alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §10121. State and affected Indian tribe participation in development of proposed repositories for defense waste

#### (a) Notification to States and affected Indian tribes

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 10107 of this title, upon any decision by the Secretary or the President to develop a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel resulting exclusively from atomic energy defense activities, research and development activities of the Secretary, or both, and before proceeding with any site-specific investigations with respect to such repository, the Secretary shall notify the Governor and legislature of the State in which such repository is proposed to be located, or the governing body of the affected Indian tribe on whose reservation such repository is proposed to be located, as the case may be, of such decision.

#### (b) Participation of States and affected Indian tribes

Following the receipt of any notification under subsection (a), the State or Indian tribe involved shall be entitled, with respect to the proposed repository involved, to rights of participation and consultation identical to those provided in sections 10135 through 10138 of this title, except that any financial assistance authorized to be provided to such State or affected Indian tribe under section 10136(c) or 10138(b) of this title shall be made from amounts appropriated to the Secretary for purposes of carrying out this section.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title I, §101, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2206.)
NO. 73,429

°5- 13-l<6Zi*.'CXL

FILED IN

COURT OF APPEALS

JUN 2 11999

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPP^ALS

OF TEXAS

EX PARTE ANTHONY CARL TURNER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

The opinion was delivered per curiam.

OPINION

This is a post-conviction application for a writ ofhabeas corpus forwarded to this

Court pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted ofthe offense of

burglary of a vehicle, and punishment was assessed at ninety-nine years imprisonment.

This conviction was affirmed. Turner v. State. No. 05-93-01826-CR (Tex. App.—

Dallas, delivered June 5,1996, no pet.).

Applicant contends that he was denied an opportunity to file a petitionfor
discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not timely notify him that his

conviction had been affirmed. The trial court could not determine that Applicant was

aware that his conviction had been affirmed in time to file a petitionfor discretionary

review and recommended that reliefbe granted. We agree with the trial court's

recommendation.

Habeas corpus reliefis granted, and Applicant is granted leave to file an out-oftime petition for discretionary review from his conviction in cause number F93-60164-

HL from the Criminal District Court Number 5ofDallas County. Applicant is ordered

returned to the point at which he can file ameaningful petition for discretionary review.

For purposes ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure, all time limits shall be

calculated as ifthe Court ofAppeals' decision had been rendered on the day the mandate

ofthis Court issues. We hold that should Applicant desire to seek discretionary review,

he must take affirmative steps to see that his petition is filed in the Court ofAppeals

within thirty days ofthe date the mandate ofthis Court has issued.

DELIVERED: June 16, 1999

DO NOT PUBLISH
Court of Criminal appeals

Pox 12308

Capitol Station

&u£Stm,tea£f 787XX

&

>>~.

"CO

^«5

*

.%,<•——srrr

ya ' A 0.1 POSTAGE l[i<<' : -„,. \- ;V*| • d j ; ;

/ *: -"! i 0 2 6 2,

LISA ROMBOK

CLERK 5TH COURT OF APPEALS

COURTHOUSE 60 0 COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR

DALLAS TX 7 52 02

73,429

M75282 U„Ui,l«iMUmiilil««»H
#### Julius Normand and others, appellants, v. The Board of County Commissioners of Otoe County, and O. P. Mason, appellees.

An Appeal to the Supreme Court 'will only lie upon a final order or decree.

Appeal from Otoe county.

*8., H. Calhoun,*for appellant.

*262*Mason <& Whedon,*for appellees.

Maxwell, J.

The journal entry of the judgment in this ease is as follows: “The said several demurrers were argued by counsel and submitted to the court, and the court being fully advised in the premises, it was considered by the court that the said demurrers and each of them be sustained, to which ruling of the court, in sustaining each of said demurrers, the plaintiffs excepted. And -thereupon said cause came on further to be heard upon the motion of the said defendants to dissolve the injunction heretofore allowed in said cause; and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is considered and adjudged that said injunction be and the same is dissolved, to which ruling of the court the said plaintiffs except : and thereupon the said plaintiffs having elected to stand upon their petition and not asking or desiring to amend the same, the defendants moved the court for judgment on the demurrers aforesaid, and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is considered adjudged and decreed that the said defendants have and-recover of and from the said plaintiffs their costs, taxed herein at three dollars and twenty cents, and that execution issue therefor: to all of which the plaintiffs then and there excepted,” etc.

This is a mere judgment for costs, and is not a final decree. An appeal to this court will only lie upon a final order or decree. The cause must therefore be remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
(May 31, 1949.)

#### Nathan Barrett, Appellant, v. Bertram Boardman, as Executor of Clarebelle B. Shaver, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 789.]
§ 960.17 Investigations and enforcement. ( a ) The Secretary may investigate, provide penalties for noncompliance, and prevent future noncompliance, by using the authorities specified at 51 U.S.C. 60123(a).
( b ) When the Secretary undertakes administrative enforcement proceedings as authorized by 51 U.S.C. 60123(a)(3) and (4), the parties will follow the procedures provided at 15 CFR part 904.
#### §§ 1145.9-1145.15 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69397-69398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Electrical Contractors Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 8, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Electrical 
Contractors Association (``NECA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name the principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: National 
Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, MD. The nature and scope 
of NECA's standards development activities are: NECA, in partnership 
with other industry organizations, has developed

[[Page 69398]]

the National Electric Installation Standards<SUP>TM</SUP> for 
electrical construction. The standards go beyond the basic safety 
requirements of the National Electrical Code to clearly define what is 
meant by installing products and systems in a ``neat and workmanlike'' 
manner. All NEIS are submitted for approval by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26209 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
##### 



RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD CERTIFICATE June 12, 2003 Exhibit 10.63 Richard A. Young
219 Winchester Beach Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401 USA Dear Richard: Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
Amended & Restated 1997 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan), you have been
granted a Restricted Stock Award (the Award) for the number of shares (each
an Award Share, and collectively, the Award Shares) of the Class A common
stock, par value $0.01 per share (the Common Stock) of TeleCommunication
Systems, Inc. (the Company) as outlined below. This Certificate constitutes
part of and is subject to the terms and provisions of the attached Restricted
Stock Grant Agreement (the Agreement) which is incorporated herein by
reference. Granted To: Richard A. Young     
(the Employee)
Grant Date: June 12, 2003
Award Shares Granted: 104,250
Vesting Schedule: 3-year Vesting 34,750 on 06/12/2004
34,750 on 06/12/2005
34,750 on 06/12/2006 By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Award granted on
the Grant Date shown above, which has been issued to me under the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and the Plan. I understand that I will forfeit all
unvested Award Shares at the close of business on my last day of employment at
TCS. I further acknowledge receipt of the Plan Prospectus and the latest annual
report or other SEC filing, and agree to be bound by all of the terms and
conditions of the Award, as evidenced in the Agreement, and the Plan. Signature: /s/ Richard A. Young
    
    Date: ________________Richard A. Young
 Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above, please
make the appropriate corrections on this form.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7865

CLEVELAND LEWIS WILLIAMS, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

DARNELL MCCALL, Chief of Police Anderson City

Detention Center; BOBBY GUNNER, Correction

Officer; ANGELA WHITE, Nurse; ALLEN MCALISTER,

a/k/a Gofer,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CA-01-4275-8-12BI)

Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland Lewis Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick

Lindemann, Michael Brian Wren, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cleveland Lewis Williams, Jr., appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Williams v. McCall, No. CA-01-4275-8-12BI (D.S.C.

Oct. 27, 2003). 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
EX-10.3



 





Exhibit 10.3




Fourth Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement between Osteotech, Inc. and

Community Blood Center d/b/a Community Tissue Services




     This Fourth Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into as of the
1st day of June, 2007 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between Community Blood
Center, an Ohio not-for-profit corporation also doing business as Community Tissue Services
(“CTS”), and Osteotech, Inc. (“OTI”), a Delaware corporation.



RECITALS



1. OTI and CTS entered into a Tissue Recovery Agreement (“Agreement”) dated as of March 1, 2006, as
amended by the First Amendment, dated February 14, 2007, and the Second and Third Amendments to
Tissue Recovery Agreement, both dated May 14, 2007 (as amended, the “Agreement”).



2. OTI and CTS now desire to amend the Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, OTI and CTS hereby
agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:





	 	1.	 	Exhibit C, Tissue Reimbursement Fee Schedule, is hereby amended to revise the
fee for each unit of donor Bone Tissue ****** provided by CTS to OTI as
follows.





	 	 	 	 	 
	Effective Date	 	Fee
	7/1/2007	 	 	$******	 
	3/1/2008	 	 	$******	 
	3/1/2009	 	 	$******	 
	3/1/2010	 	 	$******	 






     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands as of the Amendment Effective
Date.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Osteotech, Inc.	 	 	 	Community Blood Center

d/b/a Community Tissue Services	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 /s/ Julia M. Belden	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	 Sam Owusu-Akyaw	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Julia M. Belden	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 BidGive International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Rebecca Richardson-BlanchardRebecca Richardson-Blanchard
Interim Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 16, 2007
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gabriel Hoyle, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 527]

Appeal by the defen*865dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered August 4, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in its instructions during jury selection on witness credibility, identification, and acting in concert. However, the defendant did not object to these instructions, and thus his contentions regarding them are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). Further, the instructions at issue did not implicate the “mode of proceedings prescribed by law” *(People v Patterson,*39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976], *affd*432 US 197 [1977]) that would excuse the need for preservation *(see People v Harper,*32 AD3d 16 [2006], overruling *People v Mollica,*267 AD2d 479 [1999]). In any event, the instructions during voir dire were not improper *(see People v Harper, supra; People v Andrews,*30 AD 3d 434 [2006]; *see also People v Morris,*153 AD2d 984 [1989]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 996.21 Performance of compliance testing. ( a ) NOAA and the applicant shall submit the applicant's hydrographic product to the testing body for performance of the compliance tests. That body shall determine compliance or non-compliance of the hydrographic product with the NOAA-adopted standard, and shall provide to NOAA written documentation stating the results of the compliance tests according to its usual practices.
( b ) Alternatively, NOAA may choose, at its option, to perform, have performed by a NOAA-designated entity, or waive the compliance tests for a hydrographic product. This alternative may be used, for example, when there is no qualified entity to perform the compliance tests, where the compliance tests are simple, or when self-certification of compliance would be appropriate.
( c ) Items failing the compliance tests may be changed by the applicant and retested. Items passing the compliance test upon retest shall be deemed compliant as if they had passed said tests initially.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-14-0127:  Final Rule: Petition for Rulemaking Process, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 (RIN 3150-A130)

Accession Number: ML13256A024

Date Released: Thursday, April 21, 2022

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML14259A506 - SECY-14-0127:  Final Rule: Petition for Rulemaking, 10 CFR 2.802 (RIN 3150-AI30) (7 page(s), 11/14/2014)
    - ML14259A470 - SECY-14-0127:  Final Rule-Petition for Rulemaking, 10 CFR 2.802 (RIN 3150-AI30) (55 page(s), 12/2/2014)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### § 4a.6 General.

National security information over which the Department exercises final classification jurisdiction shall be declassified or downgraded as soon as national security considerations permit. If information is declassified, it may continue to be exempt from public disclosure by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or other applicable law.
### §12836. Labor

#### (a) In general

Any contract for the construction of affordable housing with 12 or more units assisted with funds made available under this part shall contain a provision requiring that not less than the wages prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40, shall be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed in the development of affordable housing involved, and participating jurisdictions shall require certification as to compliance with the provisions of this section prior to making any payment under such contract.

#### (b) Waiver

Subsection (a) shall not apply if the individual receives no compensation or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee to perform the services for which the individual volunteered and such persons are not otherwise employed at any time in the construction work.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §286, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4126.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40" substituted for "the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a—276a–5)" on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, the first section of which enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.
§ 1212.20 Stockpiling. ( a ) *Definition.* “Stockpiling” means to manufacture or import a product that is subject to a consumer product safety rule between the date of issuance of the rule and its effective date at a rate which is significantly greater than the rate at which such product was produced or imported during a base period.
( b ) *Base period.* For purposes of this rule, “base period” means the 1-year period ending December 21, 1999.
( c ) *Prohibited act.* Manufacturers and importers of multi-purpose lighters shall not manufacture or import such lighters that do not comply with the requirements of this part between December 22, 1999 and December 22, 2000, at a rate that is greater than the rate of production or importation during the base period plus 20 per cent of that rate.
( d ) *Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.* All firms and persons who make or import multi-purpose lighters, after the date of publication of this rule, that do not meet the requirements of this standard, shall supply the Commission's Office of Compliance with: ( 1 ) Supporting information to establish the number of multi-purpose lighters made or imported during the base period. This information shall be submitted by January 21, 2000.
( 2 ) Supporting information to establish the number of lighters made or imported during the year following publication of the final rule. This information shall be submitted within 10 days of the end of each calendar month, for lighters shipped within that month.
( 3 ) Supporting information shall be sufficient to identify the manufacturer or importer, the party to which the lighters were sold, the destination of the lighters, and shall include copies of relevant invoices and importation documents.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3478 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend bond authority 

for those empowerment and enterprise zones with unused bond limitation 

at the end of 2011. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2011 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

bond authority for those empowerment and enterprise 

zones with unused bond limitation at the end of 2011. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF BOND AUTHORITY FOR EM4 POWERMENT AND ENTERPRISE ZONES WITH 

5 UNUSED BOND LIMITATION. 

6 (a) EMPOWERMENT ZONES WITH UNUSED BOND

7 LIMITATION.—Section 1394 of the Internal Revenue Code 

8 of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 

9 new subsection: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3478 IH

1 ‘‘(g) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO TERMINATION OF

2 EMPOWERMENT ZONE.—Notwithstanding section 

3 1391(d)(1)(A), in the case of any empowerment zone with 

4 respect to which there is unused limitation under sub5 section (c)(1)(A) or (f)(2)(B) on December 31, 2011, this 

6 section shall be effective and apply to any bond issued be7 fore January 1, 2013.’’. 

8 (b) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ENTERPRISE ZONE.— 

9 Subsection (b) of section 1400A of such Code is amended 

10 by inserting before the period the following: ‘‘, except as 

11 provided by section 1394(g)’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsection (a) shall apply to bonds issued on or after De14 cember 31, 2011. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO ANALYTICAL TOOLS

1) LCC Spreadsheet :

The new version fixed the double counting of discounting of existing GWH and CAC equipment that has remaining lifetime. The issue was corrected by linking cells AB42, AB43 and AB44 in "NWGF Switching" worksheet to the cells AD10, AD11 and AD8 respectively in the "Prod Price" worksheet.

2) NIA Spreadsheet :

Updated the LCC outputs to reflect the LCC spreadsheet change described above. In addition, corrected the formula that calculates the bas e case shipments used in the switching calculations in the NWGF worksheet (column IB). In the previously published spreadsheet, it was linked to column CK (Replacement Units), whereas in the updated spreadsheet it is linked to column CL (Replacement &

Swi tching Units) instead.

3) GRIM Spreadsheet :

Shipment inputs were u pdated to be consistent with the revised values in the NIA.