alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2223. Patent application disclosures

In the event that the Commission communicates to any nation any Restricted Data based on any patent application not belonging to the United States, just compensation shall be paid by the United States to the owner of the patent application. The Commission shall determine such compensation. If the compensation so determined is unsatisfactory to the person entitled thereto, such person shall be paid 75 per centum of the amount so determined, and shall be entitled to sue the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims or in any district court of the United States for the district in which such claimant is a resident in a manner provided by section 1346 of title 28 to recover such further sum as added to such 75 per centum will constitute just compensation.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §173, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 953; amended Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §160(a)(16), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 48; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court".

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "United States Claims Court" for "Court of Claims".

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
No: 16-029 May 24, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC to Amend Regulations to Establish Separate Fees for Small Modular Reactors

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to establish a separate fee 

structure for light-water small modular reactors (SMRs) because it anticipates that it will soon receive 

SMR license applications. SMRs are nuclear power plants that are significantly smaller in size than 

those in the current operating fleet. Under this fee structure, an SMR’s annual fee will be based on how 

much power it is licensed to generate.

Without this separate fee structure, an SMR would have been required to pay the same annual 

fee as a large operating light-water reactor. The fee structure for SMRs complies with the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, which requires that NRC fees be “fairly and equitably” allocated 

among its licensees.

The NRC published the proposed rule, “Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular 

Reactors,” in the Federal Register for public comment on Nov. 4, 2015, and held a public meeting on

Nov. 16, 2015.

The final rule will become effective June 23, following today’s publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register.
#### § 1006.410 May I approve a participant's use of the services of an excluded person?

After entering into a covered transaction with a participant, you as an agency official may not approve a participant's use of an excluded person as a principal under that transaction, unless you obtain an exception under § 1006.120.
### §238i. Memorials and other acknowledgments for contributions to health of Nation

The Secretary may provide for suitably acknowledging, within the Department (whether by memorials, designations, or other suitable acknowledgments), (1) efforts of persons who have contributed substantially to the health of the Nation and (2) gifts for use in activities of the Department related to health.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title II, §240, formerly title V, §512, as added Pub. L. 90–574, title V, §503(a), Oct. 15, 1968, 82 Stat. 1012; renumbered title XXI, §2112, Pub. L. 98–24, §2(a)(1), Apr. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 176; renumbered title XXIII, §2312, Pub. L. 99–660, title III, §311(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3755; renumbered title XXV, §2510, Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §201(1), (3), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3062, 3063; renumbered title XXVI, §2610, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2620(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4244; renumbered title XXVII, §2710, Pub. L. 101–381, title I, §101(1), (2), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 576; renumbered title II, §240, Pub. L. 103–43, title XX, §2010(a)(1)–(3), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 213.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 300aaa–9 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 103–43, to section 300cc–11 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 100–607, to section 300aa–11 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 99–660, and to section 229a of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 98–24.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3135

KENNETH M. PEDELEOSE,

Petiitoner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

AT0752060350-R-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Kenneth M. Pedeleose moves for an extension of time to file his reply brief.

Pedeleose's reply brief is timely; thus, the extension motion is moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is moot.

FOR THE COURT

JUN11 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Kenneth M. Pedeleose

Michael N. O'Connell, Esq.

JUN 1`1 2009

WOW

CIEW

s17
EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Kelly Kendall, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Life USA, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: December    , 2003


/s/ Kelly Kendall
--------------------------
 Kelly Kendall, CEO, & CFO
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                                 COMPURAD, INC.
                SCHEDULE REGARDING COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          MARCH 31
                                                ------------------------------
                                                   1997               1996
                                                -----------        -----------
<S>                                             <C>                <C>        
Net loss                                        $   133,519        $   226,781
                                                ===========        ===========

Weighted average common shares
   outstanding                                    3,857,873          2,212,474

Common stock equivalents pursuant to
   SAB No. 83: Stock and options issued
   within one year of initial filing                     --            636,933

Common stock equivalents-dilutive options                --                 --

Weighted average common shares and
   common share equivalents outstanding
                                                -----------        -----------
   during the period                              3,857,873          2,849,407
                                                ===========        ===========

Net loss per common share                       $     (0.03)       $     (0.08)
                                                ===========        ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE CLOROX COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998, AS PRESENTED IN THE CLOROX COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FILED FOR SUCH PERIOD, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           70974
<SECURITIES>                                     38182
<RECEIVABLES>                                   348863
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1521
<INVENTORY>                                     214701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                738465
<PP&E>                                         1149303
<DEPRECIATION>                                  550901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3009982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1044417
<BONDS>                                         209404
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        110844
<OTHER-SE>                                      990757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3009982
<SALES>                                         685883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                685883
<CGS>                                           288551
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   535710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3150)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               18796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 134527
<INCOME-TAX>                                     49105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              85422
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     85422
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81
        

</TABLE>
### §16943. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16943 was editorially reclassified as section 20943 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §17096. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 434 through 439 and 482 1 $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 110–140, title IV, §440, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1623.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 434 through 439, referred to in text, are sections 434 to 439 of Pub. L. 110–140, which enacted sections 17091 to 17095 of this title and amended section 8253 of this title. Section 482 is unidentifiable because Pub. L. 110–140 does not contain a section 482.

#### **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.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### § 270.18c-1 Exemption of privately held indebtedness.

The issuance or sale of more than one class of senior securities representing indebtedness by a small business investment company, licensed under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, shall not be prohibited by section 18(c) so long as such small business investment company does not have outstanding any publicly held indebtedness, and all securities of any such class are (a) privately held by the Small Business Administration, or banks, insurance companies or other institutional investors, (b) not intended to be publicly distributed, and (c) not convertible into, exchangeable for, or accompanied by any option to acquire, any equity security.

[26 FR 11240, Nov. 29, 1961]
#### Louis K. Braunston et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Anchorage Woods, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Motion by plaintiffs (appellants-respondents) to dispense with the printing of 12 photographs constituting Exhibits A through L inclusive, granted on condition that a copy of said exhibits be served upon defendants’ (respondents-appellants’) attorney either before or together with the printed record on appeal. The original exhibits shall be submitted to the court upon the argument of the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 49
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 49 appear at 85 FR 75672, Nov. 25, 2020.

§ 49.15 Real-time public reporting by swap data repositories. ( a ) *Scope.* The provisions of this section apply to the real-time public reporting of swap transaction and pricing data submitted to a swap data repository pursuant to part 43 of this chapter.
( b ) *Systems to accept and disseminate data in connection with real-time public reporting.* A swap data repository shall establish such electronic systems as are necessary to accept and publicly disseminate swap transaction and pricing data submitted to the swap data repository pursuant to part 43 of this chapter in order to meet the real-time public reporting obligations of part 43 of this chapter. Any electronic system established for this purpose shall be capable of accepting and ensuring the public dissemination of all data fields required by part 43 this chapter.
( c ) *Duty to notify the Commission of untimely data.* A swap data repository shall notify the Commission of any swap transaction for which the real-time swap data was not received by the swap data repository in accordance with part 43 of this chapter.
[85 FR 75659, Nov. 25, 2020]
§ 38.553 Enforcement of audit trail requirements. ( a ) *Annual audit trail and recordkeeping reviews.* A designated contract market must enforce its audit trail and recordkeeping requirements through at least annual reviews of all members and persons and firms subject to designated contract market recordkeeping rules to verify their compliance with the contract market's audit trail and recordkeeping requirements. Such reviews must include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) For electronic trading, audit trail and recordkeeping reviews must include reviews of randomly selected samples of front-end audit trail data for order routing systems; a review of the process by which user identifications are assigned and user identification records are maintained; a review of usage patterns associated with user identifications to monitor for violations of user identification rules; and reviews of account numbers and customer type indicator codes in trade records to test for accuracy and improper use.
( 2 ) For open outcry trading, audit trail and recordkeeping reviews must include reviews of members' and market participants' compliance with the designated contract market's trade timing, order ticket, and trading card requirements.
( b ) *Enforcement program required.* A designated contract market must establish a program for effective enforcement of its audit trail and recordkeeping requirements for both electronic and open-outcry trading, as applicable. An effective program must identify members and persons and firms subject to designated contract market recordkeeping rules that have failed to maintain high levels of compliance with such requirements, and levy meaningful sanctions when deficiencies are found. Sanctions must be sufficient to deter recidivist behavior. No more than one warning letter may be issued to the same person or entity found to have committed the same rule violation within a rolling twelve month period.
#### Edward A. Hendrickson v. Empire Trust Company.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4149 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4149

To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to clarify that the value 
  of certain funeral and burial arrangements are not to be considered 
  available resources under the supplemental security income program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2012

 Mr. Southerland introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to clarify that the value 
  of certain funeral and burial arrangements are not to be considered 
  available resources under the supplemental security income program.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FUNERAL AND BURIAL ARRANGEMENTS NOT CONSIDERED 
              RESOURCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1613(e)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1382b(e)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(C) If--
            ``(i) an individual or the individual's spouse enters into 
        an irrevocable contract with a provider of funeral goods and 
        services for a funeral;
            ``(ii) the individual or the individual's spouse funds the 
        contract by paying for the goods and services; and
            ``(iii)(I) the funeral provider subsequently places the 
        funds in a trust or in escrow; or
            ``(II) the individual or the individual's spouse 
        establishes an irrevocable trust, and the funeral provider is 
        the named beneficiary of the trust,
then the trust or escrow shall not be considered a resource available 
to the individual.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to payments for supplemental security income benefits under title 
XVI of the Social Security Act for months beginning 90 days or more 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### ST.PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS CO. v. N.C. MOTOR VEH. REINSURANCE FAC.

No. 526P96

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 450

Petition by petitioner for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 February 1997.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bryant Elliott DAVIS, a/k/a Joseph Butler, a/k/a Bryant Davidson, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-6841.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 13, 2007.

Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.

Bryant Elliott Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Elliot Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion, which the district court properly construed as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*