alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2014.2 Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, for the purpose of this part, the following terms shall have the meanings assigned as follows: ( a ) *Lamb meat* means fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat, provided for in subheadings 0204.10.00, 0204.22.20, 0204.23.20, 0204.30.00, 0204.42.20, and 0204.43.20 of the HTS.
( b ) *In-quota lamb meat* means lamb meat that is entered under the in-quota rate of duty.
( c ) *Participating country* means any country to which an allocation of a particular quantity of lamb meat has been assigned under Proclamation 7208 that USTR has determined is, and has notified to the United States Customs Service as being, eligible to use export certificates.
( d ) *Enter or Entered* means to enter or withdraw from warehouse for consumption.
( e ) *HTS* means the Harmonized Tariff schedule of the United States.
( f ) *USTR* means the United States Trade Representative or the designee of the United States Trade Representative.
( g ) *Quota Year* means the period between July 22, 1999 and July 21, 2000, inclusive, and such subsequent periods as set forth in Presidential Proclamations 7208 and 7214 during which lamb meat is exported.
###### 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At 73 FR 58435, Oct. 7, 2008, the application of subpart C to part 9701 was rescinded.

#### § 9701.331 General.

The basic pay ranges established under §§ 9701.321 through 9701.323 may be supplemented in appropriate circumstances by locality or special rate supplements, as described in §§ 9701.332 through 9701.335. These supplements are expressed as a percentage of basic pay and are set and adjusted as described in § 9701.334. As authorized by § 9701.356, DHS implementing directives will determine the extent to which §§ 9701.331 through 9701.337 apply to employees receiving a retained rate.
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00161]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute 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 grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group; Subcommittee F--Institutional Training and Education.
    Date: February 25-26, 2019.
    Time: 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20817.
    Contact Person: Timothy Meeker, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center 
Drive, Room 7W606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6464, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#533e363638362127133e323a3f7d3d3a3b7d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="117c74747a746365517c70787d3f7f78793f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 18, 2019.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-00161 Filed 1-25-19; 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>
§ 325.9 Reconsidering an application that has been denied. ( a ) If the Secretary determines to deny an application in whole or in part, he shall notify the applicant in writing of his decision and the reasons for his determination.
( b ) Within thirty days after receiving a notice of denial, the applicant may request the Secretary to reconsider his determination. ( 1 ) The request for reconsideration shall include a written statement setting forth the reasons why the applicant believes the decision should be reconsidered, and any additional information that the applicant considers relevant.
( 2 ) Upon the request of the applicant, the Secretary and the Attorney General will meet informally with the applicant and/or his representative to discuss the applicant's reasons why the determination on the application should be changed.
( c ) The Secretary shall consult with the Attorney General with regard to reconsidering an application. The Secretary may modify his original determination only if the Attorney General concurs.
( d ) The Secretary shall notify the applicant in writing of his final determination after reconsideration and of his reasons for the determination within thirty days after the request for reconsideration has been received.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 I, Almon C. Hall, certify that:
 
 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nortek, Inc.;
 
 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4) The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5) The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  
 Dated: May 18, 2004
By:
/s/ Almon C. HallAlmon C. HallVice President and Chief Financial OfficerNortek, Inc.
NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 4 IN IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, ON 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR PROPOSED ENRICHMENT PLANT 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting June 4 in Idaho 

Falls, Idaho, to seek comments about specific issues that should be addressed in its 

environmental review of a proposed uranium enrichment facility. 

 The meeting will be held at the Shilo Inn, 780 Lindsay Blvd. in Idaho Falls, from 

6:30 to 9:30 p.m. NRC staff members will be available for an hour prior to the meeting to 

speak informally to members of the public. 

 AREVA Enrichment Services LLC submitted an application Dec. 30, 2008, for a 

license to construct and operate a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility near Idaho 

Falls. AREVA resubmitted its application April 24 to double the facility’s proposed 

production capacity. 

 The proposed facility would enrich uranium for use in the production of fuel for 

commercial nuclear power reactors. 

 In April, the NRC staff determined that the license application was sufficiently 

complete to allow the agency to begin its formal environmental review. A notice of intent 

to prepare an environmental impact statement was published May 4 in the Federal 

Register. 

 At the June 4 meeting, NRC staff will explain the licensing review process and 

provide ample opportunity for the public to speak about specific environmental issues 

that should be addressed in the report. Members of the public wishing to make statements 

are encouraged to pre-register by May 28 by contacting Tarsha Moon at (800) 368-5642, 

ext. 7843, or at Tarsha.Moon@nrc.gov. Interested persons may also register to speak at 

the meeting, and written comments will also be accepted. Written comments may also be 

submitted by e-mail to EagleRock.EIS@nrc.gov. 

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. 09-091 May 22, 2009
### 

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting 

should contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand. 

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.
Editorial Note on Subpart B of Part 591
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart B of part 591 appear at 70 FR 31313, May 31, 2005.

§ 591.238 How do agencies pay COLAs and post differentials? ( a ) Agencies pay COLAs and post differentials as a percentage of an employee's hourly rate of basic pay, including a retained rate of pay under 5 U.S.C. 3594(c) or 5363, for those hours during which the employee receives basic pay. This includes all periods of paid leave, detail, or travel status outside the COLA or post differential area.
( b ) Agencies pay employees eligible for both a COLA and a post differential the full amount of the COLA, plus so much of the post differential as will not cause the combined total of the COLA and post differential to exceed 25 percent of the hourly rate of basic pay.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Charles Miller, Respondent, against Symington Gould Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, *1045Respondent.

Appeal from an award for disability due to tuberculous tenosynovitis, an occupational disease. The evidence, aided by the presumption embodied in section 47 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, sustains the finding of the board. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Poster and Deyo, JJ.
§ 838.505 Barring payment of refunds. A court order barring payment of a refund of employee contributions is not a court order acceptable for processing unless— ( a ) It expressly directs OPM not to pay a refund of employee contributions;
( b ) It awards, or a prior court order acceptable for processing has awarded, the former spouse a former spouse survivor annuity or a portion of the employee annuity; and
( c ) Payment of the refund of employee contributions would prevent payment to the former spouse under the court order described in paragraph (b) of this section.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00074-CR

Phinny Paul Norton

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 43rd District Court

of Parker County (CR13-0708)

August 20, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Exhibit 10.ooo


 


Adopted
by the Benefits Committee


of
Cinergy Corp. on December 16, 2003


 


 


AMENDMENT TO THE


CINERGY CORP. EXCESS PENSION PLAN


 


The Cinergy Corp. Excess
Pension Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 1998, and as
amended from time to time (the “Plan”), is hereby amended effective for
compensation received on or after January 1, 2004.




(1)           Explanation
of Amendment


 


The Plan is amended to
provide that the benefits under the Plan shall be calculated with a cap on the
amount of any bonus received on or after January 1, 2004 that will be included
in eligible earnings for employees in the Cinergy Corp. Commercial Business
Unit (formerly known as the Energy Merchant Business Unit).


 


(2)           Amendment


 


                                                  Article 4 of
the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof:


 


                                                  “Effective with
respect to amounts received on or after January 1, 2004, notwithstanding any
other provision of the Plan, for purposes of calculating the Maximum Benefit
and Unrestricted Benefit of any Participant who is an employee in the
Commercial Business Unit: (i) the amount of the Annual Performance Cash Award
(as defined in Cinergy’s Pension Plan) that is to be taken into account under
Cinergy’s Pension Plan for a Plan Year shall not exceed the Participant’s rate
of annual Base Salary or Base Wage (as those terms are defined in Cinergy’s
Pension Plan), as applicable, as of the last day of the performance period for
which the Annual Performance Cash Award (as defined in Cinergy’s Pension Plan)
is calculated and (ii) for purposes of clarity, any amount payable under the
Commercial Business Unit Annual Incentive Plan (formerly known as the Energy
Merchant Business Unit Annual Incentive Plan) or any other annual incentive
plan maintained by the Commercial Business Unit that is automatically deferred
until a subsequent Plan Year shall not be considered as part of the
Participant’s Annual Performance Cash Award (as defined in Cinergy’s Pension
Plan), provided, however, that the limitations contained in this
sentence shall not apply to amounts payable under the Cinergy Corp. Annual
Incentive Plan.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Cinergy
Corp. has caused this Amendment to be executed and approved by its duly
authorized officer as of the date set forth above.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/  Timothy J. Verhagen

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Timothy J. Verhagen

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Vice President of Human
  Resources
NRC RECEIVES TOP-NOTCH RANKINGS FROM ANNUAL SURVEY

For the second year in a row, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ranked No. 1 in all 

four categories of the Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

released today. The four categories are leadership and knowledge management, results-oriented 

performance culture, talent management, and job satisfaction.

“These outstanding results are a testament to the NRC staff’s professionalism and 

dedication to our safety and security mission,” said Chairman Gregory Jaczko. “We are 

committed to building on these strong results in the future so that we continue to be an effective 

safety and security regulator.”

The annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey evaluates the management leadership, 

employee satisfaction, and organizational culture of federal agencies. Specifically, it measures 

employees’ perception of whether, and to what extent, their organizations have the types of 

characteristics typically associated with high-performing, successful organizations. 

This effort demonstrates the strong commitment across the federal government in trying 

to find ways to better serve the American people.

“While everyone here at the NRC is very proud of these results, we plan to identify those 

areas where we can continue to make further improvements to enhance the work environment for 

all employees,” said NRC’s Chief Human Capital Officer Miriam Cohen.

The full report is available here: http://www.fedview.opm.gov/. The NRC data is 

available here: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/employment/surveys.html.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

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: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-179 September 22, 2011
### NUMBER 13

- 1 0

- 00 621

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ELVA PEREZ

, A ppellant

,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

AS TRUSTEE UNDER NOVASTAR MORTGAGE

FUNDING TRUST, SERIES 2002

- 2

, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 103rd District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

_______________________________________________ _____________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on April 4, 2011. On

August 18, 2011, this Court ordered the appellate brief to be filed on or before September

19, 2011

. The order notified counsel that no further extensions would be granted and2

that if the brief was not filed, the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution

under Texas Rule of Appellate Proced ure 38.8(a)(1), unless appellant reasonably

explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant's

failure to timely file a brief.

Appellant has failed to file h er brief or otherwise respond . Accordingly, the appeal

is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

3rd day of November , 20 11

.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50290

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN HORACIO VILLAREAL-SANTOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-561-1-WWJ

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Juan Horacio Villareal-Santos appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Villareal contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

alleged in his indictment. Villareal maintains that he pleaded
No. 03-50290

-2-

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for

that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Villareal acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
May 19, 2015 

 

Richard A. Dohack 

11790 Lakeshire Cir 

Fort Myers, FL 33913 

Dear Mr. Richard A. Dohack: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 26th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-769), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information 

you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to 

consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure