alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §18043. Funding for the territories

#### (a) In general

A territory that—

(1) elects consistent with subsection (b) to establish an Exchange in accordance with part B of this subchapter and establishes such an Exchange in accordance with such part shall be treated as a State for purposes of such part and shall be entitled to payment from the amount allocated to the territory under subsection (c); or

(2) does not make such election shall be entitled to an increase in the dollar limitation applicable to the territory under subsections (f) and (g) of section 1108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308) for such period in such amount for such territory and such increase shall not be taken into account in computing any other amount under such subsections.

#### (b) Terms and conditions

An election under subsection (a)(1) shall—

(1) not be effective unless the election is consistent with section 18041 of this title and is received not later than October 1, 2013; and

(2) be contingent upon entering into an agreement between the territory and the Secretary that requires that—

(A) funds provided under the agreement shall be used only to provide premium and cost-sharing assistance to residents of the territory obtaining health insurance coverage through the Exchange; and

(B) the premium and cost-sharing assistance provided under such agreement shall be structured in such a manner so as to prevent any gap in assistance for individuals between the income level at which medical assistance is available through the territory's Medicaid plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.] and the income level at which premium and cost-sharing assistance is available under the agreement.

#### (c) Appropriation and allocation

#### (1) Appropriation

Out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated for purposes of payment pursuant to subsection (a) $1,000,000,000, to be available during the period beginning with 2014 and ending with 2019.

#### (2) Allocation

The Secretary shall allocate the amount appropriated under paragraph (1) among the territories for purposes of carrying out this section as follows:

(A) For Puerto Rico, $925,000,000.

(B) For another territory, the portion of $75,000,000 specified by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1323, as added Pub. L. 111–152, title I, §1204(a), Mar. 30, 2010, 124 Stat. 1055.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(B), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Title XIX of the Act is classified generally to subchapter XIX (§1396 et seq.) of chapter 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 18043, Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1323, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 192, which related to establishment of community health insurance option, was repealed by Pub. L. 111–148, title X, §10104(m), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 902.
#### In the Matter of Alice Treadwell, Respondent, v Keith Treadwell, Sr., Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 669]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, to modify a prior order of custody and visitation entered February 9, 1999, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.H.O.), entered March 15, 2005, which granted the petition, permitted the mother to relocate with the parties’ child to North Carolina, and established a visitation schedule for the father.

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

After weighing the appropriate factors set forth in *Matter of Tropea v Tropea*(87 NY2d 727 [1996]), the Family Court properly found that it was in the child’s best interest to permit relocation *(see Miller v Pipia,*297 AD2d 362 [2002]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 5.53 Initiation of investigation. ( a ) Investigations under this part may be initiated upon the submission by any person of a written statement to the Secretary setting forth sufficient information to indicate a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. 207 or by the Commission on its own initiative when a possible violation is indicated by information within the Commission's possession.
( b ) At the direction of the Commission, the General Counsel shall investigate any alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. 207.
#### § 38.801 Additional sources for compliance.

Applicants and designated contract markets may refer to the guidance in appendix B of this part to demonstrate to the Commission compliance with the requirements of § 38.800 of this part.
#### § 270.17a-5 Pro rata distribution neither “sale” nor “purchase.”

When a company makes a pro rata distribution in cash or in kind among its common stockholders without giving any election to any stockholder as to the specific assets which such stockholders shall receive, such distribution shall not be deemed to involve a sale to or a purchase from such distributing company as those terms are used in section 17(a) of the Act.

[20 FR 7447, Oct. 6, 1955]
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAYMOND HARRY MILEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 18 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of March

, 2017, in consideration of the Motion to

Proceed Pro Se and the Petition for Withdraw as Counsel, this matter is REMANDED to

the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County for that court to determine whether

Petitioner’s current counsel should be granted leave to withdraw. If current counsel is

permitted to withdraw, the court shall then determine whether Petitioner should be

granted leave to proceed pro se or new counsel should be appointed. The Court of

C ommon Pleas of Bucks County is DIRECTED to enter its order regarding this remand

within 45 days.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Sidtek LLC ) ASBCA No. 61928 

) 

Under Contract No. GS-35-F-0729P, ) 

P.O. W912NW-12-F-0028) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Armani Vadiee, Esq. 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

Zachary D. Prince, Esq. 

Smith Pachter Mc Whorter PLC 

Tysons Comer, VA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Ronald M. Herrmann, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: September 24, 2019 

Administrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61928, Appeal of Sidtek LLC 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# COMSECY-15-0024:  Proposed Rulemaking on Security Requirements for Facilities Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level  Radioactive Waste

Accession Number: ML15230A009

Date Released: Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15229A231 - COMSECY-15-0024: Proposed Rulemaking on Security Requirements for Facilities Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (4 page(s), 9/11/2015)
    - ML15230A008 - COMSECY-15-0024:  Enclosure 1, Schedule for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation Security Rulemaking (1 page(s), 9/11/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### § 38.704 Right to representation.

Upon being served with a notice of charges, a respondent must have the right to be represented by legal counsel or any other representative of its choosing in all succeeding stages of the disciplinary process, except any member of the designated contract market's board of directors or disciplinary panel, any employee of the designated contract market, or any person substantially related to the underlying investigations, such as material witness or respondent.
### §2000e–7. Effect on State laws

Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to exempt or relieve any person from any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided by any present or future law of any State or political subdivision of a State, other than any such law which purports to require or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title VII, §708, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 262.)
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Packard Motor Car Co. of New York, Respondent, against William E. Boyland et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellants. [787 11th Ave., Borough of Manhattan.]

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Yan Yoorhis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.3

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 DIRECTV Financing Co., Inc. (the "Corporation") 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"), I, Chase Carey, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|/s/ CHASE CAREYChase Carey
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|August 8, 2006                                                   |  | 

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 71081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26922]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Committee Management Renewal

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) management officials having 
responsibility for the Business and Operations Advisory Committee 
(<greek-i>9556) have determined that renewing this committee for 
another two years is necessary and in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National 
Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq. This determination 
follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration.
    Effective date for renewal is December 10, 2004. For more 
information, please contact Susanne Bolton, NSF, at (703) 292-7488.

    Dated: December 3, 2004.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26922 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### §1997g. Priorities for use of funds

It is the intent of Congress that deplorable conditions in institutions covered by this subchapter amounting to deprivations of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States be corrected, not only by litigation as contemplated in this subchapter, but also by the voluntary good faith efforts of agencies of Federal, State, and local governments. It is the further intention of Congress that where Federal funds are available for use in improving such institutions, priority should be given to the correction or elimination of such unconstitutional or illegal conditions which may exist. It is not the intent of this provision to require the redirection of funds from one program to another or from one State to another.

(Pub. L. 96–247, §9, May 23, 1980, 94 Stat. 354.)
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/24/2015 1:24:26 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
#### § 1302.4 Banned hazardous products.

Any extremely flammable contact adhesive and similar liquid or semiliquid consumer product as defined in § 1302.3 (b), which has been manufactured or initially introduced into commerce after January 17, 1978, is a banned hazardous product. In addition, any other extremely flammable contact adhesive and similar liquid or semiliquid consumer product, as defined in § 1302.3(b), no matter when manufactured or initially introduced into commerce, is a banned hazardous product after June 13, 1978.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Morgan, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 754]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered June 2, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Tomei, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his second statement, given at the police station after he waived his *Miranda*rights (see, *Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436), was not tainted by the illegality of a prior, inadmissible statement. The interval of time between the making of the two statements, in conjunction with the intervening circumstances, provided sufficient attenuation to remove any taint attributable to the inadmissible statement *(see, People v Nisbett,*225 AD2d 801; *People v Ates,*157 AD2d 786; *People v Steed,*133 AD2d 433). Additionally, the defendant did not testify at the suppression hearing and no evidence was adduced in support of his contention that the second statement was involuntarily made on constraint of the prior inadmissible statement, under the so-called “cat out of the bag” theory *(see, People v Tanner,*30 NY2d 102, 105-106; *People v Alaire,*148 AD2d 731, 738; *People v Schultz,*187 AD2d 466, 467). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the omnibus motion which was to suppress that statement.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.
# 3404.000 Scope of part.

**Parent topic:**PART 3404—ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4127 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4127

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt certain 
requests by physicians for consultations by radiation oncologists from 
     the limitation on certain physician referrals under Medicare.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2012

 Mr. Heck (for himself, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Amodei, Ms. 
Berkley, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Benishek, Mr. Price of Georgia, and 
Mr. Sessions) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt certain 
requests by physicians for consultations by radiation oncologists from 
     the limitation on certain physician referrals under Medicare.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTING CERTAIN REQUESTS BY PHYSICIANS FOR CONSULTATIONS 
              BY RADIATION ONCOLOGISTS FROM THE LIMITATION ON CERTAIN 
              PHYSICIAN REFERRALS UNDER MEDICARE.

    Section 1877(h)(5)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395nn(h)(5)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``With respect to an individual admitted as an inpatient of a 
hospital, a request by a physician, after such admission, for a 
consultation by a radiation oncologist that results in an order for 
radiation therapy for such individual does not constitute a referral by 
a referring physician.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §1962d–4. Northeastern United States water supply

#### (a) Plans for Federal construction, operation, and maintenance of reservoir system within certain river basins and conveyance and purification facilities through cooperation of Secretary of the Army and government agencies; financial participation of States

Congress hereby recognizes that assuring adequate supplies of water for the great metropolitan centers of the United States has become a problem of such magnitude that the welfare and prosperity of this country require the Federal Government to assist in the solution of water supply problems. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies in preparing plans in accordance with the Water Resources Planning Act [42 U.S.C. 1962 et seq.] to meet the long-range water needs of the northeastern United States. This plan may provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance by the United States of (1) a system of major reservoirs to be located within those river basins of the northeastern United States which drain into the Chesapeake Bay, those that drain into the Atlantic Ocean north of the Chesapeake Bay, those that drain into Lake Ontario, and those that drain into the Saint Lawrence River, (2) major conveyance facilities by which water may be exchanged between these river basins to the extent found desirable in the national interest, and (3) major purification facilities. Such plans shall provide for appropriate financial participation by the States, political subdivisions thereof, and other local interests.

#### (b) Construction, operation, and maintenance of reservoirs and conveyance and purification facilities

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall construct, operate, and maintain those reservoirs, conveyance facilities, and purification facilities, which are recommended in the plan prepared in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, and which are specifically authorized by law enacted after October 27, 1965.

#### (c) Reservoirs as components of river basin and water supply plans

Each reservoir included in the plan authorized by this section shall be considered as a component of a comprehensive plan for the optimum development of the river basin in which it is situated, as well as a component of the plan established in accordance with this section.

(Pub. L. 89–298, title I, §101, Oct. 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 1073.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Water Resources Planning Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 89–80, July 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 244, which is classified generally to this chapter (§1962 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1962 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as a part of the Water Resources Planning Act which comprises this chapter.
#### § 274.11a-1 Form N-2, registration statement of closed end management investment companies.

This form shall be used as the registration statement to be filed pursuant to section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 by closed end management investment companies other than companies which issue periodic payment plan certificates or which are sponsors or depositors of companies issuing such certificates. This form also shall be used for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of the securities of all closed end management investment companies. This form is not applicable for small business investment companies which register pursuant to §§ 239.24 and 274.5 of this chapter.

[43 FR 39553, Sept. 5, 1978, as amended at 59 FR 52701, Oct. 19, 1994]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form N-2, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.1200 Form X-17F-1A—Report for missing, lost, stolen or counterfeit securities.

This form is to be filed with the Commission or its designee pursuant to paragraph (c) of § 240.17f-1 of this chapter by all reporting institutions subject to section 17(f)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

[44 FR 31504, May 31, 1979]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form X-17F-1A, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
Suzy Heard, CSR

Travis County Court at Law No. 6

509 W. 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701

December 18, 2015 

Third Court of Appeals 

Attention: Clerk of Court 

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-15-00530-CR 

Trial Court Case Number: C-1-CR-14-160011 

Jack Bissett vs. State of Texas 

Dear Clerk: 

With regard to the above-referenced case, I would like to update the Court on the status of the 

Reporter’s Record. 

Mr. Bissett, through his appellate attorney Mr. David Schulman, made arrangements with me 

to pay half of the cost of the Reporter’s Record up front and the remaining balance before I 

would submit the record to the Third Court of Appeals. I received a payment of half of the cost 

on October 5, 2015 and began working on the record. Yesterday (12/17/2015), Mr. Schulman 

gave me $500 towards the balance due. There is still an amount due of $683.75. 

The record is now complete. I am prepared to submit this record upon payment of $683.75. 

However, I am leaving town for the holidays tomorrow morning and will not be back until 

January 4, 2016. If Mr. Bissett happens to send his payment for the balance due, I will not know 

about it until I return. If the payment is in my office when I return to work on January 4, I will 

submit the record on that day. If not, I will update the Court again at that time.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Suzy Heard, CSR
#### Bud Owen WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF FAYETTE; Rogers King, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-60910.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 12, 2007.

Jim D. Waide, III, Waide & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary Erwin Friedman, Phelps Dunbar, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Having reviewed the briefs and pertinent parts of the record, and essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-079-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)