alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8733. Lease of land acquired for park, parkway, or playground purposes

The Secretary of the Interior may lease, for not more than five years, land or an existing building or structure on land acquired for park, parkway, or playground purposes, and may renew the lease for an additional five years. A lease or renewal under this section is—

(1) subject to the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission;

(2) subject to the need for the immediate use of the land, building, or structure in other ways by the public; and

(3) on terms the Administrator decides.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1225.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8733 | 40:72b. | Dec. 22, 1928, ch. 48, §2, 45 Stat. 1070. |

Section

The words "Administrator of General Services" are substituted for "Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital" [subsequently changed to "Director of the National Park Service" because of section 2 of Executive Order No. 6166 (eff. June 10, 1933) and the Act of March 2, 1934 (ch. 38, 48 Stat. 389), and "Public Buildings Administrator" because of sections 301 and 303 of Reorganization Plan No. I of 1939 (eff. July 1, 1939, 53 Stat. 1426, 1427)] because of section 103(a) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (ch. 288, 63 Stat. 380), which is restated as section 303(c) [303(b)] of the revised title. The words "National Capital Planning Commission" are substituted for "National Capital Park and Planning Commission" because of section 9 of the Act of June 6, 1924 (ch. 270), as added by section 1 of the Act of July 19, 1952 (ch. 949, 66 Stat. 790). See section 8711(f) of the revised title.
**Exhibit
      32.****2**







**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 of Victoria Industries, Inc. a Nevada
      corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), Albert Abdoulline, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Victoria Industries, Inc., and will be retained by Victoria Industries, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.






Date:
                October 1, 2008By:
            /s/
                Albert AbdoullineAlbert
                AbdoullineChief
                Financial Officer
# • RCRAREVISION CHECKLIST 60

Amendmentto Requirements for Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits 54 FR4286-4288 January 30, 1989 (non-HSWA ClusterV)

In lieu ofmaking the changes addressedby this checklist, a State maysubmit a certificationby the State Attorney General that he/she interprets his/her State's existing regulations in the manner described in this rule. Such a simplified application is allowedbecause EPA is only clarifying current regulatory language, and the Agency assumes that these requirements are already in effect inmost States. Ifa State Attorney General cannot certify thathe/she interprets his/her State's existing regulations in the manner described in this rule, the State's regulations
mustbe amended to reflect this clarification.

STATEANALOG IS:

FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION EQUIVALENT MORE BROADSTRIN- ER IN GENT SCOPE



# • PART 270 - EPAADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM

SUBPART F

- SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS

HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR PERMITS WAC 173-303



# • January 30, 1989

- Page 1 of2RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 60: Amendmentto Requirements for Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits (cont'd)

STATEANALOG 

# •

FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE. CITATION EQUIVALENT MORESTRINGENT IS:BROADER IN SCOPE

, 

# • after "permit," replace "to" with "for"; after "incinerate," replace "may" with "must"; after "in accordance with," insert "§270.19(b) and"; before "(9)" insert "(b)"; after "section," add clause regarding information in §270.19(c) and a sentence regarding exemption from §264.343 and 264.345; after "trial burn results" add sentence regarding submission oftrail burn results prior to permit issuance; in last
sentence replace "if" with "when"; change requirements so that the director specifies

a time periodprior to permit issuance in which the trial burn
mustbe submitted 270.62(d) -807(10) 

## x



# • January 30, 1989 -Page 2 of2
No: III-13-016 May 10, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Proposes $3,500 Civil Penalty to University of Notre Dame Du Lac

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $3,500 civil penalty against University of 

Notre Dame du Lac, for security-related violations stemming from a routine NRC inspection. The 

violations were identified at the university, which is located in Notre Dame, Ind. 

The NRC conducted the inspection between November 2012 and January of this year. Once the 

violations of NRC requirements were identified the university took immediate corrective actions to restore 

compliance.

Details about security-related violations are not made public.

A copy of the enforcement action will be posted on the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) at the NRC website.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 13056 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:10

- cr
- 00242

- MEF

- WC

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus VERONICA DENISE DALE,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ No. 14

- 13058 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:11

- cr
- 00069

- MEF

- WC

- 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- A ppellee, Case: 14-13056 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 1 of 32 versus VERONICA DENISE DALE,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________ (August 20, 2015)
Before HUL L , MARTIN and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Veronica Denise Dale, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the
district court’s denial of her post

- judgment motions to modify her restitution order

. Dale argues that the district court imperm issibly delegated the task of setting a repayment sche dule to the Bureau of Prisons and abused its discretion by denying
her motions to modify her restitution based on changed economic circumstances. Dale’s first argument

— that the district court improperly delegated the task of setting a repayment schedule to the BOP

— is contradicted by the record. The judgment in her cas e shows that that the district court set a specific payment schedule requiring Dale to make an immediate lump sum payment of $49 4,624,

Case: 14-13056 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 2 of 33 with any remaining balance to be paid at a rate not less than $100 per month during her supervised release. 1
Neither do we find any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of
Dale’s motions to modify her restitution order . Under the M a ndatory Victims
Restitution Act , a district court may modify a final order of restitution upon a showing of a material change in the defendant’s circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). However, modification under this provision requires a “ bona fide change in the defendant’s financial condition

. ” Cani v. United States , 331 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2003). Dale has made no showing of any such change

. Thus, o n this record, her “ present financial status is no different from that contemplated by the district court when it imposed the restitution order. ” Id. at
1216.
AFFIRMED.

1 T he district court waived the interest requirement for any unpaid restitution. Case: 14-13056 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 3 of 3
NRC TO DISCUSS IMPLEMENTING ORDERS FOR

POST-FUKUSHIMA IMPROVEMENTS APRIL 10 IN ROCKVILLE, MD

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with industry representatives Tuesday, 

April 10, to discuss schedules and guidance for the Orders and related request for information the 

agency issued on March 12. The actions stem from recommendations of the NRC’s Japan NearTerm Task Force (NTTF), which examined issues raised by the Fukushima nuclear accident in 

March 2011.

The meeting will be held from 1 p.m. – 4 p.m. in Room T2B3 of the Two White Flint 

North building at 11545 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Md. Senior NRC management and industry 

executives will discuss guidance for the three Orders (covering strategies to respond to extreme 

natural events resulting in the loss of power at plants, ensuring reliable hardened containment 

vents, and enhancing spent fuel pool instrumentation), as well as a multifaceted request for 

information.

The public will have the opportunity to ask the NRC staff questions about the process 

during the meeting, which will be webcast. A teleconference will also be available by calling 

888-603-7021 and using passcode 68625. Those planning to attend the meeting or call in to the 

teleconference should contact Steven Bloom at 301-415-2431 or steven.bloom@nrc.gov to 

ensure adequate meeting resources are available.

The NRC continues to evaluate and act on the lessons learned from Fukushima to ensure 

U.S. nuclear power plants implement appropriate safety enhancements. Following direction from 

the agency’s five Commissioners, the NRC’s activities are being led by a steering committee 

comprised of senior NRC management. The agency has also established the Japan LessonsLearned Project Directorate, a group of more than 20 full-time employees focused exclusively on 

implementing NTTF recommendations and related activities.

###

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 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. 12-033 March 29, 2012
December 12, 2013

A. Stanley Meiburg, PhD

Acting Regional Administrator

US EPA Region 4

Atlanta Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8909

Re: South Carolina Recommendation for Fine Particulate Matter Boundary Designations

Dear Dr. Meiburg:

I am writing this letter in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

request to submit boundary recommendations for the revised fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) established by EPA via 78 Federal Register 3086, January 1, 2013.

The Clean Air Act Section 107(d)(l) provides that, "By such date as the Administrator may reasonably require, but not later than one year after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS for any pollutant under section 109, the Governor of each state shall submit to the Administrator a list of all areas (or 

portions thereof) in the state that should be designated as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for 

the new NAAQS...” Accordingly, Governors must submit their initial PM designation recommendations 

to the EPA no later than December 13, 2013, (78 FR 3086).

Based on the attached ambient air monitoring data, I am pleased to report that South Carolina fully complies with the revised fine particulate matter standard. On behalf of Governor Nikki R. Haley, I am 

recommending that each county in the State of South Carolina be separately designated as “attainment” 

for the revised primary PM2.5 NAAQS.

Should you have any questions regarding our recommendation, please contact Myra Reece, 

Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, at (803) 898-4123 or by email at reecemc@dhec.sc.gov.

Sincerely,

 

Catherine B. Templeton

cc: Elizabeth A. Dieck, Director, Environmental Affairs, SCDHEC

Myra C. Reece, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, SCDHEC

Attachment: South Carolina Annual PM2.5 Design Values – 2012
South Carolina Annual PM2.5 NAAQS Design Values – 2012

Site ID Site Name

2010 

Weighted 

Arithmetic 

Average 

(μg/m3)

2011 

Weighted 

Arithmetic 

Average 

(μg/m3)

2012 

Weighted 

Arithmetic 

Average 

(μg/m3)

2010-

2012 

Design 

Value 

(μg/m3)

Design 

Value 

Valid?

45-019-

0048 FAA Tower 9.2 * 10.2 8.5 9.3 No

45-019-

0049

Charleston 

Public 

Works 9.4 9.7 7.7 8.9 Yes

45-019-

0051

Howard 

Heights 9.3 * * 9.3 No

45-025-

0001 Chesterfield 10.2 9.5 8.2 * 9.3 No

45-037-

0001 Trenton 10.3 10.4 8.9 9.8 Yes

45-041-

0003 Williams 10.9 11.1 9.2 10.4 Yes

45-045-

0009 Taylors 11.2 10.9 * 9.8 10.6 No

45-045-

0015

Greenville 

ESC 11.8 11.0 9.9 10.9 Yes

45-045-

0016 Hillcrest * 10.5 9.3 9.9 No

45-063-

0008 Irmo 11.6 11.6 10.0 11.1 Yes

45-073-

0001 Long Creek 8.6 * * 8.6 No

45-079-

0007 Parklane 10.7 10.6 9.0 10.1 Yes

45-079-

0019

Bates 

House, 

USC 11.1 11.4 * 9.7 10.7 No

45-083-

0011 Gregg 11.4 11.0 9.8 10.7 Yes

Note: Annual averages not meeting completeness criteria are marked with “*”
§ 754.6 Registration of U.S. agricultural commodities for exemption from short supply limitations on export. ( a ) *Scope.* Under the provisions of section 7(g) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), agricultural commodities of U.S. origin purchased by or for use in a foreign country and stored in the United States for export at a later date may be registered with BIS for exemption from any quantitative limitations on export that may subsequently be imposed under section 7 of the EAA for reasons of short supply.
( b ) *Applications for registration.* Applications to register agricultural commodities must be submitted by a person or firm subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who is acting as a duly authorized agent for the foreign purchaser.
( c ) *Address.* Submit applications pursuant to the provisions of section 7(g) of the EAA, via courier, to: Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 2099B, Washington, DC 20230.
[61 FR 12844, Mar. 25, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 25467, May 9, 1997; 73 FR 37, Jan. 2, 2008; 78 FR 13470, Feb. 28, 2013]
§ 8a.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
§ 971.300 General. ( a ) Certification is an intermediate step between receipt of an application for issuance or transfer of a permit and actual issuance or transfer. It is a determination which focuses on the eligibility of the applicant.
( b ) Before the Administrator may certify an application for issuance or transfer of a permit, the Administrator must determine that issuance of the permit would not violate any of the restrictions in § 971.103(b). The Administrator also must make written determinations with respect to the requirements with respect to the requirements set forth in § 971.301.
( c ) To the maximum extent possible, the Administrator will endeavor to complete certification within 100 days after receipt of a complete application. If final certification or denial of certification has not occurred within 100 days after receipt of the application, the Administrator will inform the applicant in writing of the pending unresolved issues, the efforts to resolve them, and an estimate of the time required to do so.
§ 919.865 How long may my debarment last? ( a ) If the debarring official decides to debar you, your period of debarment will be based on the seriousness of the cause(s) upon which your debarment is based. Generally, debarment should not exceed three years. However, if circumstances warrant, the debarring official may impose a longer period of debarment.
( b ) In determining the period of debarment, the debarring official may consider the factors in § 919.860. If a suspension has preceded your debarment, the debarring official must consider the time you were suspended.
( c ) If the debarment is for a violation of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, your period of debarment may not exceed five years.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Thomas M. Brandt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
of TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2003 of the Registrant (the Report): (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant. /s/ Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.
Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.
Date: February 24, 2004
#### § 296.7 Joint venture registration.

Joint ventures selected for assistance under the Program must notify the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission under section 6 of the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, as amended (15 U.S.C. 4305). No funds will be released prior to receipt by the Program of copies of such notification.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50413

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER HUGO GUEVARA-MARISCAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1998-ALL-H

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

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Hugo Guevara-Mariscal appeals the 57-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

attempting to illegally reenter the United States after removal

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Guevara-Mariscal complains that

his sentence was enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2),

which allowed the court to impose up to a twenty-year term of

imprisonment because he was removed after being convicted of an

aggravated felony. Guevara-Mariscal argues that the sentencing

provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted
No. 01-50413 

-2-

the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the

evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum

sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. GuevaraMariscal thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues

that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Guevara-Mariscal

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme

Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000). 

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), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). GuevaraMariscal’s argument is foreclosed. 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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

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

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
### §7299. Limitation on activities of retired judges

(a) A retired judge of the Court who is recall-eligible under section 7257 of this title and who in the practice of law represents (or supervises or directs the representation of) a client in making any claim relating to veterans' benefits against the United States or any agency thereof shall, pursuant to such section, be considered to have declined recall service and be removed from the status of a recall-eligible judge. The pay of such a judge, pursuant to section 7296 of this title, shall be the pay of the judge at the time of the removal from recall status.

(b) A recall-eligible judge shall be considered to be an officer or employee of the United States, but only during periods when the judge is serving in recall status. Any prohibition, limitation, or restriction that would otherwise apply to the activities of a recall-eligible judge shall apply only during periods when the judge is serving in recall status.

(Added Pub. L. 106–117, title X, §1024(a), Nov. 30, 1999, 113 Stat. 1593.)
### SUBCHAPTER VIII—HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
#### James F. Donnelly v. The City of New York.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.