alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1507. Disappearance

Where a veteran receiving pension under subchapter II of this chapter disappears, the Secretary may pay the pension otherwise payable to such veteran's spouse and children. In applying the provisions of this section, the Secretary may presume, without reports pursuant to section 1506(a) of this title, that the status of the veteran at the time of disappearance, with respect to permanent and total disability, income, and net worth, continues unchanged. Payments made to a spouse or child under this section shall not exceed the amount to which each would be entitled if the veteran died of a non-service-connected disability.

(Added Pub. L. 89–467, §1(a), June 22, 1966, 80 Stat. 218, §507; amended Pub. L. 94–169, title I, §106(15), Dec. 23, 1975, 89 Stat. 1017; renumbered §1507 and amended Pub. L. 102–83, §§4(b)(1), (2)(E), 5(a), (c)(1), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404–406.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior section 1507 was renumbered section 3107 of this title.

Another prior section 1507, Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1173; Pub. L. 92–540, title I, §101(3), Oct. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 1074; Pub. L. 94–502, title I, §104(6), Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2384, related to loans to trainees commencing or undertaking courses of vocational rehabilitation under chapter 31 of this title, prior to repeal, effective Oct. 1, 1980, by Pub. L. 96–466, title VIII, §802(a)(4), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2218. See section 3112 of this title.

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), renumbered section 507 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 102–83, §5(c)(1), substituted "1506(a)" for "506(a)".

Pub. L. 102–83, §4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" in two places.

1975—Pub. L. 94–169 struck out "in his discretion" after "Administrator" and substituted "payable to such veteran's spouse" for "payable to his wife," and "made to a spouse" for "made to a wife".

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

#### Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–169, title I, §106, Dec. 23, 1975, 89 Stat. 1017, provided that the amendment made by that section is effective Jan. 1, 1976.
§ 8a.125 Effect of other requirements. ( a ) *Effect of other Federal provisions.* The obligations imposed by these Title IX regulations are independent of, and do not alter, obligations not to discriminate on the basis of sex imposed by Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339; as amended by Executive Order 11375, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684; as amended by Executive Order 11478, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; as amended by Executive Order 12087, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 230; as amended by Executive Order 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264; sections 704 and 855 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m, 298b-2); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e *et seq.*); the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 206); and any other Act of Congress or Federal regulation.
( b ) *Effect of State or local law or other requirements.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any State or local law or other requirement that would render any applicant or student ineligible, or limit the eligibility of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, to practice any occupation or profession.
( c ) *Effect of rules or regulations of private organizations.* The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated by any rule or regulation of any organization, club, athletic or other league, or association that would render any applicant or student ineligible to participate or limit the eligibility or participation of any applicant or student, on the basis of sex, in any education program or activity operated by a recipient and that receives Federal financial assistance.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

MICHELLE R. LAMBERT

Trial Attorneys

Environmental Defense Section 

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

Tel: (202) 616-7501

michelle.lambert@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA JACKSON, Administrator of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

sued in her official capacity,

Defendant.

No. 2:11-cv-01661-ROS

NOTICE OF LODGING OF PROPOSED 

CONSENT DECREE

Defendant Lisa Jackson, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), hereby lodges with the Court a 

proposed consent decree that contains the terms of a proposed settlement of this action. 

See Attachment 1, Consent Decree. 

The proposed consent decree should not be signed or entered by the Court at 

this time. Pursuant to section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g), the EPA 

Administrator must provide “a reasonable opportunity by notice in the Federal Register to 

persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the action or matter to comment in 

Case 2:11-cv-01661-ROS Document 17 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

writing” upon the proposed consent decree. Accordingly, EPA will publish in the Federal 

Register a notice of the proposed consent decree and request comments. After a 

reasonable comment period, the EPA Administrator will promptly consider any written 

comments received and, if none of the comments disclose facts or considerations which 

indicate that the proposed consent decree is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or 

inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, Defendant will move for entry of 

the decree.

Respectfully submitted,

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

Environment and Natural Resources Division

/s/ Michelle R. Lambert 

Michelle R. Lambert

United States Department of Justice

Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

Tel: (202) 616-7501

Fax: (202) 514-8865

michelle.lambert@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: December 12, 2011

Case 2:11-cv-01661-ROS Document 17 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Michelle R. Lambert, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree was served by Notice of Electronic Filing 

this 12th day of December, 2011, upon all counsel of record using the Court’s CM/ECF 

system. 

 /s/ Michelle R. Lambert

Case 2:11-cv-01661-ROS Document 17 Filed 12/12/11 Page 3 of 3
#### § 296.31 Dissemination of results.

Results stemming from the analyses required by § 296.30 will be disseminated in periodic working papers, fact sheets, and meetings, which will address the progress that the Program has made from both a project and a portfolio perspective. Such disseminated results will serve to educate both external constituencies as well as internal audiences on research results, best practices, and recommended changes to existing operations based on solid analysis.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2312 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2312

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2003

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Communications Satellite of 1962 to provide for the 
   orderly dilution of the ownership interest in Inmarsat by former 
            signatories to the Inmarsat Operating Agreement.

    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 ``ORBIT Technical Corrections Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING DEADLINES.

    Clause (ii) of section 621(5)(A) of the Communications Satellite 
Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 763(5)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``June 
        30, 2004''; and
            (2) by striking ``June 30, 2003'' and inserting ``December 
        31, 2004''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Rozlyn N. DePonte P0 Box 1355 Kaunakakai, HI 96748

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer Director, Essential Air Service U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Email address: Kevin Schlemmer: kevin.schlemmer@dot.gov Scott Faulk: scott.faulk@dot.gov Kevin Adams: kevin.adams@dot.gov
Subject: Supportfor Mokulele's Kalaupapa EAS proposal When Itravel to visit myfamily on Oahu and Maui, I always fly on Mokulele because I know Ican depend on them. The people who workfor Mokulele are so friendly and helpful, and Ialways feel safe and in good hands when Itravel on their flights. Now I have heard thatMokulele would like permission to fly to and from Kalaupapa, and Iam very much in favor ofthat idea. I believe thatthe people who live there and the people who come to take tours would enjoyflying on Mokulele as much as I do, so I hope you will give them the permission to fly to Kalaupapa. 

# !fi;

Rozlyn N. DePonte
§ 700.61 Rating authorizations. ( a ) A rating authorization is an official action granting specific priority rating authority that: ( 1 ) Permits a person to place a priority rating on an order for an item, such as an item not normally ratable under this regulation; or
( 2 ) Authorizes a person to modify a priority rating on a specific order or series of contracts or orders.
( b ) To request priority rating authority, see § 700.51.
[49 FR 30414, July 30, 1984. Redesignated at 54 FR 601, Jan. 9, 1989, as amended at 79 FR 47570, Aug. 14, 2014; 89 FR 58975, July 22, 2024]
From: Susan Fairchild [Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:44 PM

To: Angus Crane

Subject: Help needed on Wool Fiberglass

Hello Angus, Before I go into wool fiberglass, I want to thank you for all your help on Mineral Wool. We

did finally receive the last financial statement for the industry. I have represented your concerns to my

management and they are very sensitive t o the small business impacts and outcomes of the regulatory

reviews underway.

I have 2 new requests related to Wool Fiberglass to ask your help on:

On Wool fiberglass, we are trying to do something similar. We want to recognize the environmenta lly

responsible decisions that wool fiberglass plants are making in phasing out the use of phenol

formaldehyde binders in their products, as well as those that have very low chrome emissions that do

not present a threat of adverse health effects.

I have your June 8, 2011 letter describing the phase

- out of the Phenol

- Formaldehyde binders. In that

letter you state that NAIMA can provide documentation that all major sources have already converted

or have announced plans to convert to non

- phenol for maldehyde binders. You go on in that letter to

identify the conversions and plans by company and site.

1

- It would be helpful to receive the documentation on these conversions for the rulemaking record.

2

- Additionally, in order to understand t he differences between the 'jade green' refractories used at one

facility and the other types of refractories used within the industry, we need information regarding the

chromium content of the furnace refractories at the time of testing for the followin g companies and

sites:Please let me know if you are able to provide information responsive to these 2 requests, and any

potential timeline for that response.

Thank you again for your efforts on these rulemakings.

Susan Fairchild

Environmental Scientist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

direct line: 919.541.5167

fax: 919.541

- 3207

email: fairchild.susan@epa.gov

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243

- 02

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709

"We can not solve our problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them"

--

Albert Einstein
###### Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 9701

#### Editorial Note:

At 73 FR 58435, Oct. 7, 2008, the application of subpart C to part 9701 was rescinded.

#### § 9701.346 Pay progression for new supervisors.

DHS will issue implementing directives requiring an employee newly appointed to or selected for a supervisory position to meet certain assessment or certification points as part of a formal training/developmental program. In administering performance pay increases for these employees under § 9701.342, DHS may take into account the employee's success in completing a formal training/developmental program, as well as his or her performance.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Eugene Joel Cather, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-233;

Third District

June 28, 1974.

Walter D. Braud, of Rock Island, for appellant.

Clarke C. Barnes, Assistant State’s Attorney, of Rock Island, for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Eugene Joel Gather, pleaded guilty in the circuit court of Rock Island County to the offense of the unlawful sale of a controlled substance (Cocaine) and was sentenced to a term of from 1 to 3 years in the penitentiary. On this appeal the only issue raised is that the court *37erred in sentencing the defendant to the penitentiary rather than granting him probation. In September, 1972, defendant was arrested and indicted for three drug offenses occurring in April and June of 1972 including the sale of cocaine to which offense he pleaded guilty in March, 1973. The plea was the result of negotiations whereby the State agreed to drop the other two charges. No recommendation on sentence was included in the plea bargain and the defendant was advised that the State would oppose his request for probation.

Defendant did apply for probation after his guilty plea was accepted and after a hearing on his application for probation and in aggravation and mitigation probation was denied and the sentence of from 1 to 3 years in the penitentiary was imposed. No questions are raised concerning tire propriety of any of the proceedings culminating in the court’s acceptance of defendant’s guilty plea.

Several witnesses testified in defendant’s behalf concerning his war record, his effort at rehabilitation which to date were deemed successful and his future prospects. The court, although recognizing defendant’s progress in eliminating his drug addiction, nevertheless concluded that because of the nature of the offense, *i.e.,*sale of a hard narcotic, incarceration was appropriate.

On this appeal defendant argues that the penitentiary sentence was inconsistent and not required for his rehabilitation as a drug addict and that the court erred in imposing the penitentiary sentence because the trial court believed probation should not be granted where the sale of hard drugs is involved.

© 1,2 We believe it unnecessary to discuss the facts presented at the probation and sentence hearing at any length. Since *People ex rel. Ward v. Moran,*54 II1.2d 552, 301 N.E.2d 300, the decision of whether probation should or should not be granted has been committed to the discretion of the trial court. Where this determination involves the alternatives of rehabilitation pursuant to probation or incarceration because of the seriousness of the offense the trial court is vested with the discretion to determine that the nature of the offense requires incarceration. Where the incarceration imposed is a minimum sentence this court is not in a position to review the discretion exercised by the trial court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

SCOTT, P. J., and ALLOY, J. concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 136309 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 136309 COA: 283264 Oakland CC: 2007-213507-FC SCOTT MICHAEL CLIFTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0721 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2008

Clerk
B.C.D. 10-8

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION FEB 0 9 2010

Georgia Southern Railway Company (GASR)

This is a determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the status of

Georgia Southern Railway Company (GASR) as an employer under the Railroad

Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et sea.KRRA) and the Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et seg.J(RUIA). The status of GASR under the Acts

has not previously been considered.

GASR is a privately held corporation owned by Pioneer Railcorp. Mr. Daniel A.

LaKemper, GASR’s General Counsel, supplied information regarding the

formation and start of operations for GASR in a letter dated December 10, 2009.

An update letter received from Mr. LaKemper on January 4, 2010 represented

that GASR began operations on December 16, 2009. The first employees were

compensated starting on that date.

In Surface Transportation Board (STB) Finance Docket No. 35322, decided

November 24, 2009, GASR filed a verified notice of exemption to operate and

lease several lines of track operated by Georgia Midland Railroad, Inc., and

Heart of Georgia Railroad. The Georgia Midland Railroad track is owned by 

Norfolk Southern and includes lines between milepost (MR) N-219.7 near Fort

Valley, Georgia and MR 232.6 near Perry, Georgia; between MR 95.5FV near

Roberta, Georgia and MR 105.3FV near Fort Valley, Georgia; between MR W57.5 near Dover, Georgia and MR W-86.7 near Metter, Georgia. In addition to

these lines, GASR will perform contract services for Heart of Georgia Railroad on

a line of track between MR 194.64 near Midville, Georgia and MR 152.2 near

Vidalia, Georgia. In all, GASR will be operating on approximately 94.3 miles of

track. GASR will interchange exclusively with Norfolk Southern on behalf of

customers located along the track described above.

According to documents provided, the exemptions filed with the STB became

effective on December 16, 2009. GASR began operations on December 16,

2009 and will handle freight with revenues that will not result in GASR becoming

a Class I or Class II rail carrier. GASR anticipates total freight volume of 3,000

carloads. GASR does not anticipate any passenger operations.

Section 1 (a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 (a)(1)), insofar as

relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface 

Transportation Board under Part A of subtitle IV of title 49, United States

Code;

BA # 5409
2

Section 1 of the RUIA (45 U.S.C. § 351) contains essentially the same definition, as

does section 3231 of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C.§ 3231).

The evidence of record establishes that GASR is a rail carrier operating in

interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that Georgia Southern

Railway Company became an employer within the meaning of section 1 (a)(1 )(i)

of the Railroad Retirement Act and its corresponding provision of the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act effective December 16, 2009, the date on which

GASR began operations.

Beatrice Ezerski

Secretary to the Board
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00387

- CV
STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF R.F. From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 01450 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 20, 2019
DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION On September 4, 2019, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal notified th is court that appellant had failed to pay the fee for preparing the record. By order dated September 6, 2019, appellant was ordered to provide written proof to this court no later than September 16, 2019, that either (1) the reporter’s fee had been paid o r arrangements had been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief would be due on October 7, 2 019, and the court would consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 37.3(c).04

- 19

- 00387

- CV

- 2

- Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. By order dated October 15, 2019, appellant was ordered to show cause in writing by October 3, 2019, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.8(a). Appellant did not respond to this court’s order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id

. PER CURIAM
### **CHAPTER 3—ORGANIZATION OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL

Sec.
301.
Establishment.
302.
Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
303.
Federal Acquisition Service.
304.
Federal information centers.
305.
Electronic Government and information technologies.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATIVE

311.
Personnel.
312.
Transfer and use of amounts for major equipment acquisitions. 1

313.
Tests of materials.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—FUNDS

321.
Acquisition Services Fund.
[322.
Repealed.]
323.
Consumer Information Center Fund.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–313, §§2(a)(2), 3(h)(3), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1734, 1736, substituted "Federal Acquisition Service" for "Functions" in item 303 and "Acquisition Services Fund" for "General Supply Fund" in item 321 and struck out item 322 "Information Technology Fund".

**2002**—Pub. L. 107–347, title I, §102(a)(2), Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 2910, added item 305.

1  Section repealed by Pub. L. 111–8 without corresponding amendment of chapter analysis.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Autonomy Corporation plc (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dr. Michael R. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to
the best of his knowledge and belief:

|/s/DR. MICHAEL R LYNCHDr. Michael R. Lynch
Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:
April 14, 2004

---

QuickLinks
UKRAINE: SUMMARY OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREES ON PENSIONS, HUMANITARIANAID, AND CUTS IN VAT

----

8 JUL 98