alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

§ 200.112 Duties of recipient; notice to participants. ( a ) *Duties of recipient.* A member of the Commission or decisional employee who receives, or who make or knowingly causes to be made, a communication prohibited by this section, or who receives or makes a communication which he or she concludes should, in fairness, be brought to the attention of all participants to the proceeding, shall transmit to the Commission's Secretary, who shall place on the public record of the proceeding: ( 1 ) All such written communications; and
( 2 ) Memoranda stating the substance of all such oral communications; and
( 3 ) All written responses, and memoranda stating the substance of all oral responses, to the materials described in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section.
( b ) *Notice to participants.* The Secretary shall send copies of the communication to all participants to the proceeding with respect to which it was made, and shall notify the communicator of the provisions of this code prohibiting ex parte communications. If the communications are from persons other than participants to the proceedings or their agents, and the Secretary determines that it would be too burdensome to send copies of the communications to all participants because: ( 1 ) The communications are so voluminous, or
( 2 ) the communications are of such borderline relevance to the issues of the proceedings, or
( 3 ) the participants to the proceeding are so numerous, the Secretary may, instead, notify the participants that the communications have been received, placed in the file, and are available for examination.
( c ) *Post decisional communications.* Any Commission member or decisional employee who receives a communication which would be prohibited by this Code, but for the fact that it was received subsequent to the date when the prohibitions imposed hereby have ceased to apply, shall comply with the provisions of § 200.112(a) with respect to such communication in the event that he or she is to act in a decisional capacity in the same proceeding pursuant to remand where he or she concludes, in fairness, that such communication should be brought to the attention of all participants to the proceeding.
[42 FR 14691 Mar. 16, 1977]
EXHIBIT 32.1


Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer


of CNA Financial Corporation


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:


• the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


• the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:February 11, 2025By/s/ Douglas M. WormanDouglas M. WormanPresident and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0352 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-063-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 24 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to ensure the No. 1 engine forward firewall center 

fire extinguisher discharge tube would allow for complete coverage of an extinguishing agent in 

the No. 1 engine compartment area, ensure that a fire would be extinguished and prevent the loss 

of helicopter control. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $0

Labor per Helicopter

(2 work-hour x $85/workhour for the modification)

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

$170

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $255

Total US Fleet Cost $6,120

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Michael Schwetz
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Hugo Zietz, Sr., Deceased. Willie Zietz, as Ancillary Administrator with the Will Annexed of Hugo Zietz, Sr., Deceased, Respondent; Madeleine Zietz-Halmos, Appellant. In the Matter of the Estate of Hedwig Zietz, Deceased. Willie Zietz, as Administrator of the Estate of Hedwig Zietz, Deceased, Respondent; Madeleine Zietz-Halmos, Appellant. In the Matter of the Estate of Hugo Zietz, Jr., Deceased. Willie Zietz, as Administrator of the Estate of Hugo Zietz, Jr., Deceased, Respondent; Madeleine Zietz-Halmos, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Breitel, Botein and Rabin, JJ. [207 Misc. 22.]
March 28, 2016 

The Honorable Tom Wolf 

Governor of the Commonwealth 

 of Pennsylvania 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Dear Governor Wolf: 

On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter 

requesting your appointment of a State Liaison Officer (SLO) to act as the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania’s primary liaison to the NRC. A copy of this letter is enclosed. To date we have 

not received an appointment letter from your office; however, the NRC has continued to work 

with the SLO appointed by a former governor: Mr. David J. Allard, CHP, Director of the Bureau 

of Radiation Protection in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. To 

ensure continued clear communication between the NRC and the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, I would appreciate receiving your written affirmation of Mr. Allard or another 

individual as your selected appointee as SLO for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this correspondence or wish to obtain 

additional information about the SLO program, please contact Mr. Daniel Collins, Director, 

Division of Material Safety, State, Tribal, and Rulemaking Programs, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, at (301) 415-3340 or by e-mail at Daniel.Collins@nrc.gov. 

I thank you in advance for your assistance. The Commission looks forward to the 

continued participation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the NRC’s SLO program. 

 Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns 

 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

 

cc: David J. Allard, CHP, 

 Pennsylvania Department of 

 Environmental Protection
#### City of Buffalo, Respondent, v. Plainfield Hotel Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kim-ball and Piper, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 1085.]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50641

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, also known as

Antonio Hernandez, also known as Juan

Antonio Garcia, also known as Pedro

Hernandez-Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50682

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL SANCHEZ-CONTRERAS, also known

as Daniel Sanchez,

Defendant- Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50692

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
No. 00-50641

c/w Nos. 00-50682 & 00-50692 &

00-50825 & 00-50826

- 2 -

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

CARLOS REYNA-SANTANA, also known as

Mario Salinas-Cardenas, also known

as Felix Rivas,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50825

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN GABRIEL SEGOVIA-GALAN, also known

as Roger Gallegos,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50826

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE HOMERO RUELES-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 00-50641

c/w Nos. 00-50682 & 00-50692 &

00-50825 & 00-50826

- 3 -

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Antonio Garcia-Hernandez, Daniel Sanchez-Contreras, Carlos

Reyna-Santana, Juan Gabriel Segovia-Galan, and Jose Homero

Rueles-Hernandez (collectively the Defendants) appeal their

sentences following their guilty plea convictions for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The

Defendants argue that their sentences should not have exceeded

the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The

Defendants acknowledge that their argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but they

seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,

523 U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*CHARLES HOLLISTER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Third District

No. 75-167

Opinion filed June 11, 1976.

Rehearing denied July 21, 1976.

Mark Burkhalter and Robert Agostinelli, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Martin Rudman, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (William R. Ford, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE BARRY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant was convicted by a jury on a felony indictment charging armed violence under the Criminal Code of 1961 (111. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 33A — 2), and was sentenced to a term of not less than one nor more than two years in the penitentiary.

On appeal, defendant argues that because the elements of the felony charge of armed violence are exactly the same as the elements of the misdemeanor charge of aggravated assault (111. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 38, par. 12 — 2(a)(1)), it follows (1) that,the indictment for armed violence states no offense since the legislature could not have intended to make conduct described as a misdemeanor also a felony, or alternatively, (2) if the legislature did so intend, then its statutory scheme is constitutionally infirm for denial of equal protection of the laws.

 If this were a case of first impression, some of us might be persuaded by defendant’s alternative argument because of the rationale in the dissenting opinion in *People v. McCollough,*57 Ill. 2d 440, 446, 313 N.E.2d 462, 465 (1974), and by the fact that subsequent to *McCullough,*the legislature amended section 9 — 3 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat., *515ch. 38) to redefine reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter so that different elements are involved in each offense. In *People v. Graham,*25 Ill. App. 3d 853, 323 N.E.2d 441 (3d Dist. 1975), however, it was noted that armed violence and aggravated assault do involve exactly the same elements, and that no constitutional infirmity derives from that incident. See also *People v. Williams,*15 Ill. App. 3d 294, 304 N.E.2d 150 (3d Dist. 1973).

It is also argued by defendant that if it be legaUy permissible that the same elements can be defined as constituting the felony of armed violence and also the misdemeanor of aggravated assault, with disparate penalties, then the court erred in failing to supply a verdict form for the misdemeanor so that the jury might have found him guilty of only the lesser included offense.

 Since both offenses involve the same elements, and an acquittal on either one would legally require an acquittal on the other, the court properly refused to supply a verdict form for the misdemeanor. *People v. Pearson,*16 Ill. App. 3d 543, 306 N.E.2d 539 (1st Dist. 1973).

No error being shown, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

ALLOY, P. J., and STENGEL, J., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

#### § 1.30 Loans by futures commission merchants; treatment of proceeds.

Nothing in the regulations in this chapter shall prevent a futures commission merchant from lending its own funds to customers on securities and property pledged by such customers, or from repledging or selling such securities and property pursuant to specific written agreement with such customers. The proceeds of such loans used to purchase, margin, guarantee, or secure the trades, contracts, or commodity options of customers shall be treated and dealt with by a futures commission merchant as belonging to such customers, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act and these regulations. A futures commission merchant may not loan funds on an unsecured basis to finance customers' trading, nor may a futures commission merchant loan funds to customers secured by the customer accounts of such customers.

[78 FR 68637, Nov. 14, 2013]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

FULL WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Approval

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to close the following meeting:

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

2:00 p.m. Briefing on NRC International Activities (Closed - Ex. 1 and 9) 

The Commission voted 3 to 0 on August 4, 2016, to close this briefing

on International Activities which is reasonably expected to involve classified

information and which premature disclosure would be likely to significantly 

frustrate implementation of a proposed Commission action.

Attendance

- Commissioners and members of their staffs

- Executive Director for Operations and members of his staff

- Director, Office of International Programs and members of his staff

- Representatives of Commission Staff Offices

Contact Person for More Information

Denise McGovern, Office of the Secretary (301-415-0681)

/RA/

Denise McGovern

Office of the Secretary

08/09/2016
§ 16.07 Delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of Data and to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight. ( a ) The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the authority set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to the Director of the Division of Data, with the concurrence of the Director of the Division of Market Oversight, or such other employee or employees as the Directors each may designate. The Commission hereby delegates, until the Commission orders otherwise, the authority set forth in paragraph (d) of this section to the Director of the Division of Data, to be exercised by such Director or by such other employee or employees of such Director as may be designated by the Director. The Directors may submit to the Commission for its consideration any matter which has been delegated in this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this paragraph.
( b ) Pursuant to §§ 16.00(b) and 16.01(d), as applicable, the authority to determine whether reporting markets must submit data in hard copy, and the time that such data may be submitted where the Director determines that a reporting market is unable to meet the requirements set forth in the regulations.
( c ) Pursuant to §§ 16.00(b)(1), 16.01(d)(1), and 16.06, the authority to approve the format, coding structure and electronic data transmission procedures used by reporting markets.
( d ) Pursuant to § 16.02, the authority to determine the specific content of any daily trade and supporting data report, request that such reports be accompanied by data that identifies or facilitates the identification of each trader for each transaction or order included in a submitted trade and supporting data report, and establish the time for the submission of and the manner and format of such reports.
[82 FR 28767, June 26, 2017, as amended at 89 FR 71809, Sept. 4, 2024]
#### John C. Thomas, Appellant, v. Francis G. Ward, as Commissioner, etc., and Others, Respondents.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 03, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 03, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0112. ALL AMERICAN QUALITY FOODS, INC., d/b/a FOOD DEPOT v. THERA

SMITH.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV2041
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70119-70120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


White Tank Mountains Watershed, Arizona

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to deauthorize Federal funding.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 
Pub. L. 83-566, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Guidelines (7 CFR part 622), the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
gives notice of the intent to deauthorize Federal funding for the White 
Tank Mountains Watershed, Maricopa County, Arizona.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Somerville, State 
Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 230 North 
First Avenue, Suite 509, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, telephone: 602-280-
8810.

[[Page 70120]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A determination has been made by Michael 
Somerville that the proposed works of improvement for the White Tank 
Mountains Watershed project will not be installed. The sponsoring local 
organizations have concurred in this determination and agree that 
Federal funding should be deauthorized for the project. Information 
regarding this determination may be obtained from Michael Somerville, 
State Conservationist, at the above address and telephone number.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposed 
deauthorization will be taken until 60 days after the date of this 
publication in the Federal Register.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 10.904, 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention. Office of Management and 
Budget Circular A-95 regarding State and local clearinghouse review 
of Federal and federally assisted programs and projects is 
applicable.)

    Dated: November 19, 2004.
Michael Somerville,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 04-26561 Filed 12-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
### §12901. Purpose

The purpose of this chapter 1 is to provide States and localities with the resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and families of such persons.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title VIII, §852, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4375; Pub. L. 102–550, title VI, §606(j)(1), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3810.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", and was translated as reading "this subtitle", meaning subtitle D (§§851–863) of title VIII of Pub. L. 101–625, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–550 inserted before period at end "and families of such persons".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 101–625, title VIII, §851, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4375, provided that: "This subtitle [subtitle D (§§851–863) of title VIII of Pub. L. 101–625, enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'AIDS Housing Opportunity Act'."

#### Regulations

Pub. L. 102–550, title VI, §606(k), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3811, provided that:

"(1) Interim regulations.—Not later than the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 28, 1992], the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall submit to the Congress a copy of proposed interim regulations implementing subtitle D of title VIII of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act [42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.] (as amended by this section). Not later than the expiration of the 45-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, but not before the expiration of the 15-day period beginning upon the submission of the proposed interim regulations to the Congress, the Secretary shall publish interim regulations implementing such subtitle (as amended), which shall take effect upon publication.

"(2) Final regulations.—Not later than the expiration of the 90-day period beginning upon the publication of interim regulations under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall issue final regulations implementing subtitle D of title VIII of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (as amended by this section) after notice and opportunity for public comment regarding the interim regulations, pursuant to the provisions of section 553 of title 5, United States Code (notwithstanding subsections (a)(2), (b)(B), and (d)(3) of such section). The duration of the period for public comment under such section 553 shall be not less than 60 days, and the final regulations shall take effect upon issuance."

1 See References in Text note below.