsel seeks review and the Department does not take review on its own initiative, the initial decision on the application shall become a final decision of the Department 30 calendar days after it is issued. Whether to review a decision is a matter within the discretion of the General Counsel. If review is taken, the General Counsel will issue the Department's final decision on the application or remand the application to the adjudicative officer for further proceedings. The standard of review exercised by the General Counsel shall be that which was required for the highest level of Departmental review which could have been exercised on the underlying covered proceeding.

[53 FR 6799, Mar. 3, 1988]
- 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**

JEVON MAURICE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff/Counter

- Defendant

Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 24, 2017

v No. 335922 Ingham Circuit Court Family Division KAY MARIE CANNON, LC No. 16

- 000380

- DM

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff

Appellant.

Before: M ARKEY

, P .J., and R ONAYNE K RAUSE and B OONSTRA , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, J

. (concurring)

.

I write separately because I am disturbed by some of the trial court’s conclusions; in particular, the trial court’s apparent equivocation of plaintiff’s road

- rage vehicular assault with children in his car, and the needling and vandalism behaviors perpetr ated by defendant. However, we have not been asked to review the trial court’s determinations of the statutory best

interests factors, and I agree with the majority that the trial court did not simply adopt the conciliator’s report. I am unaware of any l egal prohibition against the trial court independently adopting an identical conclusion to the conciliator’s report, nor in making reference thereto as a guide to making inquiries of the parties. The propriety of any of the trial court’s specific findings aside, the record clearly shows that the trial court did make an independent decision, and defendant has not pursued any other basis for reversing the trial court’s custody

determination. I therefore concur with the majority.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 65483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27953]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 65483]]


                Memorandum of December 18, 2018

                
Establishment of United States Space Command as a 
                Unified Combatant Command

                Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

                Pursuant to my authority as the Commander in Chief and 
                under section 161 of title 10, United States Code, and 
                in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the 
                Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I direct the 
                establishment, consistent with United States law, of 
                United States Space Command as a functional Unified 
                Combatant Command. I also direct the Secretary of 
                Defense to recommend officers for my nomination and 
                Senate confirmation as Commander and Deputy Commander 
                of the new United States Space Command.

                I assign to United States Space Command: (1) all the 
                general responsibilities of a Unified Combatant 
                Command; (2) the space-related responsibilities 
                previously assigned to the Commander, United States 
                Strategic Command; and (3) the responsibilities of 
                Joint Force Provider and Joint Force Trainer for Space 
                Operations Forces. The comprehensive list of 
                authorities and responsibilities for United States 
                Space Command will be included in the next update to 
                the Unified Command Plan.

                Consistent with section 161(b)(2) of title 10, United 
                States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States 
                Code, you are directed to notify the Congress on my 
                behalf.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 18, 2018

[FR Doc. 2018-27953
Filed 12-20-18; 8:45 am]
Billing code 5001-06-P
#### Hannah Berg, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company et al., Appellants.

Gen. No. 5,881.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Leslie D. Putebbaugh, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Reversed with finding of facts.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Hannah Berg, administratrix of the estate of John W. F. Berg, deceased, against Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company and Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Company to recover for the wrongful death of deceased while employed by the Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Company as a section man in its yards. His duty was to clean up and do various things about the yards. The deceased was killed by falling *295between the first and second coaches of a passenger train of the Lake Erie & Western Eailroad Company, a lessee of the other defendant Company. He stepped back from a track where he was working to make way for an engine of the Vandalia Eailroad Company that was approaching in one direction, and either while the engine was passing or just after it had passed he came into contact with the Lake Erie coaches going in the other direction. There was a space of about eight feet between the tracks and about four feet between trains if standing at the same time on these two tracks. From a judgment entered on a verdict for two thousand five hundred dollars against both defendants, defendants appeal.

Stevens, Miller & Elliott, for appellants.

Sheen & Galbraith, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

Master and servant, § *704*****-—when recovery for death of a section man while working in railroad yards not sustained by the evidence.*In an action against two railroad companies to recover ior the wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate, a section man, employed by one of the defendant companies in its yards, it appeared that the deceased was killed by falling between the coaches of a passenger train of the other company after he had stepped off a track where he was working to let the engine of another company, not a party to the suit, pass, and that deceased, was killed while he was standing between the two passing trains. *Held*that a verdict and judgment against the defendants could not be sustained, there being no evidence to show what caused the deceased to fall between the coaches, and the evidence failing to show that defendants or either of them owed him any duty which was not performed, and the evidence failed to show ordinary care on the part of the deceased at the time of the injury.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 287.5 Responsibilities of Agency Standards Executives. Each Agency Standards Executive should: ( a ) Carry out the duties in OMB Circular A-119 related to conformity assessment activities.
( b ) Encourage effective use of agency conformity assessment related resources.
( c ) Provide ongoing assistance and policy guidance to the agency on significant issues in conformity assessment.
( d ) Contribute to the development and dissemination of: ( 1 ) Internal agency policies related to conformity assessment issues; and
( 2 ) Agency positions on conformity assessment related issues that are in the public interest.
( e ) Work with other parts of the agency to develop and implement improvements in agency conformity assessment activities.
( f ) Participate in the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP) as the agency representative and member.
( g ) Promote agency participation in ICSP working groups related to conformity assessment issues, as needed.
( h ) Encourage agency participation in efforts related to the development of voluntary consensus standards, recommendations, and guidelines related to conformity assessment consistent with agency missions, authorities, priorities, and resources.
( i ) Establish an ongoing process for reviewing the agency's conformity assessment programs and identify areas where efficiencies can be achieved through coordination within the agency and among other agencies and private sector conformity assessment activities.
### §461. Relationship to other travel and transportation authorities

An authorized traveler may not be paid travel and transportation allowances or receive travel-in-kind and transportation-in-kind, or a combination thereof, under both subchapter I and subchapter III for official travel performed under a single or related travel and transportation order or authorization by the administering Secretary.

(Added Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VI, §631(b), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1459.)