alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3413 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as 

the ‘‘Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3413 EH

1 SECTION 1. PRIVATE ISAAC T. CORTES POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Private 

5 Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Private Isaac T. 

10 Cortes Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 

2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3413 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostCortes Post Office’’. Bronx, New York, as the ‘‘Private Isaac T. al Service located at 1449 West Avenue in
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Triantafyllos Groumoutis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Can/Am
  Autosales, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
  quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
  financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

4. The registrant's other certifying offering officers and
  I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
  we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated
  the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as
  of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
  "Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
  about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
  evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
  based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
  committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
  controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
  summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether
  or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
  role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
  in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
  controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
  subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
  actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 19, 2004

/s/ Triantafyllos Groumoutis
  Triantafyllos Groumoutis 
  President

---
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 241

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the two-year limitation 

on the payment of accrued benefits that are due and unpaid by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs upon the death of a veteran or other 

beneficiary under laws administered by the Secretary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. EVANS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the twoyear limitation on the payment of accrued benefits that 

are due and unpaid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

upon the death of a veteran or other beneficiary under 

laws administered by the Secretary.

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 ‘‘Veterans Beneficiary 

5 Fairness Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 241 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF ACCRUED BENEFITS. 

2 (a) REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON PAYMENT.—Sub3 section (a) of section 5121 of title 38, United States Code, 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘for a period not to exceed two 

5 years’’ in the matter preceding paragraph (1). 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to deaths oc8 curring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 295.30 Types of assistance available.

This subpart describes the types of assistance that may be provided under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 278n(b)(2). Such assistance includes but is not limited to entering into cooperative agreements with United States businesses, especially small businesses.

[59 FR 670, Jan. 6, 1994]
As shown in the above chart, WVDuPontWashingtonWorks P05, which is the only unit 

the coal stoker CO CEMS floor calculations are based on, has significantly lower CO 

CEMS daily averages than other Coal Stoker units in EPA’s database (approximately 

one order of magnitude less than the next lowest ranked unit, PAPennState 31). The 

graph shows that even this unit, the selected top performer, has daily average CO 

emissions over a 30-day snapshot in time above the proposed CO CEMS limit based on 

10-day averages. Only 6 Coal Stokers have provided CEMS data to EPA, which is only 

1.6% of the population of Coal Stoker units and the WVDuPontWashingtonWorks P05 

unit only makes up 0.26% of the population. The December 2011 proposed coal stoker 

CO CEMS limit of 34 ppm is much lower than the proposed coal stoker stack test based 

CO limit of 220 ppm, which is based on 8 units. Therefore, since the DuPont boiler is 

not representative of the population of coal stoker boilers and consideration of only this 

boiler results in a CO CEMS limit being set at a level where reduction of CO emissions 

does not provide a corresponding reduction in HAP emissions, EPA should consider the 

PAPennState 31 boiler in determining the appropriate CO CEMS limit for coal stoker 

boilers. Otherwise, AF&PA is concerned that the CO Coal Stoker limits (both short term 

and CEM based) may not be achievable for some of the existing stoker boilers. 

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

CO (ppm

@ 3% O2)

CO Daily CEMS Averages for Coal Stoker Units

Limit

PAPennState 31

WVDuPontWashingtonWorks

P05

IACargillEddyville 1.001

IACargillEddyville 1.002

IACargillEddyville 1.039

WINewPageBiron B24
No: II-13-36 May 13, 2013

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss 

Annual Assessment of Surry Nuclear Power Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house on May 23 to discuss 

the agency’s assessment of safety performance during 2012 at the Surry nuclear power plant. The plant, 

operated by Dominion, is near Surry, Va., 17 miles northwest of Newport News. 

The meeting is scheduled for 5-7 p.m. in the lobby of the General District Courtroom at the 

Surry Government Center, 45 School St. in Surry. There will be posters explaining the NRC’s role and 

the NRC staff will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the plant last year. 

“The NRC inspects nuclear plants and monitors their performance on an ongoing basis,” said 

NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We issue inspection reports throughout the year and we 

hold these annual meetings near each plant to discuss our oversight and answer any questions local 

residents may have.”

The NRC review concluded that the Surry plant operated in a manner that preserved public 

health and safety and protected the environment. There were no inspection findings or performance 

indicators at the Surry plant last year that would cause the NRC to increase its oversight. As a result of 

that performance, the NRC plans to continue to conduct the very detailed inspections required at those 

plants that are operating well. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II office to plant officials addresses the performance of the 

plant during 2012 and is available on the NRC website.

Current performance information for Surry Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC website.
#### Louis Gross et al., Appellants, v. Namro Holding Corp., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 946.6 Change in operations—transferring responsibility and moving field offices. ( a ) After providing any notification required by § 946.3(b), NWS may change operations at a field office to implement the Strategic Plan, including: ( 1 ) Transferring official responsibility for taking radar observations to a NEXRAD Weather Service Forecast Office (NWSFO) or a NEXRAD Weather Service Office (NWSO) that is being established as a future Weather Forecast Office following commissioning of the NEXRAD at the new office;
( 2 ) Transferring official responsibility for taking observations from a Category 1 radar to a backup radar or radars prior to constructing and/or operating a replacement NEXRAD. Before transferring responsibility, the Responsible Meteorologist shall document that technical coordination with users has been completed and that the transition to the replacement NEXRAD can be completed expeditiously;
( 3 ) Transferring its service responsibility for issuing watches, warnings, forecasts and other products to a NWSFO or NWSO;
( 4 ) Significantly reducing its staffing level by transferring or reassigning personnel to support the service responsibilities transferred under paragraph (a)(3) of this section provided that the field office continues to assign the appropriate number of positions established by the NWS Operations Manual to carry out its observation responsibilities; and
( 5 ) Moving an entire field office to a location within the local commuting and service area of that office.
( b ) A field office may not significantly reduce its staffing level assigned to support any observation responsibility, including those responsibilities transferred under paragraph (a)(2) of this section and those retained under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, until the Secretary has certified that the automation and/or consolidation will not degrade service in accordance with § 946.7.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67458-67459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28313]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 04/04-0330]


Ballast Point Ventures III, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Ballast Point Ventures III, L.P., 401 
East Jackson Street, Suite 2300, Tampa, FL 33602, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing in a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act, Section 107.730, Financings 
which constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Ballast Point Ventures III, L.P. proposes to invest $5 million in 
YPrime Inc., 263 Great Valley Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
and Sec.  107.730(a)(4) of the Regulations because Ballast Point 
Ventures II, LP and Ballast Point Ventures EF II, LP (together ``BPV 
II'') and YPrime expect to receive $30 million and $5 million, 
respectively, from the proposed $52.5 million transaction, including 
$47.5 million from the lead investor and $5 million from the Licensee. 
BPV II and YPrime Inc. are Associates to the Licensee. Thus, this 
transaction constitutes a Conflict of Interest requiring SBA's prior 
written exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on this transaction within

[[Page 67459]]

fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate 
Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2018-28313 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
### SUBCHAPTER I—PROMOTION OF PROFESSIONAL REVIEW ACTIVITIES
EX-10.3






SALE AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT




This Sale Agreement Assignment (“Assignment”) is made as of August 1, 2007 by and between Triple
Net Properties, L.L.C. a Virginia limited liability company (“Assignor”), Apartment REIT Bay Point
Resort, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“Assignee”), and is made with respect to the Sale
Agreement by and between Assignor and Bay Point Resort Corpus Christi, L.P., a Texas limited
partnership (“Seller”) dated June 8, 2007, as amended June 14, 2007 (“PSA”). For good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby
agree as follows:



Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the PSA,
the escrow created pursuant to the PSA, any Deposits (as defined in the PSA) in such escrow or held
by Seller, and all other rights and assets appurtenant to any of the foregoing (“Assets”).



Assignee hereby accepts the Assets and assumes all of Assignor’s obligations under the PSA, whether
arising before or after the date of this Assignment. Assignor acknowledges that it is not released
from any PSA obligations, whether arising before or after the date of this Assignment, as a result
of such assignment.



Upon deliver hereto to Seller, Buyer’s address per PSA Section 12 is hereby unchanged.



In witness whereof, the undersigned have executed this Assignment as of the above date.



	 	 	 
	Assignor:

	 	Triple Net Properties, L.L.C. a Virginia limited

liability company

By: /s/ Richard Hutton
	
 
	 	 
	
 
	 	Richard Hutton

Title: Executive Vice President
	
 
	 	 
	Assignee:

	 	Apartment REIT Bay Point Resort, LLC, a Texas

limited liability company

By: NNN Apartment REIT Holdings, L.P., a Virginia

limited partnership, its sole member and manager

By: NNN Apartment REIT, Inc., a Maryland

corporation, its general partner

By: /s/ Shannon K S Johnson
	
 
	 	 
	
 
	 	Name: Shannon K S Johnson
	
 
	 	 
	
 
	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
	
 
	 	 






\4671219.3
### Part F—Definitions
#### § 291.6 Additional requirements; Federal policies and procedures.

Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and Department of Commerce policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.
### SUBCHAPTER II–A—HOPE FOR PUBLIC HOUSING HOMEOWNERSHIP

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 104–330, title V, §501(c)(1), Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4042, added subchapter heading and struck out former subchapter heading which read as follows: "HOPE FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING HOMEOWNERSHIP".
NRC ISSUES FINAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT ON PROPOSED N.C. URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final technical Safety Evaluation 

Report (SER) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a laser-based uranium enrichment 

facility proposed to be built in Wilmington, N.C.

The reports effectively complete the agency staff’s review of the license application filed 

by General Electric Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE) to construct and operate the 

facility at the site of the General Electric-Hitachi Global Nuclear Fuel-America’s fuel fabrication 

plant. The NRC’s Atomic and Safety Licensing Board must complete its adjudicatory hearing on 

the staff’s review before a license could be issued. That hearing is expected to take place this 

summer.

The staff’s SER evaluated the potential adverse impacts of the facility’s operation on 

worker and public health and safety under normal and accident conditions. The review also 

considered GLE’s programs for the physical protection of special nuclear material (SNM) and 

classified matter; material control and accounting of SNM; and the management organization, 

administrative programs, and financial qualifications of the applicant to ensure safe design and 

operation of the facility. The SER contains the staff’s conclusion that GLE’s descriptions, 

specifications and analyses provide an adequate basis for safety and safeguards of facility 

operations and that operation of the facility would not pose an undue risk to worker and public 

health and safety.

The final EIS on the GLE facility analyzes potential impacts of preconstruction activities 

(such as land clearing and preparation), construction, operation and decommissioning of the 

proposed facility. Preconstruction activities are not considered construction activities as defined 

in NRC regulations. The EIS contains the staff’s conclusion that the project would have small to 

moderate impacts on the local environment, primarily during preconstruction activities.

The Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-2120) is available through the NRC’s ADAMS

online document database (ML12060A007), and the final EIS (NUREG-1938) is available on the 

NRC 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. 12-019 February 29, 2012
###

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.
#### Salisbury v. Commonwealth.

May 7, 1948.

B. M. James for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Attorney General, and William F. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Stanley, Commissioner

Affirming.

The conviction of the appellant, Cola Salisbury, of voluntary manslaughter arises from an automobile collision in which Mrs. Kathryn Henson was killed.

The, appellant was driving a pick-up truck while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. His truck *382zig-zagged across. the highway and came np behind a passenger car at a speed variously estimated at from 40 to 60 miles per.hour, though the best estimate is that given by the man whose car was overtaken as from 45 to 50 miles. The driver started to pass that car, dropped back for a moment, and then darted around it across to the left side of the highway and struck the automobile, in which the deceased was riding, head-on, with terrific force. That car was coming out of a curve and was well over on its right side of the road. Mrs. Henson’s husband was also- killed, as was the owner of the truck driven by the appellant. Other passengers in the automobile were seriously injured. This is a summary of the proof for the Commonwealth.

The defendant denied he had been drinking or was driving recklessly or faster than 30 to 35 miles an hour until he started to pass the car ahead, when he picked up some speed in order to do so. He has some corroboration. His testimony is that he saw the approaching automobile and drew back behind the car in front of him. When he put on his brakes to avoid striking it they caught and jerked his truck to the left and out in front of the approaching car. There is evidence that the brakes on the truck were out of order, but the defendant denied knowing it.

The appellant argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal, or, if not, that he should have been found guilty only of involuntary manslaughter.

The law applicable to the case has been often stated, and needs no repetition. The evidence, for the Commonwealth, which the jury accepted rather than that of the defendant, proved facts and conditions almost exactly like those shown in Dixon v. Commonwealth, 302 Ky. 353, 194 S. W. 2d 655. The only differences are that a fog obscured the vision of the driver in the Dixon case, while the defendant here had a clear view; and in that case four persons were killed instead of three, and the punishment of the defendant was fixed at five years’ imprisonment instead of two years.

For the reasons stated in the Dixon case, this judgment is affirmed.
§ 1112.47 What are the grounds for withdrawal of CPSC acceptance? ( a ) A manufacturer, private labeler, governmental entity, or other interested party has exerted undue influence on such third party conformity assessment body or otherwise interfered with or compromised the integrity of the testing process.
( b ) The third party conformity assessment body failed to comply with an applicable protocol, standard, or requirement under subpart C of this part.
( c ) The third party conformity assessment body failed to comply with any provision in subpart B of this part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2382

TERRY A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; TOGO D. WEST,

JR., Secretary of the Army,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-1109-2)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Anita K. Henry, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing Appellant's employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Williams v. EEOC, No. CA-95-1109-2 (E.D. Va. July 29, 1996). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED