alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §16181. Goals

#### (a) In general

In order to achieve the purposes of this subchapter, the Secretary shall conduct a balanced set of programs of energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application with the general goals of—

(1) increasing the efficiency of all energy intensive sectors through conservation and improved technologies;

(2) promoting diversity of energy supply;

(3) decreasing the dependence of the United States on foreign energy supplies;

(4) improving the energy security of the United States; and

(5) decreasing the environmental impact of energy-related activities.

#### (b) Goals

The Secretary shall publish measurable cost and performance-based goals, comparable over time, with each annual budget submission in at least the following areas:

(1) Energy efficiency for buildings, energy-consuming industries, and vehicles.

(2) Electric energy generation (including distributed generation), transmission, and storage.

(3) Renewable energy technologies, including wind power, photovoltaics, solar thermal systems, geothermal energy, hydrogen-fueled systems, biomass-based systems, biofuels, and hydropower.

(4) Fossil energy, including power generation, onshore and offshore oil and gas resource recovery, and transportation fuels.

(5) Nuclear energy, including programs for existing and advanced reactors, and education of future specialists.

#### (c) Public comment

The Secretary shall provide mechanisms for input on the annually published goals from industry, institutions of higher education, and other public sources.

#### (d) Effect of goals

Nothing in subsection (a) or the annually published goals creates any new authority for any Federal agency, or may be used by any Federal agency, to support the establishment of regulatory standards or regulatory requirements.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title IX, §902, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 856.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this title", meaning title IX of Pub. L. 109–58, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 856, which enacted this subchapter, amended sections 8101 and 8102 of Title 7, Agriculture, and section 5523 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, enacted provisions set out as notes under section 15801 of this title, section 8102 of Title 7, and section 2001 of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining, and amended provisions set out as notes under section 8101 of Title 7 and section 1902 of Title 30. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 15801 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Short Title

For short title of title IX of Pub. L. 109–58, which enacted this subchapter, as the "Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2005", see section 431 of Pub. L. 109–58, set out as a note under section 15801 of this title.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1602

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Yovanny Aroldo Mendivil-Balderrama

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

 Submitted: June 21, 2019

Filed: July 3, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Yovanny Mendivil-Balderrama directly appeals after he pleaded guilty in the

district court to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing 1

The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court

imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See

United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity

and applicability of appeal waivers); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92

(8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver should be enforced if appeal falls within

scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement

and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice).

Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the

scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we dismiss

this appeal.

______________________________

-2-
#### § 423.9 Conflict with flammability standards.

If there is a conflict between this regulation and any regulations issued under the Flammable Fabrics Act, the Flammable Fabics regulation govern over this one.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Grant Benton, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 545]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Pigott, Jr., EJ., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Green and Pine, JJ.
548.101 General. 		    GSA Order PBS 8050.1, Public Buildings Service Value Engineering Programs provides guidance on using value engineering. 	  **Parent topic:** Subpart 548.1 - Policies and Procedures
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3919 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Vat Blue 66. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Vat Blue 

66. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VAT BLUE 66. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.65 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2014’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or with10 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

11 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3919 IH

1 (2) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwith2 standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

3 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon 

4 proper request filed with U.S. Customs and Border 

5 Protection on or before the 15th day after the date 

6 of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or with7 drawal from warehouse for consumption, of an arti8 cle— 

9 (A) that was made after December 31, 

10 2006, and before the date that is 15 days after 

11 the date of enactment of this Act, and 

12 (B) with respect to which there would have 

13 been no duty or a lower rate of duty if the 

14 amendment made by subsection (a) applied to 

15 such entry or withdrawal, 

16 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such amend17 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Part 5327 -  Patents, Data, and Copyrights       DAFFARS PART 5327 Knowledge Center          *Revised: June 2023*                                       Subpart 5327.2 – PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS                                                         5327.201-2 Contract Clauses                                                                             Subpart 5327.3 – PATENT RIGHTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS                                                         5327.303 Contract Clauses                                                            5327.306 Licensing background patent rights to third parties                                                                             Subpart 5327.90 – FOREIGN DISCLOSURE                                                         5327.9000 Foreign Disclosure Policy    Subpart 5327.2 – PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS               5327.201-2 Contract Clauses       (e) See MP5301.601(a)(i).Subpart 5327.3 – PATENT RIGHTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS                    5327.303 Contract Clauses       (b)(1) When using FAR clause 52.227-11, insert instructions substantially the same as the following in the fill-in of section (j):         (1) “Interim or final Invention Reports shall be sent to both the Administrative Contracting Officer, *(insert “at the address located on the face of the contract” or name and address for the ACO)* an(b)(1) When using FAR clause 52.227-11, insert instructions substantially the same as the following in the fill-in of section (j):         d to (insert contact information, name/or position title, email, and phone number for person(s) at the procuring contract office who will perform patent administration for this contract) within the timeframes specified in the Patent Rights clause of this contract.         (2) The DD Form 882, *Report of Inventions and Subcontracts*, may be used to submit these reports. The DD Form 882 may be also be used for the notification of an award of any subcontract(s) for experimental, developmental or research work which contain a Patent Rights clause.         (3) All other notifications required pursuant to this clause shall be sent to the addresses in paragraph 1 and to (insert contact information for person(s) at the procuring contract office who will handle patent administration, e.g., name and/or position, email, phone numbers)5327.306 Licensing background patent rights to third parties       (a) See MP5301.601(a)(i).Subpart 5327.90 – FOREIGN DISCLOSURE               5327.9000 Foreign Disclosure Policy       For Foreign Disclosure issues, Government personnel should refer to National Disclosure Policy (NDP-1), DAFI 16-201 and AFPD 16-2, Disclosure of Military Information to Foreign Governments and International Organizations and follow all procedures including foreign disclosure reviews.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 200.553 Draft, final and supplemental impact statements.

If the Commission determines that the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA for preparation of an environmental impact statement are applicable in connection with a proposed Commission action, it shall prepare such statement generally in accordance with the procedures specified in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, particularly part 1502 concerning impact statement preparation and content, § 1505.1 concerning decision-making procedures, and § 1501.6 concerning the function of cooperating agencies, to the extent that such procedures do not conflict with the Commission's statutory responsibilities and authority under the Federal securities laws.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:

          (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:  August 16, 2005

                                                       /s/ Lou Schorsch
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Lou Schorsch
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc.


                                                       /s/ Bhikam C. Agarwal
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Bhikam C. Agarwal
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                       Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc.

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

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on December 15-16, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 

*Wednesday, December 15, 2004—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.*

*Thursday, December 16, 2004—8:30 a.m. until 1 p.m.*

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the draft final safety evaluation report for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility construction authorization request. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Maggalean W. Weston (telephone (301) 415-3151) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. 

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: December 1, 2004. 

John H. Flack, 

Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. 

[FR Doc. 04-26902 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7419

THOMAS E. MAREE-BEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN NASH, Warden, FCI Schuylkill,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA02-2584-CCB)

Submitted: November 20, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas E. Maree-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

 Maree-Bey suggests in his informal brief to this court that

he is unable to complete administrative exhaustion of his claim

because he has been paroled from custody. However, the applicable

regulations apply “to former inmates for issues that arose during

their confinement.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.10(b) (2002). Therefore,

Maree-Bey must complete the exhaustion process before pursuing his

claim in federal court.

2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas E. Maree-Bey, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court.* See Maree-Bey v. Nash, No. CA-02-2584-CCB (D. Md.

filed Sept. 10, 2002 & entered Sept. 11, 2002). 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
### subpart 5—definitions and miscellaneous provisions
Exhibit No. 32

# Certification of
Steven J. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Paul M. Bonaiuto, Executive
Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer of Journal Communications, Inc.,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. s.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Journal Communications, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 25, 2006 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Steven J. SmithSteven J. Smith, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Paul M. BonaiutoPaul M. Bonaiuto,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2067

JESINTA N. VEFONGE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-892-899) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 25, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Araceli Carrigan, Senior Attorney Advisor, Susan Lea Smith, Senior Trial Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* On December 9, 2004, we granted the Attorney General’s motion for partial dismissal of the petition for review on the ground that we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that Vefonge’s asylum application was untimely filed and to review the denial of her request for voluntary departure. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jesinta N. Vefonge, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen or reconsider its previous decision affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, as to the claims over which we retain jurisdiction, * we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. SeeIn re: Vefonge , No. A77-892-899 (B.I.A. July 28, 2004). 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.

PETITION DENIED
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3518 

To impose a regulatory moratorium and prevent taxes from being raised 

for 2 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2011 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees 

on Oversight and Government Reform and the Judiciary, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To impose a regulatory moratorium and prevent taxes from 

being raised for 2 years. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IN GENERAL. 

4 During the period beginning on the date of enactment 

5 of this Act and terminating on the date that is 2 years 

6 after that date, no agency may make any rule that would 

7 affect employment levels, and the Congress shall not enact 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3518 IH

1 any law resulting in an increase in the tax liability of any 

2 person or entity. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00622-CR

Randy Keith Seibel

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1195090D)

January 23, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

/s/ Lee Gabriel

By _________________________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.S.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.M., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 685 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of February, 2022

, th e Application for Leave to Amend

and Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED

.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00272
- CV

City of Austin, Appellant

v. Ali and Dona Tabrizi, Appellee s

FROM THE 250TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 17
- 001028 , THE HONORABLE DUST IN M. HOWELL, JUDGE PRESID ING

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

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed an agreed motion to stay all pending deadlines in this appeal
for a 90

- day period beginning on June 3 to allow them to engage in settlement negotiations. W e grant the motion and abate the appeal. The parties shall submit either a joint status report concerning the status of settlement negotiations or a motion to dismiss on or before September 3 , 2019.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
Abated
Filed : May 30, 2019