alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 870.202 Basic insurance amount (BIA).

(a)

(1) An employee's Basic insurance amount (BIA) is either:

(i) The employee's annual rate of basic pay, rounded to the next higher thousand, plus $2,000; or

(ii) $10,000; whichever is higher, unless the employee has elected a Living Benefit under subpart K of this part. Effective for pay periods beginning on or after October 30, 1998, there is no maximum BIA. **Note:** If an employee's pay is “capped” by law, the amount of the Basic insurance is based on the capped amount, which is the amount the employee is actually being paid. It is not based on the amount the employee's pay would have been without the pay cap.

(2) The BIA of an individual who is eligible to continue Basic Life insurance coverage as an annuitant or compensationer is the BIA in effect at the time his/her insurance as an employee would stop under § 870.601.

(b) An employee's BIA automatically changes whenever annual pay is increased or decreased by an amount sufficient to raise or lower pay to a different $1,000 bracket, unless the employee has elected a Living Benefit under subpart K of this part.

(c) The amount of an employee's Basic Life insurance coverage is equal to his/her BIA multiplied by the appropriate factor based on the employee's age, as follows:

| Age | Factor |
| --- | --- |
| 35 or under | 2.0 |
| 36 | 1.9 |
| 37 | 1.8 |
| 38 | 1.7 |
| 39 | 1.6 |
| 40 | 1.5 |
| 41 | 1.4 |
| 42 | 1.3 |
| 43 | 1.2 |
| 44 | 1.1 |
| 45 or over | 1.0 |

[62 FR 48731, Sept. 17, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 72461, Dec. 28, 1999; 75 FR 60576, Oct. 1, 2010]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas K. DeSalvo, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 828]

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), entered May 4, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*County Court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see*§ 168-n [3]; *People v Hegazy,*25 AD3d 675 [2006]) and the record does not warrant a downward departure from defendant’s presumptively correct risk classification *(see People v Glover,*28 AD3d 1187 [2006]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Green, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3572 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2011 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

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 ‘‘The Cameras in the 

5 Courtroom Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 28, United 

8 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘§ 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings 

11 ‘‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage 

12 of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3572 IH

1 by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such 

2 coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation 

3 of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before 

4 the Court.’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

6 for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

7 by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### Docket No. 2013

- 0419
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF**

**ENTRAVISION COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION**

Except as indicated below, the following entities are direct/indirect 100% owned subsidiaries of the registrant: 

Arizona Radio, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Aspen FM, Inc., a Colorado corporation 

ChannelFifty Seven, Inc., a California corporation 

Diamond Radio, Inc., a California corporation 

Entravision-Texas Limited Partnership, a Texas limited partnership 

Entravision-Texas G.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Entravision-Texas L.P., Inc., aDelaware corporation 

Entravision Communications Company, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company 

Entravision Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company 

Entravision, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company 

Entravision-El Paso, L.L.C., a Delawarelimited liability company 

Entravision San Diego, Inc., a California corporation 

Latin Communications Group Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Los Cerezos Television Company, aDelaware corporation 

Lotus/Entravision Reps LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

The Community Broadcasting Company of San Diego, Incorporated, a California corporation 

VistaTelevision, Inc., a California corporation 

Z-Spanish Media Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Televisora Alco, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico entity (“Alco”) (40% minority, limited voting interest (neutral investment) owned) 

Tele Nacional, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico entity (99.9% owned by Alco) 

TVNorte, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico entity (98% owned by Alco) 

Comercializadora Frontera Norte,S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico entity (99.88% owned) 

26 de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico entity 

KNVO de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico entity
§ 919.615 How does the OPM notify a person of a suspension or debarment action? ( a ) The suspending or debarring official sends a written notice to the last known street address, facsimile number, or e-mail address of— ( 1 ) You or your identified counsel; or
( 2 ) Your agent for service of process, or any of your partners, officers, directors, owners, or joint venturers.
( b ) The notice is effective if sent to any of these persons.
#### Alfred A. Mitchell, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to renew its motion upon additional papers if so advised. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the CEO and CFO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned in my capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of MagnaData, Inc., certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MagnaData, Inc. at the
dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c). This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to Form 10-QSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to MagnaData and will be maintained by MagnaData and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ David Neal

Date: May 14, 2004
### Part B—Project Grants

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §§201(a), 202(a), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 630, 632, repealed part B relating to allotments, and comprising former sections 300p to 300p–3 of this title, and redesignated former part D as part B relating to project grants.
### **CHAPTER 69—UNION STATION REDEVELOPMENT**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—UNION STATION COMPLEX

Sec.
6901.
Definition.
6902.
Assignment of right, title, and interest in the Union Station complex to the Secretary of Transportation.
6903.
Agreements and contracts.
6904.
Acquisition, maintenance, and use of property.
6905.
Service on board of directors of Union Station Redevelopment Corporation.
6906.
Union Station Fund.
6907.
Use of other appropriated amounts.
6908.
Parking facility.
6909.
Supplying steam or chilled water to Union Station complex.
6910.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—NATIONAL VISITOR FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION

6921.
Establishment, composition, and meetings.
6922.
Duties.
6923.
Compensation and expenses.
6924.
Reports and recommendations.
### Part R—Programs Relating to Autism
#### § 715.3 Declarations returned without action by BIS.

If you submit a declaration and BIS determines that the information contained therein is not required by the CWCR, BIS will return the original declaration to you, without action, accompanied by a letter explaining BIS's decision. In order to protect your confidential business information, BIS will not maintain a copy of any declaration that is returned without action. However, BIS will maintain a copy of the RWA letter.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00438-CR

Paul Davila, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-07-302771, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Paul Davila seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for assault with family violence.

The trial court has certified that: (1) this is a plea bargain case and Davila has no right of appeal, and

(2) Davila waived the right of appeal. The appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 21, 2008

Do Not Publish
#### Payne v. Commonwealth.

February 13, 1948.

Edward P. Hill, Judge.

Clark Pratt for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Attorney General, and W. Owen Keller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Rees

—Reversing.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault and battery, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for twenty days. He seeks a reversal of the-judgment on two grounds: (1) Newly discovered evidence; and (2) errors in the instructions.

It is unnecessary to consider ground (1), since the judgment must be reversed for errors in the instructions. The court gave the following instructions:

> “No. 1. If the Jury believe and find from the evidence in the case that the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt you may fix his pun*601ishment by fine or by imprisonment in the county jail any length of time in your discretion or you may both fine and imprison him in your reasonable judgment.

> “No. 2. If you have any reasonable doubt of defendant having been proven guilty you will find him not guilty.”

Instruction No. 1 failed to define or refer to any crime, and limited the jury to no particular crime, time or place. As said in Napier v. Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 147, 32 S. W. 2d 743, 744: “It needs no elaboration of discussion to sustain the statement that such an instruction is erroneous.”

The instruction on reasonable doubt is criticized, but it is in the customary approved form. Stanley on Instructions, section 806.

Appellant complains because the court failed to instruct on self-defense, but there was no evidence warranting such an instruction.

The motion for an appeal is sustained, the appeal granted, and the judgment reversed with directions to grant appellant a new trial.
### subpart 2—training in underserved communities
#### § 1216.1 Scope.

This part 1216 establishes a consumer product safety standard for infant walkers manufactured or imported on or after December 21, 2010.
No. II-12-051 August 14, 2012

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

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC ISSUES VIOLATION FOR INSPECTION FINDING OF LOW TO 

MODERATE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a violation to the Tennessee Valley 

Authority for an inspection finding at the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant and will increase 

oversight of units two and three. Browns Ferry Unit One is already subject to increased NRC 

oversight due to an inspection finding discovered in 2010. 

The “white” finding for all three units was based on an NRC inspection that found plant 

operators and staff would not have been able to satisfactorily perform newly implemented procedures 

for safe plant shutdown. The NRC identified procedural adherence deficiencies and determined that 

operators and staff were not adequately trained on the new procedures. 

The issue was discussed at a regulatory conference in Atlanta on July 25 where TVA 

provided the NRC staff additional information on their analysis and corrective actions. After 

reviewing all the information, the NRC staff decided that the finding should be white. The NRC 

evaluates nuclear power plants with a color-coded system which classifies findings as green, 

white, yellow or red in increasing order of safety significance. A white finding has low to 

moderate safety significance.

The 2010 inspection finding for Unit One was “red,” meaning it has high safety 

significance. That unit remains under increased NRC oversight due to the red finding. 

TVA has informed the NRC that it is reviewing or revising the procedures, instructing 

operators and establishing a formal process for procedure changes to ensure that operators are 

appropriately trained. NRC inspectors will conduct a follow-up inspection to verify that the 

corrective actions have been effective and address the issue.

The three-unit Browns Ferry plant is located near Athens, Ala., about 32 miles west of 

Huntsville. 

###

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
April 29, 2014 

MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Junge, Chief 

 Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch 

 Division of Construction Inspection & Operational Programs 

 Office of New Reactors 

FROM: Jacqwan Walker /RA/ 

 Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch 

Division of Construction Inspection & Operational Programs

Office of New Reactors

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF FORTHCOMING CLOSED MEETING WITH THE AP-1000 

OWNERS GROUP ON NEW REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSING 

DATE & TIME: Wednesday May 14, 2014 

9:00 – 12:30 p.m. 

LOCATION: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

One White Flint North, T-7A1 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

PURPOSE: The purpose of this meeting is to discuss integrated system validation 

and the simulator operating platform. 

PARTICIPANTS: Participants from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) include members of the Office of New Reactors (NRO) and the 

AP1000 Owners Group on New Reactor Operator Licensing. 

 NRC AP1000 Owners Group

M. Junge, NRO Paul Mothena 

T. Jackson, NRO Mark Verbeck 

Staff, et. al Rick Connelly 

MEETING CONTACT: Rick Pelton, NRO/DCIP/COLB 

(301) 415-1028 

rick.pelton@nrc.gov 
MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Junge, Chief 

 Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch 

 Division of Construction Inspection & Operational Programs 

 Office of New Reactors 

FROM: Jacqwan Walker /RA/ 

 Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch 

Division of Construction Inspection & Operational Programs

Office of New Reactors

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF FORTHCOMING CLOSED MEETING WITH THE AP-1000 

OWNERS GROUP ON NEW REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSING 

DATE & TIME: Wednesday May 14, 2014 

9:00 – 12:30 p.m. 

LOCATION: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

One White Flint North, T-7A1 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

PURPOSE: The purpose of this meeting is to discuss integrated system validation 

and the simulator operating platform. 

PARTICIPANTS: Participants from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) include members of the Office of New Reactors (NRO) and the 

AP1000 Owners Group on New Reactor Operator Licensing. 

NRC AP1000 Owners Group

M. Junge, NRO Paul Mothena 

T. Jackson, NRO Mark Verbeck 

Staff, et. al Rick Connelly 

MEETING CONTACT: Rick Pelton, NRO/DCIP/COLB 

(301) 415-1028 

 rick.pelton@nrc.gov 

Enclosure:

Agenda 

DISTRIBUTION: 

See Next Page 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML14119A143 NRC-001 

OFFICE NRO/DCIP/COLB NRO/DCIP/COLB 

NAME JWalker MJunge 

DATE 4/29/14 4/29/14 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: 

RidsNroOd 

RidsNroDcip 

RidsNroDcipColp 

RidsEDOMailCenter 

RidsOgcMailCenter 

RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter 

AValentin 

MCheok 

TJackson 
ENCLOSURE 

AGENDA FOR THE CLOSED MEETING WITH THE 

AP1000 OWNERS GROUP ON NEW REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSING 

Monday May 14, 2014 

9:00 – 12:30 p.m. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Two White Flint North, Room T-7A01 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Introductions and Opening Remarks All 

Integrated System Validation All 

Simulator Baseline 7 Operating Platform All 

Summary / Conclusion / Action Item Review All
§ 1061.4 Threshold requirements for applications for exemption. ( a ) The Commission will consider an application for preemption on its merits, only if the application demonstrates all of the following: ( 1 ) The State or local requirement has been enacted or issued in final form by an authorized official or instrumentality of the State or local government. For purposes of this section, a State or local requirement may be considered to have been enacted or issued in final form even though it is preempted by a Commission standard or regulation.
( 2 ) The applicant is an official or instrumentality of a State or local government having authority to act for, or on behalf of, that government in applying for an exemption from preemption for the safety requirement referred to in the application.
( 3 ) The State or local requirement is preempted under a Commission statutory preemption provision by a Commission statute, standard, or regulation. A State or local requirement is preempted if the following tests are met: ( i ) There is a Commission statute, standard, or regulation in effect that is applicable to the product covered by the State or local requirement.
( ii ) The Commission statute, standard, or regulation is designated as having a preemptive effect under a statutory preemption provision.
( iii ) The State or local requirement is designed to protect against the same risk of injury or illness as that addressed by the Commission statute, standard, or regulation.
( iv ) The State or local requirement is not identical to the Commission statute, standard, or regulation.
( b ) State and local governments may contact the Commission's Office of the General Counsel to obtain informal advice on whether a State or local requirement meets the threshold requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

          - 12 CFR Parts 613, 614, and 618
          - RIN 3052-AC06

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final rule under parts 613, 614, and 618 on July 21, 2004 (69 FR 43511). This final rule amends regulations governing domestic and international lending, certain intra-Farm Credit System consent requirements concerning similar entity participation transactions, provisions of general financing agreements, and related services. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                         during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulations is November 19, 2004.                    

# DATES:

The regulation amending 12 CFR parts 613, 614, and 618 published on July 21, 2004 (69 FR 43511), is effective November 19, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dale Aultman, Policy Analyst, Office of Policy and Analysis, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4498, TTY (703) 883-4434; or James Morris, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-2020.

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10))

Dated: November 19, 2004.

Jeanette C. Brinkley,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 04-26131 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
### SUBCHAPTER II—ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
### §10504. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10504 was editorially reclassified as section 50104 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §10505. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10505 was editorially reclassified as section 50105 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.