alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 318.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part, which shall be called the “Health Breach Notification Rule,” implements section 13407 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C. 17937. This part applies to foreign and domestic vendors of personal health records, PHR related entities, and third party service providers, irrespective of any jurisdictional tests in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, that maintain information of U.S. citizens or residents. This part does not apply to HIPAA-covered entities, or to any other entity to the extent that it engages in activities as a business associate of a HIPAA-covered entity.
( b ) This part preempts State law as set forth in section 13421 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C 17951.
### §15205. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 107–12, §6, May 30, 2001, 115 Stat. 22.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–12, May. 30, 2001, 115 Stat. 20, known as the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 2001, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 15201 of this title and Tables.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Selection of FY 2015 Special Interest Function for Analysis 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has selected Product Service Code (PSC) 

AZ11, “R&D – Other Research and Development (Basic Research)” for further review during 

fiscal year (FY) 2016. NRC obligated $2,825,499.00 on contracts under this PSC during FY15. 

PSC AZ11 has been selected for further analysis for the following reasons: 

• It has not appeared previously on NRC’s Top 10 PSC list; 

• The remaining Top 9 PSCs for FY15 are either being evaluated as part of NRC’s 

Technical Assistance/ Research (TA&R) Portfolio Council, and additional analysis in 

these areas would be duplicative, or further analysis would be unwarranted due to the 

nature of those services; and 

• PSC AZ11 was not the subject of a previous focused analysis.
§ 1205.7 Prohibited stockpiling. ( a ) *Stockpiling. Stockpiling* means manufacturing or importing a product which is the subject of a consumer product safety rule between the date of issuance of the rule and its effective date at a rate that is significantly greater than the rate at which such product was produced or imported during a base period prescribed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
( b ) *Prohibited acts.* Stockpiling of power lawn mowers that do not comply with this subpart A of part 1205 at a rate that exceeds by 20% the rate at which the product was produced or imported during the base period described in paragraph (c) of this section is prohibited.
( c ) *Base period.* The base period for power lawn mowers is, at the option of each manufacturer or importer, any period of 365 consecutive days beginning on or after September 1, 1971, and ending on or before August 31, 1978.
#### In the Matter of Amanda Sherman, Appellant, v Eleanor Hughes, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of *960Amanda Sherman, on Behalf of Tyrell Sherman, Appellant, v Eleanor Hughes, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[821 NYS2d 628]

In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation and postadoption sibling visitation, respectively, Amanda Sherman, the maternal grandmother, appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Goldstein, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated July 21, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied her petition for visitation with the subject child Chyna, and denied her petition on behalf of Tyrell Sherman, Chyna’s half brother, for visitation with Chyna, and Amanda Sherman, on behalf of Tyrell Sherman, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied the petition for his visitation with Chyna.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The question of visitation, which involves a determination of what is in the child’s best interests, is left to the discretion of the court” *(Matter of Weis v Rivera,*29 AD3d 812, 813 [2006]; *see Lo Presti v Lo Presti,*40 NY2d 522, 527 [1976]). An essential part of this inquiry is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the petitioning grandparent and the child (see *Matter of Weis v Rivera, supra; Matter of Principato v Lombardi,*19 AD3d 602, 603 [2005]). The testimony at the hearing established that there has been no contact between the subject child, Chyna, and the grandmother since June of 1998, when Chyna was only three years old. In addition, the testimony and report offered by a forensic expert at the hearing indicated that awarding visitation rights to the grandmother would “hinder the adoptive relationship” (Pe*ople ex rel. Sibley v Sheppard,*54 NY2d 320, 328 [1981]). Thus, under the circumstances, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that visitation with the grandmother was not in Chyna’s best interests.

Moreover, the record indicates that Chyna and her half brother, Tyrell, never had the opportunity to develop any familial relationship with each other. Therefore, the Family Court properly denied the petition for postadoption sibling visitation *961
      *(see Matter of Justin H.,*215 AD2d 180, 181 [1995]; *Matter of Hatch v Cortland County Dept. of Social Servs.,*199 AD2d 765, 766 [1993]). Miller, J.P, Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15304]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of scheduled meetings is published pursuant to 
the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-
409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIMES AND DATES: The Commission has scheduled meetings for the 
following dates:

July 7, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
July 19, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
August 4, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
September 8, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
September 22, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 
Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1000).

STATUS: Open.

Matters To Be Considered

    The Commission has scheduled these meetings to consider various 
rulemaking matters, including the issuance of proposed rules and the 
approval of final rules. The Commission may also consider and vote on 
dates and times for future meetings. Agendas for each of the scheduled 
meetings will be made available to the public and posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov at least seven (7) days 
prior to the meeting. In the event that the times or dates of the 
meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time 
and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David A. Stawick, Secretary of the 
Commission, 202-418-5071.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-15304 Filed 6-15-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
### §§1469 to 1469c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections were omitted pursuant to section 5316 of this title which terminated authority to make grants or loans under this subchapter after Jan. 1, 1975.

Section 1469, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title I, §131, as added Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title V, §501(b), 82 Stat. 518, set forth the declaration of this part.

Section 1469a, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title I, §132, as added Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title V, §501(b), 82 Stat. 519, related to financing of undertakings and activities and the payment of excess of sale price and imputed capital value of land or other property leased or retained over the gross project cost.

Section 1469b, acts July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title I, §133, as added Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title V, §501(b), 82 Stat. 519; amended Dec. 24, 1969, Pub. L. 91–152, title II, §203(c), 83 Stat. 386, related to local grants-in-aid.

Section 1469c, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title I, §134, as added Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title V, §501(b), 82 Stat. 520, contained general provisions relating to workable program requirements, transient housing, removal of buildings, financial assistance for subsequent annual increments, and modification of urban renewal plans.

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

#### Neighborhood Development Programs by District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency

Pub. L. 90–448, title V, §501(c), Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 520, provided that notwithstanding any requirement or condition to the contrary in section 6 or 20(i) of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 (act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 736, 60 Stat. 790, as amended), or any other law, the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency was authorized to plan and undertake neighborhood development programs under this part, which programs would be regarded as complying with sections 6 and 20(i) of that Act and any other provision of law, if those programs were in compliance with this part.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of United
Community Bankshares of Florida, Inc. does hereby certify, to such
officers knowledge, that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
United Community Bankshares of Florida, Inc. /s/ David G. PowersDavid G. PowersPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 Date: May 12, 2004
#### Frank A. Ledwith v. International Paper Company.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Concur — Cohn, J. p., Callahan, Breitel, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
§ 201.140 Commission orders and decisions: Signature and availability. ( a ) *Signature required.* All orders and decisions of the Commission shall be signed by the Secretary or any other person duly authorized by the Commission. The signature may be an electronic signature that consists of an “/s/” notation or any other digital signature.
( b ) *Availability for inspection.* Each order and decision shall be available for inspection by the public from the date of entry, unless the order or decision is nonpublic. A nonpublic order or decision shall be available for inspection by any person entitled to inspect it from the date of entry.
( c ) *Date of entry of orders.* The date of entry of a Commission order shall be the date the order is signed. Such date shall be reflected in the caption of the order, or if there is no caption, in the order itself.
[60 FR 32796, June 23, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 86478, Dec. 30, 2020]
### §13994. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §40414, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1944; Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title IV, §1406(a)(2), (c)(3), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1516, which authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2001 to 2005, was omitted as obsolete.
### §1549. Laborers and mechanics; wages; preference in employment

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the wages of every laborer and mechanic employed on any construction, repair or demolition work authorized by subchapters II to VII of this chapter shall be computed on a basic day rate of eight hours per day and work in excess of eight hours per day shall be permitted upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. Not less than the prevailing wages shall be paid in the construction of defense housing authorized herein. Preference in such employment shall be given to qualified local residents.

(Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 862, title III, §309, formerly §12, 54 Stat. 1128; renumbered title III, §309, June 28, 1941, ch. 260, §4(b), 55 Stat. 363; amended Jan. 21, 1942, ch. 14, §9, 56 Stat. 12.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapters III and VI of this chapter, referred to in text, were comprised of sections 1531 to 1536 and 1571 to 1576, respectively, of this title and have been omitted from the Code. For further details, see note set out under section 1522 of this title.

#### Amendments

1942—Act Jan. 21, 1942, inserted last sentence.
§ 1018.11 Charters. ( a ) No advisory committee shall meet or take any action until its charter has been filed with the GSA Secretariat in accordance with the requirements of section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
( b ) The Advisory Committee Management officer shall have responsibility for the preparation and filing of charters.
[41 FR 45882, Oct. 18, 1976, as amended at 46 FR 63249, Dec. 31, 1981]
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

November 22, 2002

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2002-33: NOTIFICATION OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION

AGAINST NEUTRON PRODUCTS

INCORPORATED OF DICKERSON, MARYLAND

Addressees:

All teletherapy and radiation processing licensees. 

Purpose:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to inform

licensees that the State of Maryland has placed a permanent injunction upon the company:

Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI), 22301 Mount Ephraim Road, Dickerson, Maryland 20842,

radioactive materials license number, MD-31-025-01. The State has requested that NRC

licensees be informed of this action because of potential impact on those using NPI sources. 

It is expected that recipients will review this information for applicability to their licensed

activities. However, suggestions contained in this IN are not new NRC requirements; therefore,

no specific action nor written response is required.

Discussion:

The radioactive materials source manufacturing license of the Maryland company Neutron

Products, Inc. (NPI) is under permanent injunction and is required to decommission its source

manufacturing facility. The injunction specifically prohibits the company’s source manufacturing

facility from receiving, manufacturing or shipping cobalt-60 (except waste). 

As a result of the permanent injunction, NPI will no longer be a supplier of cobalt-60 sealed

sources for teletherapy and radiation processing licensees from their source manufacturing

facility. If NPI was your provider of cobalt-60, you may need to procure another supplier. At

this time, under another license, NPI may still conduct periodic maintenance of sources and

may remove cobalt-60 sources and deleted uranium shielding from teletherapy facilities (tear

outs).

ML023370530

IN 2002-33
Page 2 of 2

This IN notice requires no specific action nor written response. If you have any questions about

the information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below or the

appropriate regional office.

/RA/

Donald A. Cool, Director

Division of Industrial and

 Medical Nuclear Safety

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

 and Safeguards

Attachments:

1. List of Recently Issued NMSS Information Notices

2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

Technical Contact: Raymond Manley, Supervisor

Radioactive Material Licensing Section

State of Maryland Radiological Health Program

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 705

Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1720

Telephone: 410-537-3301

Email: rmanley@mde.state.md.us
§ 301.9 Use of terms “Mouton Lamb” and “Shearling Lamb” permitted. ( a ) The term *Mouton Lamb* may be used to describe the skin of a lamb which has been sheared, the hair straightened, chemically treated, and thermally set to produce a moisture repellant finish; as for example: Dyed Mouton Lamb
( b ) The term *Shearling Lamb* may be used to describe the skin of a lamb which has been sheared and combed.
[17 FR 6075, July 8, 1952, as amended at 26 FR 3186, Apr. 14, 1961]
### §15115. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) Scholarships

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 15113 of this title $800,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.

#### (b) Staff development curriculum

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 15114 of this title $800,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

(Pub. L. 106–402, title III, §305, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1737.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6589

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HENRY OBILO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cr-00047-TSE-JFA-1; 1:11-cv-01142-TSE)

Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Obilo, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Androski Kelly, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Obilo seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Obilo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Obilo’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a 

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
|  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |

| **MENU**
ForewordIntroduction

BADGES

MetalClothNPS Associated

ORNAMENTATION

Arrowhead PatchBeltButtonsCap InsigniaCollar OrnamentsHatHatband & StrapsLaw Enforcement InsigniaLength-of-Service InsigniaNametagsSleeve BrassardsTie Ornaments & PinsMiscellaneous

ConclusionPhotofileAppendixBibliographyNotes |  |  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|
### §12784. Research in housing affordability

The Secretary is authorized to support, through contracts with eligible organizations and otherwise, such research and to publish such reports as will assist in the achievement of the purposes of this subchapter. Activities authorized by the previous sentence may include an ongoing analysis of the impact of public policies at the Federal, State, and local levels, both individually and in the aggregate, on the incentives to expand and maintain the supply of energy-efficient affordable housing in the United States, particularly in areas with severe problems of housing affordability, through the use of cost-saving innovative building technology and construction techniques. For purposes of this section, agencies of the United States, government-sponsored mortgage finance corporations, and qualified research organizations shall be included as eligible organizations in addition to eligible organizations specified under section 12783 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §244, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4118; Pub. L. 102–550, title II, §215, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3759.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–550 inserted before period at end of second sentence ", through the use of cost-saving innovative building technology and construction techniques".

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–550 applicable to unexpended funds allocated under subchapter II of this chapter in fiscal year 1992, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 223 of Pub. L. 102–550, set out as a note under section 12704 of this title.
§ 4.5 Fees. ( a ) *Deponents and witnesses.* Any person compelled to appear in person in response to subpoena shall be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States.
( b ) *Presiding officers.* Officers before whom depositions are taken shall be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States.
( c ) *Responsibility.* The fees and mileage referred to in this section shall be paid by the party at whose instance deponents or witnesses appear.
[32 FR 8456, June 13, 1967]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Holub, Jr., Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 667]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullin, J.), rendered November 13, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s *524assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.