alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3742 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3742

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2012

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 North Church 
   Street in Las Cruces, New Mexico, as the ``Edwin L. Mechem United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Edwin L. Mechem was a land surveyor with the United 
        States Reclamation Service in Las Cruces, New Mexico, from 
        1932-1935.
            (2) He served as a member of the New Mexico State Police 
        Commission.
            (3) He was a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation.
            (4) He attended the New Mexico College of Agriculture and 
        Mechanic Arts, which later became the New Mexico State 
        University in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
            (5) He was admitted to the New Mexico bar in 1939, and 
        practiced law in Albuquerque and Las Cruces, New Mexico.
            (6) He served in the New Mexico House of Representatives 
        from 1947-1948.
            (7) He was the first New Mexico governor born in New Mexico 
        after statehood.
            (8) He served four terms as Governor of New Mexico between 
        1951 and 1962.
            (9) He served as a United States Senator from New Mexico 
        from 1962-1964.
            (10) He was confirmed by the United States Senate as a 
        United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico on 
        October 8, 1970, and served in that position until his death in 
        2002.
            (11) He led a rich and accomplished life dedicated to 
        public service which warrants recognition.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 100 North Church Street in 
Las Cruces, New Mexico, shall be known and designated as the ``Edwin L. 
Mechem United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 3. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 2 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Edwin L. Mechem 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of CepTor  Corporation,  (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
H. Pursley,  Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of
            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.

November 15, 2005

                               /s/ William H. Pursley
                               ----------------------
                               William H. Pursley
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t, se e F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ), so w e d en y p etit io n er ’s r e q u e s t f o ro r a l ar g u m e n t. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P US HP AMAL AR S AT C HI T HA NA NT HA N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 70845 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 784- 814 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary11, 2013 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H I M A , an dW A R D L A W , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . P us hpa m a l a rS a t c hi tha na nthan, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of S r i L anka , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on to r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED FEB 14 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 11- 70845

r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , N

ajm abadi v. H older , 5 9 7 F . 3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S a t c hi thananthan’ s s e c ond un t i m el y m ot i on t o reopen b ec ause the i nform at i on i n the IN S l ett ert o the S ri L a nka n gove rnm e ntw a s notne w a nd S a t c hi thananthan othe rw i s e f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt m a t e r i a l e vi de nc e of

c ha nge d c i r c um s t anc e s i n S r i L ankat o qua l i f yf orthe r e g u la to rye x c e p tio n to th e tim e an dn u m b e rlim ita tio n s f o rf ilin g am o tio n to r e o p e n . See 8 C .F .R . § § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ; N ajm abadi , 597 F . 3d a t987- 89 ( “ i n or de rf or e vi de nc e t o be ‘ m a t e r i a l , ’ ‘ nota va i l abl e , ’ a nd notabl e t o ha ve ‘ be e n di s c ove r e d or pr e s e nt e d a tthe pr e vi ous he a r i ng, ’ i tm us tbe ‘ qua l i t a t i ve l ydi f f e r e nt ’ f r om the evi dence pres ent ed atthe previ ou s heari ng ”) (i nt ernal ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e r ejec t S atch ith an an th an ’s v ar io u s c o n ten ti o n s r eg ar d in g th e B IA ’s r e v ie w o f

h e rb r e a c h o f

c o n f id e n tia lityc la im u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .6 . F i na l l y , w e de nya s unne c e s s aryS a t c hi thananthan’ s m ot i on t o s uppl e m e nt th e o p e n in g b r ie f

. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY L. WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt,

Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00076-BR-1; 7:10-cv-00176-BR)

Submitted: October 26, 2012 Decided: November 1, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory L. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory L. Walker appeals the district court’s order 

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

motion. Walker raised four claims in the district court but his 

sole issue on appeal is whether the district court should have 

retroactively applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in 

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), to analyze 

the validity of his predicate offenses relied upon for his 

career offender enhancement. We have recently determined that 

Carachuri claims may not be raised retroactively in collateral 

proceedings. See United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th 

Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm. Because we confine our 

review on appeal to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief, 

see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and Walker’s informal brief does not 

challenge the remainder of the district court’s disposition, 

Walker has forfeited appellate review of the other issues 

decided in the district court’s order. 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
### SUBCHAPTER VI—NURSING WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §123(1), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3562, added subchapter VI heading and struck out former subchapter VI heading "NURSE EDUCATION".

Pub. L. 99–92, §9(b)(3), Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 400, substituted "NURSE EDUCATION" for "NURSE TRAINING" in subchapter VI heading.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

#### § 200.24 Office of Financial Management.

This Office, under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer, is responsible to the Chief Operating Officer, Chairman and Commission for the internal financial management and programming functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These functions include: Budgeting, accounting, payroll and administrative audit. The Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer's designees, serve as liaison to the Commission before the Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Appropriations Committees on appropriation matters, and the Treasury Department and the General Accounting Office on financial and programming matters.

[86 FR 9443, Feb. 16, 2021]
#### § 500.24 Supplemental statements.

Nothing contained in the regulations in this part shall prohibit supplemental statements, at locations other than the principal display panel, describing in non-deceptive terms the net quantity of contents: *Provided* that such supplemental statements of net quantity of contents shall not include any term qualifying a unit of weight or mass, measure, or count that tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity contained in the package. (Examples of prohibited language are: “Giant Quart,” “Jumbo Liter,” “Full Gallon,” “When Packed,” “Minimum,” or words of similar import.) Required combination declarations of net quantity of contents (for example, a combination of net weight or mass plus numerical count, numerical count plus dimensions of the commodity, etc.) are not regarded as supplemental net quantity statements and shall be located on the principal display panel. Dilution directions or other similar directions for use are not regarded as supplemental net quantity statements and may be located on the principal display panel. Size characterizations in compliance with standards promulgated under section 5(c)(1) of the Act may appear on the principal display panel.
§ 971.503 Diligent commercial recovery. ( a ) Each permittee must pursue diligently the activities described in its approved commercial recovery plan. This requirement applies to the full scope of the plan, including environmental safeguards and monitoring systems. Permit TCRs will require periodic reasonable expenditures for commercial recovery by the permittee, taking into account the size of the area of the deep seabed to which the recovery plan applies and the amount of funds estimated by the Administrator to be required to initiate commercial recovery of hard mineral resources within the time limit established by the Administrator. However, required expenditures will not be established at a level which would discourage commercial recovery or operational efficiency.
( b ) To meet the diligence requirement, the applicant must propose to the Administrator an estimated schedule of activities and expenditures pursuant to § 971.203(b)(2). The schedule must show, and the Administrator must be able to make a reasonable determination, that the applicant can reasonably develop the resources in the permit area within the term of the permit. There must be a reasonable relationship between the size of the recovery area and the financial and technological resources reflected in the application. The permittee must initiate the recovery of nodules in commerical quantities within ten years of the issuance of the permit unless this deadline is extended by the Administrator for good cause.
( c ) Once commercial recovery is achieved, the permittee must, within reasonable limits and taking into consideration all relevant factors, maintain commercial recovery throughout the period of the permit. However, the Administrator will, for good cause shown, authorize temporary suspension of commercial recovery activities. The duration of any suspension will not exceed one year, unless the Administrator determines that conditions justify an extension of the suspension.
( d ) Ultimately, the diligence requirement will involve a retrospective determination by the Administrator, based on the permittee's reasonable conformance to the approved recovery plan. This determination, however, will take into account the need for some degree of flexibility in a recovery plan. It also will include consideration of the needs and stage of development of the permittee based on the approved recovery plan; legitimate periods of time when there is no or very low expenditure; and allowance for a certain degree of flexibility for changes encountered by the permittee in market conditions or other factors.
( e ) The permittee must submit a report annually reflecting its conformance to the schedule of activities and expenditures contained in the permit and its associated recovery plan. In case of any changes requiring a revision to an approved permit and recovery plan, the permittee must advise the Administrator in accordance with § 971.413.
#### In the Matter of Coplin Yaras, Respondent, against Martin Schenck, as Albany County Judge, et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term for Albany County, which temporarily stays a condemnation proceeding in the County Court of Albany County, pending the determination of an application by petitioner-respondent for an order in the nature of prohibition. Petitioner is the owner of certain real estate in the city of Albany which the city seeks to acquire for the purpose of widening a street known as Sheridan Avenue and in accordance with certain acts and resolutions of the Common Council of the city. This matter has been in litigation before, and it was determined that a local law repealing former provisions of the Albany City Charter relating to condemnation proceedings was a valid enactment, and that the County Court had jurisdiction of the matter *(Matter of Yaras [City of Albany],*283 App. Div. 214, affd. 308 N. Y. 864). In this proceeding, as we understand it, petitioner’s claim is that the proposed taking is excessive and not for public use, and hence the County Court is about to act in excess of its jurisdiction. Petitioner urges that prohibition is a proper remedy on the authority of *Matter of Watkins*V. *Ughetta*(273 App. Div. 969, affd. 297 N. Y. 1002). If the proposed taking was clearly excessive and beyond the ambit of any possible public use we would agree that prohibition might lie, but that premise does not appear here. We cannot say from the map filed and as a matter of law that the taking is excessive. It is for the County Court to determine that issue in the first instance upon proper pleadings and testimony, and prohibition is not available merely because petitioner fears the County Court may erroneously decide such an issue. Nor do we agree with petitioner's contention that a remedy by appeal is inadequate. It seems to us quite unlikely that the city would move for possession of the premises pending a determination of its rights in the matter; and, in any event, without knowledge as to how much it may be required to pay for the property sought to be taken. Moreover, if it should appear after a decision has been made that the County Court is about to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction, or that a fair question is presented as to the correctness of its determination, petitioner may then apply for a stay in connection with whatever appeal he may determine to take. At the present stage of the condemnation proceeding a stay is not warranted. Order reversed and stay vacated, without costs. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Zeller, JJ., concur.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

ROBERT LEE OLIVAREZ , Petitioner

. N o . 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0651 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2001

- 009119 The Honorable Sally Schneider Duncan , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa C ounty Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent
Robert Lee Olivarez, Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann , and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 1-3-2019STATE v. O LIVAREZ Decision of the Court

2 P E R C U R I A M : ¶1 Robert Olivarez seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post

- con viction relief , filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s second successive petition

. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 576

- 77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the pe tition for r eview. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of discretion. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

REFER TO: M150928 

 September 30, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – NRC ALL EMPLOYEES MEETING, 

1:30 P.M., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, MARRIOTT 

BETHESDA NORTH CONFERENCE CENTER, ROCKVILLE, 

MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission held its annual meeting with NRC employees to address the staff and to 

respond to employee questions. Following the question and answer period, Sheryl Burrows, 

President of Chapter 208 of the National Treasury Employees Union, commented on the current 

key issues for the union. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
#### § 1228.1 Scope.

This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for sling carriers.
Editorial Note on Part 8b
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8b appear at 68 FR 51353, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 8b.18 New construction. ( a ) *Design and construction.* Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by qualified handicapped individuals, if the construction was commenced after the effective date of this part.
( b ) *Alteration.* Each facility or part of a facility which is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient after the effective date of this part of the facility shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by qualified handicapped individuals.
( c ) *Conformance with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.* ( 1 ) Effective as of August 17, 1990, design, construction, or alteration of buildings in conformance with sections 3-8 of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) (Appendix A to 41 CFR subpart 101-19.6) shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this section with respect to those buildings. Departures from particular technical and scoping requirements of UFAS by the use of other methods are permitted where substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the building is provided.
( 2 ) For purposes of this section, section 4.1.6(1)(g) of UFAS shall be interpreted to exempt from the requirements of UFAS only mechanical rooms and other spaces that, because of their intended use, will not require accessibility to the public or beneficiaries or result in the employment or residence therein of persons with physical handicaps.
( 3 ) This section does not require recipients to make building alterations that have little likelihood of being accomplished without removing or altering a load-bearing structural member.
[47 FR 17746, Apr. 23, 1982, as amended at 55 FR 29320, July 18, 1990]
§ 1231.2 Requirements for high chairs. Each high chair shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F404-21, *Standard Consumer Safety Specification for High Chairs,* approved on November 15, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. A read-only copy of the standard is available for viewing on the ASTM website at *https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/ .* You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; telephone (610) 832-9585; *www.astm.org .* You may inspect a copy at the Division of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone (301) 504-7479, email *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov ,* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fr.inspection@nara.gov ,* or go to: *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .* [87 FR 42636, July 18, 2022]
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.