alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §70911. Records and inspection

(a) Records.—The FFA shall keep—

(1) correct and complete records of account;

(2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of directors, and committees having any of the authority of its board of directors; and

(3) a record of the names and addresses of its members.

(b) Inspection.—A member, or an agent or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the FFA at any reasonable time.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1359; Pub. L. 116–7, §12, Feb. 21, 2019, 133 Stat. 482.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70911 | 36:283. | Aug. 30, 1950, ch. 823, §13, 64 Stat. 566. |

Section

The word "records" is substituted for "books and records" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–7, §12(1)(A), substituted "FFA" for "corporation" in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 116–7, §12(1)(B), struck out "entitled to vote" before period at end.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–7, §12(2), substituted "FFA" for "corporation".
### §1102. Administrator

(a) Head of Office.—The head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy is the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy.

(b) Appointment.—The Administrator is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3684.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1102 | 41:404(b). | Pub. L. 93–400, §(5)(b), Aug. 30, 1974, 88 Stat. 797. |

Section
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR IO LEANOS; OLGA LEANOS, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. WASHINGTON M UTUAL B ANK FA, De fe nda

nt, And JPM OR GAN C HASE B A NK NA; C ALIFOR

NIA REC ONVEYANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-56383 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-07541-JAK-SS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED AUG 01 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).M ario a nd Olga Le a nos a ppe a l pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s orde r dism issing the i r a c tion a g a inst the ir m ortga ge le nde r and othe r privat e pa rtie s a lle ging c onstitutiona

l viola t ions a nd va rious fe de ra l a

nd sta te la w c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion a dism issa l for fa ilure to c om p ly with a n orde r to a

m e nd the c om

p la int. Mc

He nry v . Re nne , 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th C ir. 1996). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing plaintiffs’ a c tion for fa ilure to c om

ply with the c ourt’ s orde r to file an am e nde d c o m pla int be c a

use pla i ntiffs fa ile d

to file an am e nde d c om

pla int, de s pite be ing a fforde d am ple tim e to do so a nd be ing wa

rne d tha t fa i lure to do so would re s ult in the dism issa l of the ir a c tion. Se eid. at 1177-78; se ealso Pagtalunan v . Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th C ir. 2002) (disc ussing fa c tors re le va nt to dism issa l for fa ilure to c om

ply with a c ourt orde r). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 6 3 8 3 2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 68309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; 
Notice of Open Meeting

    The materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee 
(MPETAC) will meet on December 16, 2004 at 9 a.m. in Room 6087B of the 
Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and 
Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with 
respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls 
applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.

Agenda

    1. Opening remarks and introductions.
    2. Presentation of papers and comments by the public.
    3. Discussion on proposals for 2005 regarding 5-axis machine tools, 
coordinate measuring machines, optical finishing machines, and contact 
lens machines.
    4. Comments on machine tool licensing. The meeting will be open to 
the public and a limited number of seats will be available. 
Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members 
of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written 
statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. 
However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to 
Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the 
public presentation materials two weeks prior to Lee Ann Carpenter at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c103f3d2e2c3932281c3e352f7238333f723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afe3cccedddfcac1dbefcdc6dc81cbc0cc81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a> For more information, please contact Ms. Carpenter 
at 202-482-2583.

    Dated: November 19, 2004.
Lee Ann Carpenter,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26043 Filed 11-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M


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

TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 20-1231.1 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE 

Binational Foundations for Industry; Agriculture; and Science 

Protocol Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ISRAEL 

Amending Agreements of March 3, 1976; September 27, 1972; 

and November 6, 1978 

Signed at Ariel October 28, 2020 

Entered into force December 31, 2020 
 

 

 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— 

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.”
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2013

NO. 03-12-00755-CV

John Kleas, Appellant

v.

Clark, Thomas & Winters, P.C., Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s 

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs relating 

to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
Did you place the speech, presentation, paper, 

or journal article in ADAMS?

NRC FORM 390A

(03-2022)

NRCMD 3.9

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

RELEASE TO PUBLISH UNCLASSIFIED NRC CONTRACTOR 

SPEECHES, PRESENTATIONS, PAPERS, AND JOURNAL ARTICLES

YES NO 9. Certification (Answer all questions)

A. Copyrighted Material - Does this speech, presentation, paper, or journal article contain copyrighted material? 

If yes, attach a letter of release from the source that holds the copyright.

Does this speech, presentation, paper, or journal article require patent clearance? 

If yes, the NRC Patent Counsel must signify clearance by signing below.

Is all material referenced in this speech, presentation, paper, or journal article available to the public either 

through a public library, the Government Printing Office, the National Technical Information Service, or the NRC 

Public Document Room? If no, list below the specific availability of each referenced document.

Does this speech, presentation, paper, or journal article contain measurement and weight values? If yes, all 

must be converted to the International System of Units, followed by the English units in brackets, pursuant to 

the NRC Policy Statement implementing the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Executive Order 

12770, July 25, 1991.

10. Authorization

The signatures of the NRC project manager and the contractor official jointly certify that the contractor speech, presentation, paper, or journal article is authorized by the 

contractor and the NRC, that it has undergone appropriate peer review for technical content and for material that might compromise commercial proprietary rights, and that it 

does not contain classified, sensitive unclassified, or nonpublic information. (NRC Directive Handbook 3.9, Section II.A.2)

 NRC FORM 390A (03-2022)

If so, provide the ADAMS Accession No. 

(Use Template ADM 039) 

1. Title (State in full as it appears on the speech, presentation, paper, or journal article)

2. Author(s)

3. Name of Conference, Location, and Date(s)

4. Name of Publication

5. Name and Address of the Publisher 6. Telephone Number of the Publisher (Enter 10 numeric digits)

7. Contractor Name and Complete Mailing Address (Include zip code) 8. Telephone Number of Contractor (Enter 10 numeric digits)

B. Patent Clearance -

NRC Patent Counsel (Type or print name)

C. Reference Availability -

Specific Availability

D. Metric Unit Conversion -

A. Contractor Authorizing Official (Type or print name)

B. NRC Responsible Project Manager or Division Director (Type or print name) Office/Division/Branch Mail Stop

E-MAIL

Yes No

Phone Number 

Page 1 of 1

ML

Signature and Date

Signature and Date

Signature and Date
Page 1 of 1

July 28, 2015

Docket Operations, M-30

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

Subject: Exemption No. 11469 Amendment Request – Turner Industries Group, L.L.C.

 FAA Docket FAA-2015-0236

Dear Sir or Madam,

The purpose of this letter is to request an amendment to add the DJI S-1000 multi-rotor UAS to our 

existing Section 333 Exemption No. 11469, granted May 5, 2015. 

CHANGE REQUESTED:

On May 5, 2015, the FAA granted Exemption No. 11469 to Turner Industries Group, L.L.C. to operate a 

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+. Turner would like to utilize DJI S-1000 multi-rotor UAS aircraft for the same 

purposes and subject to the same requirements and limitations of the existing exemption. 

Attached with this submittal in Turner’s docket folder are the specifications and operations manual for 

the S-1000. The FAA has granted inclusion of this equipment in exemptions for others, including Helinet 

Aviation Services, LLC, Exemption 11160, FAA Docket FAA-2014-0785 on February 2, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted,

Turner Industries Group, L.L.C.

William B. Bispeck

Independent Contractor/Consultant to

Turner Industries Group, L.L.C.

John H. Lindsey

General Manager – Integrated Solutions Group

Turner Industries Group, L.L.C.

Please direct correspondence to William Bispeck. Contact information is on page 2 of the January 28, 

2015 petition letter.
### §3705. Pre-award debriefings

(a) Request for Debriefing.—When the contracting officer excludes an offeror submitting a competitive proposal from the competitive range (or otherwise excludes that offeror from further consideration prior to the final source selection decision), the excluded offeror may request in writing, within 3 days after the date on which the excluded offeror receives notice of its exclusion, a debriefing prior to award.

(b) When Debriefing To Be Conducted.—The contracting officer shall make every effort to debrief the unsuccessful offeror as soon as practicable but may refuse the request for a debriefing if it is not in the best interests of the Federal Government to conduct a debriefing at that time.

(c) Precondition for Post-Award Debriefing.—The contracting officer is required to debrief an excluded offeror in accordance with section 3704 of this title only if that offeror requested and was refused a pre-award debriefing under subsections (a) and (b).

(d) Information To Be Provided.—The debriefing conducted under this section shall include—

(1) the executive agency's evaluation of the significant elements in the offeror's offer;

(2) a summary of the rationale for the offeror's exclusion; and

(3) reasonable responses to relevant questions posed by the debriefed offeror as to whether source selection procedures set forth in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed by the executive agency.

(e) Information Not To Be Disclosed.—The debriefing conducted pursuant to this section may not disclose the number or identity of other offerors and shall not disclose information about the content, ranking, or evaluation of other offerors' proposals.

(f) Summary To Be Included in File.—The contracting officer shall include a summary of the debriefing in the contract file.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3772.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3705(a) | 41:253b(f)(1) (1st sentence). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303B(f), (g) (related to §303B(f)), as added Pub. L. 104–106, title XLI, §4104(b)(3), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 645. |
| 3705(b) | 41:253b(f)(1) (last sentence). | |
| 3705(c) | 41:253b(f)(2). | |
| 3705(d) | 41:253b(f)(3). | |
| 3705(e) | 41:253b(f)(4). | |
| 3705(f) | 41:253b(g) (related to 41:253b(f)). | |

Section
No. II-12-007 April 3, 2012

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC TO DISCUSS URENCO USA PERFORMANCE AT MEETING IN EUNICE 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with the management of URENCO 

USA in Eunice, N.M., on Tuesday, April 10 to discuss the results of a licensee performance review 

for the company’s National Enrichment Facility in Eunice.

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. MDT in the Eunice Community Center, 906 12th Street in 

Eunice. The meeting will be open to members of the public and the news media. NRC officials will 

open the meeting with a brief presentation on the company’s performance, and then be available to 

answer questions about NRC oversight and inspection of the facility.

The NRC staff assessed operational performance and construction activities at the National 

Enrichment Facility during a period from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011.

Operational activities were evaluated in the areas of safety operations, radiological controls, 

facility support and special topics. Construction activities were evaluated in the areas of 

management measures, facility construction and facility support. The meeting’s discussion will 

focus on those NRC evaluations.

“We found that the company continues to operate the facility safely and construction work 

continues to be acceptable,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We did not 

identify any areas needing improvement, and are satisfied that corrective actions for some minor 

issues have been effective.”

Based on the NRC review of the NEF’s performance last year and the decreasing amount of 

construction, the NRC will extend the next review period to 24 months, the standard for an 

NRC-licensed operating facility of this type.

A copy of the NRC letter detailing the URENCO USA review is available online at 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. That document references Louisiana Energy 

Services, L.L.C., which is the company name on the original NRC license for the URENCO USA 

facility in Eunice. The number to access that letter is ML12074A011. 

 

###

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, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
### Part C—Development Loans to Community Economic Development Programs
Overcoming 

Barriers to Medical 

Equipment

Liz Persaud

Georgia Tech / Tools for Life

May 8, 2012
Medical Diagnosis

• Muscular Dystrophy, Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 2

• Progressive neuromuscular/neurodegenerative 

disease

• Curvature of the spine (spinal fusion at 9 years old)

• Long-term Progressive muscle weakness

• Everyday effects:

o Muscle and joint pain

o Muscle fatigue

o Rely on physical assistance for transferring, bathing, 

dressing, eating, and transportation
Defining the Barriers

There are 2 main barriers that I 

encounter during doctors visits and 

medical procedures:

1. Accessibility

2. Attitudinal
Accessibility Barriers

1. Check-in at 

reception area

2. Scale

3. Exam room table

4. Procedures

• Mammography and 

X-ray machine

5. Check out 
Accessibility Barriers

• Transferring in and 

out of wheelchair

• Cannot be transferred 

without transfer lift –

too painful and 

dangerous

• Bring my own transfer 

sheet whenever I go 

to doctor’s visits, ER 

visits or to medical 

procedures.
Attitudinal Barriers

• Equal treatment

• Strong focus on my 

“Life Expectancy”

Attitudes are the 

Real Disability.

I do not think about 

my Disability until I “Life Expectancy”

• Often denied tests 

in a casual manner 

my Disability until I 

encounter 

somewhere I can not 

access or someone 

who focuses on my 

weaknesses.
Recommendations

Check-in/check-out counters should be 

crenulated to accommodate wheelchair height 

and various other needs

More space in exam room (not enough room for 

power wheelchair, attendant, doctor, nurse, exam 

table, chairs, etc.)

Accessible exam table and diagnostic machines 

(easily accessed with a transfer lift and be used 

while lying down)

Disability Awareness training
Suggested Next Steps

Accessible Workout Equipment!

• If workout equipment was accessible and easy 

to access by individuals with various abilities 

(from a wheelchair) more people with 

disabilities would be inclined to exercise.

• Assisting in preventative measures could 

decrease the amount of doctors visits and 

medical procedures.

Thank Y o u for Listening!
### Part I—Direct Services
§ 700.15 Extension of priority ratings. ( a ) A person must use rated orders with suppliers to obtain industrial resources needed to fill a rated order. All elements of a rated order outlined in section 700.12 must be included on the rated order. The person must use the priority rating indicated on the customer's rated order, except as otherwise provided in this part (see § 700.17) or as directed by the Department of Commerce. *Example:* If a person is in receipt of a rated order with a priority rating of DO-A3 for a navigation system and needs to purchase semiconductors for its manufacture, that person must use a DO-A3 priority rating to obtain the needed semiconductors.
( b ) The required elements of a rated order outlined in § 700.12 must be included on each successive order placed to obtain industrial resources needed to fill a customer's rated order. Therefore, the inclusion of the rating will continue from contractor to subcontractor to supplier throughout the entire supply chain.
( c ) A person must use rated orders with suppliers to obtain industrial resources needed to fill an emergency preparedness rated order. That person must require acceptance or rejection, and transmission of that acceptance or rejection by the supplier within the time limit stated in the rated order that is being filled.
[89 FR 58972, July 22, 2024]
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hitor Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ken Martin, CEO and CAO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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.    /s/ Ken Martin Ken Martin, CEO, CAO Dated:  May 15, 2008
No: 13-071 September 4, 2013

CONTACT: David McIntyre, (301)-415-8200 

NRC Issues Annual Report on Abnormal Occurrences for FY2012

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its annual report on abnormal occurrences for 

fiscal year 2012, citing 21 events involving radioactive materials and one event at a commercial nuclear 

power plant.

An accident or event is considered an abnormal occurrence if it involves a major reduction in 

the degree of protection of public health and safety. Abnormal occurrences can include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, moderate exposure to or release of radioactive material licensed by the NRC or a 

state agency; major degradation of safety-related equipment; or major deficiencies in design, 

construction, use of or management controls for facilities or radioactive material at NRC-licensed 

facilities.

For FY 2012, there was one abnormal occurrence at an NRC-licensed nuclear power reactor. 

This event occurred June 7, 2011, at Fort Calhoun Station, with the fire and failure of a safety-related 

electrical breaker, and the subsequent loss of both trains of safety equipment. The public was never in 

danger, and there was no release of radioactivity. The NRC later determined that the event warranted a 

red finding for high safety significance under the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process.

Of the 21 abnormal occurrences involving radioactive materials, one involved exposure of an 

embryo or fetus, a second involved an exposure to a radiographer, and the remaining 19 events 

involved misadministration of radioactive material during diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. 

Thousands of such procedures are conducted in U.S. medical facilities each year. Seven of the 

abnormal occurrences actually occurred in prior fiscal years, but NRC’s investigations were closed 

during FY 2012.

The report details investigations of each incident by the NRC, Agreement States and licensees, 

as well as measures taken to ensure such incidents do not recur.

A section on “other items of interest” discusses eight events that did not meet the criteria to be 

classified as abnormal occurrences but are included in the report because of high public and media 

interest. Five of these events occurred at nuclear power plants, one event involved a medical treatment 

device, one event involved a lost well logging source, and the last event involved a fuel cycle facility.

The report on abnormal occurrences for fiscal year 2012 was initially published in May as 

NUREG-0090, Volume 35. The report was revised to include editorial corrections and reissued in 

August as NUREG–0090, Volume 35, Revision 1. Both are available on the NRC website.