alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1015.18 Information submitted to the Commission; request for treatment as exempt material. ( a ) A person who is submitting information to the Commission, after being notified by the Commission of his/her opportunity to request confidential treatment for information, must accompany the submission with a request that the information be considered exempt from disclosure or indicate that a request will be submitted within 10 working days of the submission. The failure to make a request within the prescribed time limit will be considered an acknowledgment that the submitter does not wish to claim exempt status.
( b ) A person who has previously submitted information to the Commission, that is now the subject of a Freedom of Information request, after being notified by the Commission of his/her opportunity to request confidential treatment for the information, must submit a request that the information be considered exempt from disclosure within 5 working days from receipt of notification. The failure to make a request within the prescribed time limit will be considered an acknowledgment that the submitter does not wish to claim exempt status.
( c ) Each request for exemption from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) as a trade secret or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information must: ( 1 ) Specifically identify the exact portion(s) of the document claimed to be confidential;
( 2 ) State whether the information claimed to be confidential has ever been released in any manner to a person who was not an employee or in a confidential relationship with the company;
( 3 ) State whether the information so specified is commonly known within the industry or is readily ascertainable by outside persons with a minimum of time and effort;
( 4 ) State how release of the information so specified would be likely to cause substantial harm to the company's competitive position; and
( 5 ) State whether the submitter is authorized to make claims of confidentiality on behalf of the person or organization concerned.
( d ) Material received with a request that it be considered exempt shall not be maintained in a public file. If, in complying with a request for the disclosure of records, it is determined that some or all of the material relative to the request has been claimed to be exempt from disclosure, the requester will be supplied with a list of this material and informed that those portions found not to be exempt will be made available as soon as possible.
( e ) No request for exemption from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) should be made by any person who does not intend in good faith to assist the Commission in the defense of any judicial proceeding that might thereafter be brought to compel the disclosure of information which the Commission has determined to be a trade secret or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information.
#### § 971.1001 Assessment procedure.

Subpart B of 15 CFR part 904 governs the procedures for assessing a civil penalty under the Act, and the rights of any person against whom a civil penalty is assessed.
### Part D—National Library of Medicine
#### Baisley Lumber Corporation, Respondent, v. Matthews Development Corp. et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER III—UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
*

Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for

the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. 

 1Seventy-five heroin pellets were passed over the next

thirty hours. 

 2Rodriguez sought to suppress both the pellets and some

post-arrest statements made to custom officials. The district

court granted Rodriguez's motion on the pellets but denied the

motion on the statements. The denial of the motion to suppress

the statements is not before us. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-4768.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Jaime Antonio RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Feb. 14, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida. (No. 93-490CR-FAM), Federico A. Moreno, Judge.

Before EDMONDSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and CUDAHY*

, Senior

Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case involves a traveler who was suspected of smuggling

drugs in his alimentary canal, that is, an internal drug carrier.

The traveler was detained for about ninety minutes by customs

agents as he entered the country. While he was detained, heroin

was discovered as a result of a bowel movement;1 but the district

court ordered that the heroin pellets be suppressed. 2 The

government appealed. We reverse and remand for further

proceedings.

That customs agents had—from the circumstances, including the

traveler's inconsistent statements—reasonable suspicion that the
traveler was a drug smuggler is not contested. The question

presented involves the significance of a clean bowel movement the

traveler had soon after he was detained. The first heroin pellet

was excreted in a later bowel movement. The district court

concluded that the first bowel movement destroyed the previously

existing reasonable suspicion. We disagree.

 Once reasonable suspicion exists that a person entering the

country is an internal drug smuggler, the government may detain the

traveler until enough time has passed to allow the contents of the

suspected smuggler's stomach to be excreted. See United States v.

Henao-Castano, 729 F.2d 1364, 1366 (11th Cir.1984). The

traveler-suspect often has some control over the length of his

detention; for example, he could choose the usually speedier

alternative of an x-ray examination.

 We accept that there may be limits on how long police can

detain a suspected internal carrier (or how many bowel movements

can be required); these limits, however, have not been approached

in this case where the international traveler was held only ninety

minutes and when only two bowel movements were involved. Cf.

United States v. Mosquera-Ramirez, 729 F.2d 1352, 1355 (11th

Cir.1984) (approving twelve hour detention of suspected swallower

who refused x-ray examination); United States v. Onumonu, 967 F.2d

782, 784-85 (2d Cir.1992) (approving six day detention); United

States v. Odofin, 929 F.2d 56, 58 (2d Cir.1991) (approving 24 day

detention of suspected swallower); United States v. Yakubu, 936

F.2d 936, 937 (7th Cir.1991) (approving 20 hour detention).

REVERSED and REMANDED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2546

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require consumer reporting 

agencies to provide any consumer with a free credit report annually 

upon the request of the consumer, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2003

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require consumer 

reporting agencies to provide any consumer with a free 

credit report annually upon the request of the consumer, 

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Free Credit Report 

5 Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 2546 IH 

1 SEC. 2. FREE CREDIT REPORT ANNUALLY UPON REQUEST 

2 OF CONSUMER. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 612 of the Fair Credit 

4 Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681j) is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as 

6 subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and 

7 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol8 lowing new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(c) FREE CREDIT REPORT ANNUALLY UPON RE10 QUEST OF CONSUMER.—Upon the request of any con11 sumer, each consumer reporting agency shall make all dis12 closures pursuant to section 609 without charge to such 

13 consumer at least once each calendar year.’’. 

14 (b) CREDIT SCORES AND PREDICTORS REQUIRED TO

15 BE INCLUDED.—Section 609(a)(1) of the Fair Credit Re16 porting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681g(a)(1)) is amended to read 

17 as follows: 

18 ‘‘(1) All information in the consumer’s file at 

19 the time of the request, which shall include all of the 

20 following information: 

21 ‘‘(A) The consumer’s current credit score 

22 or the consumer’s most recent credit score that 

23 was previously calculated by the credit report24 ing agency for a purpose related to the exten25 sion of credit. 
3

•HR 2546 IH 

1 ‘‘(B) The range of possible credit scores 

2 under the model used. 

3 ‘‘(C) All the key factors that adversely af4 fected the consumer’s credit score in the model 

5 used. 

6 ‘‘(D) The date the credit score was cre7 ated. 

8 ‘‘(E) The name of the person or entity (if 

9 other than the person or entity making the dis10 closure under this subsection) that provided the 

11 credit score or credit file on the basis of which 

12 the credit score was created. 

13 This paragraph shall not be construed so as to com14 pel a consumer reporting agency to develop or dis15 close a score if the agency does not distribute scores 

16 that are used in connection with residential real 

17 property loans, or does not develop scores that assist 

18 credit providers in understanding a consumer’s gen19 eral credit behavior and predicting his or her future 

20 credit behavior.’’. 

21 (c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—

22 Section 612(a)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 

23 U.S.C. 1681j(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘(c), and (d)’’ 

24 and inserting ‘‘(c), (d), and (e)’’.

Æ
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">PR Medical, P.C., a/a/o Tracey Hester, Plaintiff-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered March 30, 2015, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on its claims in the amount of $2,005.25.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered March 30, 2015, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, defendant's motion for summary judgment denied, complaint reinstated, and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment in the principal amount of $2,005.25 granted.</p><p>While the motion court purported to deny plaintiff's motion for reargument, the merits of the motion were addressed and the court, in effect, granted reargument, even though it ultimately adhered to its original determination (<a href="../2012/2012_06754.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Jackson v Leung</i>, 99 AD3d 489</a>, 490 [2012]; <i>Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v King</i>, 304 AD2d 390 [2003]). Thus, the March 30, 2015 order is appealable.</p><p>Turning to the merits, plaintiff established prima facie that its no-fault claims in the amount of $2,005.25 were overdue, since they were not "denied or paid" within the prescribed 30-day period (<i>see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins, Co., </i>25 NY3d 498, 507 [2015]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue as to whether it had timely denied the claims (<a href="../2011/2011_07821.htm" target="_blank"><i>see NYU-Hosp. for Joint Diseases v American Intl. Group, Inc.</i>, 89 AD3d 702</a>, 703 [2011]). Contrary to Civil Court's determination, defendant's letter stating, in essence, that payment was delayed pending independent medical examinations (IMEs) of plaintiff's assignor did not serve to toll the 30-day statutory period (<i>id.</i>)<i>. </i>Nor has defendant otherwise raised a triable issue as to whether the 30-day period was tolled by verification requests that preceded its receipt of the underlying claims (<a href="../2013/2013_02390.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 106 AD3d 157</a>, 164 [2013]). </p><p>Inasmuch as the claims at issue were not timely denied, defendant is precluded from <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>asserting its defense of lack of medical necessity (<i>see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Zablozki</i>, 257 AD2d 506 [1999], <i>lv denied</i> 93 NY2d 809 [1999]).</p><br>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.<br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: March 21, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
NRC’S ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANT OPERATIONS AND 

FIRE PROTECTION TO MEET JULY 28 IN ATLANTA, GA.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS) Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection will hold a public meeting on 

Thursday, July 28, in Atlanta, Ga., and meet with Region II and its stakeholders to discuss the 

construction inspection program, the reactor oversight program, and other items of mutual 

interest.

The meeting will be held in Room M301 of the Atlanta Marriott at 265 Peachtree Center. 

Thursday’s sessions will run from 8:30 a.m. through 5 p.m.; portions of the meeting may be 

closed to discuss proprietary information, as well as organizational and personnel matters.

The ACRS advises the Commission, independently from the NRC staff, on safety issues 

related to the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants as well as those issues in the areas 

of health physics and radiation protection. The ACRS subcommittee will gather information, 

analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions as appropriate for 

deliberation by the full ACRS.

A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s website. Anyone with questions or those 

wishing to make public statements during the meeting should contact Ilka Berrios at 

301-415-3179. 

###

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 website.

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. 11-134 July 20, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


               *Certain portions of this exhibit have been omitted
                pursuant to a request for confidential treatment
                  which has been filed separately with the SEC.

                               (EOTT ENERGY LOGO)
                          OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


June 20, 2003

Mr. James B. Urban, Vice-President
Koch Supply & Trading, L.P.
4111 E. 37th Street North
Wichita, Kansas 67220

Attention:  Mr. James B. Urban
            Vice President

Re:   Crude Oil Supply and Terminalling Agreement ("Agreement") dated
December 1, 1998 by and between EOTT Energy Operating Limited Partnership
("EOTT") and Koch Petroleum Group, L.P., now Koch Supply & Trading, L.P.
("KST"), EOTT Contract No. 37562

Gentlemen:

Section 2.1(d) of the referenced Agreement provides for a yearly adjustment of
the Supply Volumes [*]

If this letter accurately sets forth KST's understanding of our agreement,
please evidence your agreement by signing on behalf of KST in the space provided
on both counterparts of this letter, then return one fully executed counterpart
to EOTT by fax (713-993-5813) for its files as soon as possible. Please contact
me at (713) 993-5332 if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Robert Sanford   mms

Robert Sanford
General Manager

Agreed to and accepted this 24 day of June, 2003.

     By:  Koch Supply & Trading, L.P.

          By: /s/ James B. Urban
             ------------------------------
          Name:   James B. Urban
               ----------------------------
          Title:  V.P.
                ---------------------------


                     PO BOX 4666, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4666
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3501 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3501

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott 
                         Hartge Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPC NICHOLAS SCOTT HARTGE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``SPC 
Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 28, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 734.12 Effect on foreign laws and regulations.

Any person who complies with any of the license or other requirements of the EAR is not relieved of the responsibility of complying with applicable foreign laws and regulations. Conversely, any person who complies with the license or other requirements of a foreign law or regulation is not relieved of the responsibility of complying with U.S. laws and regulations, including the EAR.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Quarterly  Report of Bravo Resources Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Daniel
Savino,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/ DANIEL SAVINO
----------------------------------------
Daniel Savino
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
No. IV-12-046

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

October 26, 2012 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT OFFICIALS TO 

DISCUSS FORT CALHOUN NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with officials from the Omaha Public 

Power District on Nov. 15 to discuss the status of the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant’s performance 

improvement activities. OPPD operates the plant, which is located 19 miles north of Omaha.

The meeting will be held from 6-9 p.m. CDT at Dana College’s Gardner-Hawks Center, 

2848 College Dr., in Blair, Neb. 

NRC and OPPD officials will discuss the status of the plant’s performance improvement 

activities, including their actions to address the items outlined in the Confirmatory Action Letter 

sent on June 11. The second part of the meeting will be a question and answer session between

the NRC and the public on topics related to Fort Calhoun and the NRC’s oversight.

Fort Calhoun is shut down and remains in a safe mode following flooding along the 

Missouri River in 2011.

This meeting is one of a series the NRC is holding to keep the public informed about 

OPPD’s effort to address performance issues. 

###

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 IV

 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

 Arlington, TX 76011-4511

Telephone: (817) 860-8100

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
Exhibit
32.3




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Anthony J. Branca, Chief Financial Officer of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of
the Registrant, in connection with the Quarterly Report of ICON Income Fund Ten,
LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Quarterly Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that: 
 1.
              The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
 
 2.
              The
      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the LLC.
 
 
 Date: August
12, 2010


/s/Anthony J.
Branca__


Anthony
J. Branca


Chief
Financial Officer


ICON
Capital Corp.


Manager
of ICON Income Fund Ten, LLC
§ 995.13 Transfer of certification. A CED or CEVAD may not transfer its certification to another entity. If it is transferred the existing certification will be terminated. ( a ) If prior to certification it is known that another entity will be assisting the entity applying for certification in the production or redistribution of the data, that other entity must be documented in the application process. Listed entities will be considered as falling under the umbrella of the parent company's certification. The name of the entity and its duties should be included as part of the application.
( b ) If, subsequent to certification, a CED or CEVAD wishes to add another entity to assist it, a request in writing with the name of the entity and its duties shall be provided to the Office of Coast Survey, NOAA for acceptance. The Office of Coast Survey, NOAA will provide written notification of acceptance to the CED or CEVAD within 30 days of receipt of the request.