alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.21F-13 Appeals. ( a ) Section 21F of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78u-6) commits determinations of whether, to whom, and in what amount to make awards to the Commission's discretion. A determination of whether or to whom to make an award may be appealed within 30 days after the Commission issues its final decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, or to the circuit where the aggrieved person resides or has his principal place of business. Where the Commission makes an award based on the factors set forth in § 240.21F-6 of this chapter of not less than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected in the Commission or related action, the Commission's determination regarding the amount of an award (including the allocation of an award as between multiple whistleblowers, and any factual findings, legal conclusions, policy judgments, or discretionary assessments involving the Commission's consideration of the factors in § 240.21F-6 of this chapter) is not appealable.
( b ) The record on appeal shall consist of the Final Order, any materials that were considered by the Commission in issuing the Final Order, and any materials that were part of the claims process leading from the Notice of Covered Action to the Final Order (including, but not limited to, the Notice of Covered Action, whistleblower award applications filed by the claimant, the Preliminary Determination or Preliminary Summary Disposition, materials that were considered by the Claims Review Staff in issuing the Preliminary Determination or that were provided to the claimant by the Office of the Whistleblower in connection with a Preliminary Summary Disposition, and materials that were timely submitted by the claimant in response to the Preliminary Determination or Preliminary Summary Disposition). The record on appeal shall not include any pre-decisional or internal deliberative process materials that are prepared exclusively to assist the Commission and the Claims Review Staff (as specified in § 240.21F-10(d) of this chapter) in deciding the claim (including the staff's Proposed Final Determination or the Office of the Whistleblower's Proposed Final Summary Disposition, or any Draft Preliminary Determination or Draft Summary Disposition that were provided to the Commission for review). When more than one claimant has sought an award based on a single Notice of Covered Action, the Commission may exclude from the record on appeal any materials that do not relate directly to the claimant who is seeking judicial review.
[76 FR 34363, June 13, 2011, as amended at 85 FR 70947, Nov. 5, 2020]
#### In the Matter of Martha Taylor Butler et al., Respondents, v Michael Duvalle et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

[819 NYS2d 670]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Michael Duvalle and Vienna Totaram as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 12, 2006, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidates for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 31st Assembly District, and for the party position of Assembly District Leader (Female), 31st Assembly District, respectively, Michael Duvalle and Vienna Totaram appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated August 10, 2006, as, after a hearing, granted those branches of the petition which were to invalidate the designating petition as to Michael Duvalle and Vienna Totaram.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that at the hearing the petitioners established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the method of obtaining signatures resulted in a designating petition that was permeated with fraud *(see Matter of Lerner v Power,*22 NY2d 767 [1968]; *Matter of Schaefer v Perez,*275 *515AD2d 430 [2000]; *Matter of Saitta v Rivera,*264 AD2d 490 [1999]; *Matter of D'Andre v Canary,*114 AD2d 430 [1985]; *Matter of Thomas v Simon,*89 AD2d 952 [1982]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly invalidated the designating petition as to Michael Duvalle and Vienna Totaram. Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.
### §17152. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary shall establish a program, to be known as the "Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program", under which the Secretary shall provide grants to eligible entities in accordance with this part.

#### (b) Purpose

The purpose of the program shall be to assist eligible entities in implementing strategies—

(1) to reduce fossil fuel emissions created as a result of activities within the jurisdictions of eligible entities in a manner that—

(A) is environmentally sustainable; and

(B) to the maximum extent practicable, maximizes benefits for local and regional communities;

(2) to reduce the total energy use of the eligible entities; and

(3) to improve energy efficiency in—

(A) the transportation sector;

(B) the building sector; and

(C) other appropriate sectors.

(Pub. L. 110–140, title V, §542, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1668.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007, see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140, set out as a note under section 1824 of Title 2, The Congress.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ron Valdiserri, M.D., Executive Secretary, CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention and Treatment, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., m/s E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone 404/639-8002, or fax 404/639-3125. 

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                     

Dated: December 6, 2004. 

Alvin Hall, 

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 04-27186 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
### §2210d. Security evaluations

#### (a) Security response evaluations

Not less often than once every 3 years, the Commission shall conduct security evaluations at each licensed facility that is part of a class of licensed facilities, as the Commission considers to be appropriate, to assess the ability of a private security force of a licensed facility to defend against any applicable design basis threat.

#### (b) Force-on-force exercises

(1) The security evaluations shall include force-on-force exercises.

(2) The force-on-force exercises shall, to the maximum extent practicable, simulate security threats in accordance with any design basis threat applicable to a facility.

(3) In conducting a security evaluation, the Commission shall mitigate any potential conflict of interest that could influence the results of a force-on-force exercise, as the Commission determines to be necessary and appropriate.

#### (c) Action by licensees

The Commission shall ensure that an affected licensee corrects those material defects in performance that adversely affect the ability of a private security force at that facility to defend against any applicable design basis threat.

#### (d) Facilities under heightened threat levels

The Commission may suspend a security evaluation under this section if the Commission determines that the evaluation would compromise security at a nuclear facility under a heightened threat level.

#### (e) Report

Not less often than once each year, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, in classified form and unclassified form, that describes the results of each security response evaluation conducted and any relevant corrective action taken by a licensee during the previous year.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §170D, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, §651(a)(1), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 799.)
§ 242.904 Operating hours of registered security-based swap data repositories. A registered security-based swap data repository shall have systems in place to continuously receive and disseminate information regarding security-based swaps pursuant to §§ 242.900 through 242.909, subject to the following exceptions: ( a ) A registered security-based swap data repository may establish normal closing hours during periods when, in its estimation, the U.S. market and major foreign markets are inactive. A registered security-based swap data repository shall provide reasonable advance notice to participants and to the public of its normal closing hours.
( b ) A registered security-based swap data repository may declare, on an *ad hoc* basis, special closing hours to perform system maintenance that cannot wait until normal closing hours. A registered security-based swap data repository shall, to the extent reasonably possible under the circumstances, avoid scheduling special closing hours during periods when, in its estimation, the U.S. market and major foreign markets are most active; and provide reasonable advance notice of its special closing hours to participants and to the public.
( c ) During normal closing hours, and to the extent reasonably practicable during special closing hours, a registered security-based swap data repository shall have the capability to receive and hold in queue information regarding security-based swaps that has been reported pursuant to §§ 242.900 through 242.909.
( d ) When a registered security-based swap data repository re-opens following normal closing hours or special closing hours, it shall disseminate transaction reports of security-based swaps held in queue, in accordance with the requirements of § 242.902.
( e ) If a registered security-based swap data repository could not receive and hold in queue transaction information that was required to be reported pursuant to §§ 242.900 through 242.909, it must immediately upon re-opening send a message to all participants that it has resumed normal operations. Thereafter, any participant that had an obligation to report information to the registered security-based swap data repository pursuant to §§ 242.900 through 242.909, but could not do so because of the registered security-based swap data repository's inability to receive and hold in queue data, must promptly report the information to the registered security-based swap data repository.
EXHIBIT 10.2


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment”) dated January 23, 2006 to Employment Agreement dated as of May 13, 2002, as amended (the “Employment Agreement”) by and between NuCO2 Inc. (“the Corporation”) and William Scott Wade (“Wade”).


 



	
            WHEREAS, the Corporation and Wade are parties to the Employment Agreement; and
 



 


WHEREAS, the Corporation and Wade wish to amend the Employment Agreement to make certain modifications thereto;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by each of the parties, the Corporation and Wade hereby agree as follows:


 



	
            1.
 	
            Paragraph 1.5 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 



 


“1.5           The term of the Executive’s employment hereunder shall continue, except as otherwise provided herein, through May 31, 2007.”


 



	
            2.
 	
            Except as herein provided, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
 



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation and Wade have executed this Amendment to be executed this 23rd day of January 2006.


 


 



	
            NUCO2 INC.
 	
             
 	
            WILLIAM SCOTT WADE
 
	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
            By:
 	
            /s/ Michael E. DeDomenico
 	
             
 	
            /s/ William Scott Wade
 	
             

	
             
 	
            Name: Michael E. DeDomenico
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### § 201.325 Evidence: Presentation under oath or affirmation.

A witness at a hearing for the purpose of taking evidence shall testify under oath or affirmation.
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00317CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-16-0009:  Recommendations Resulting from the Integrated Prioritization and Re-Baselining of Agency Activities

Accession Number: ML16028A189

Date Released: Tuesday, February 9, 2016

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.
    - ML16028A208 - SECY-16-0009:  Recommendations Resulting from the Integrated Prioritization and Re-Baselining of Agency Activities. (6 page(s), 1/31/2016)
    - ML16028A212 - SECY-16-0009:  Enclosure 1 - Recommendations Resulting from the Integrated Prioritization and Re-Baselining of Agency Activities. (52 page(s), 2/1/2016)
    - ML16028A433 - SECY-16-0009:  Enclosure 2 - Recommendations Resulting from the Integrated Prioritization and Re-Baselining of Agency Activities. (4 page(s), 2/1/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Caliber Energy, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  September  30, 2006, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, David  Naylor,
Principal  Financial  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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/     David Naylor
David Naylor
Treasurer, CFO and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)



November 9, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.



<PAGE>
Opinion filed January 10, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-18-00330-CR

___________

PAUL TORRES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court

Gaines County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-4100

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

Appellant, Paul Torres, has filed an untimely notice of appeal in this cause. 

Appellant attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion for forensic DNA 

testing. We dismiss the appeal. 

The documents on file in this case indicate that the order was signed on 

September 10, 2018, and that the notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk’s 

office on November 26, 2018. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed 

within thirty days after the date that the trial court entered the order. See TEX. R.
2

APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.05 (West 2018). A 

notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this court reflect that Appellant’s notice 

of appeal was filed seventy-seven days after the order was entered. The notice of 

appeal was, therefore, untimely. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the 

granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to 

entertain this appeal. See Swearingen v. State, 189 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2006); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 

860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 

When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that 

the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the appeal may be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction. We requested that Appellant respond to our letter and show 

grounds to continue. Appellant filed a response but has not shown any grounds upon 

which this appeal may proceed. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

January 10, 2019

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
#### Walter Zulinsky, Appellant, v. John W. Bradford et al., Respondents.

It was an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the amendment of the answer. The record discloses that defendants by their original answer attempted to allege the same affirmative defense which was struck out for insufficiency. Permitting that affirmative defense to be alleged by amendment almost four years later, after expiration of the time limited for the commencement of an action upon the cause assigned by the Workmen’s Compensation Law, was prejudicial to a substantial right of the plaintiff. *(Jennings*v. *Perkins,*277 App. Div. 1143, and eases there cited.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
1813.302-570 NASA solicitation provisions.       (a)          (1)  			The contracting officer may use the provision at 1852.213–70, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in simplified acquisitions exceeding the mircro-purchase threshold that are for other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services. This provision shall not be used for acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services as defined in FAR 2.101.          (2) This provision provides a single, consolidated list of certifications and representations for the acquisition of other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services using simplified acquisition procedures and is attached to the solicitation for offerors to complete and return with their offer.          (i) Use the provision with its Alternate I in solicitations for acquisitions that are for, or specify the use of recovered materials (see FAR 23.4).          (ii) Use the provision with its Alternate II in solicitations for the acquisition of research, studies, supplies, or services of the type normally acquired from higher education institutions (see FAR 26.3).          (iii) Use the provision with its Alternate III in solicitation which include the clause at FAR 52.227–14, Rights in Data—General (see FAR 27.404(d)(2) and 1827.404(d)).          (b) The contracting officer may insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 1852.213–71, Evaluation—Other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in solicitations using simplified acquisition procedures for other than Commercial Products and Commercial Services when a trade-off source selection process will be used, that is, factors in addition to technical acceptability and price will be considered. (*See* FAR 13.106.)    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1813.3—Simplified Acquisition Methods
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DALE B. ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 22-0692 (UNA)

)

CITY OF HARRISON, ARKANSAS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A pro se litigant’s pleadings are held to less stringent standards than would be applied to 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro 

se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s

jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The 

purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim 

being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to 

determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 

(D.D.C. 1977). 

Plaintiff, an Arkansas resident, alleges assorted violations of constitutionally-protected 

rights. According to plaintiff, unknown agents of the federal government have surveilled his 
2

activities and obtained and disseminated his personal identifying and medical information; his 

neighbors (whom plaintiff believes to be government agents) harass him and his wife by blowing 

whistles at them day and night, hacking their computers, tampering with their mail, and using 

bioweapons to infect them; and local and state officials have not responded appropriately to their 

written complaints. Among other relief, plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment, unspecified 

monetary damages, and injunctive relief.

Notwithstanding the length of the complaint and the number of offenses it alleges, the 

Court cannot identify a short and plain statement showing plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief he 

demands. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and no defendant can be 

expected to prepare a proper response to it. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the 

complaint without prejudice and grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. An 

Order is issued separately.

DATE: April 4, 2022 /s/

AMIT P. MEHTA

United States District Judge