alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§288–5 to 288–6. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title II, §2022(c)(3)–(5), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1054

Section 288–5, July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §487E, as added Pub. L. 103–43, title XVI, §1631, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 185; amended Pub. L. 105–392, title IV, §410(d), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3589; Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(1) [title II, §223], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–30, related to loan repayment program regarding clinical researchers from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Section 288–5a, July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §487F, as added Pub. L. 106–505, title II, §205, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2329; amended Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §103(b)(49), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3689, related to loan repayment program regarding clinical researchers. Another section 487F of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 288–6 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–255.

Section 288–6, July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §487F, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title X, §1002(b), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1129; amended Pub. L. 110–85, title V, §503(b), Sept. 27, 2007, 121 Stat. 890, related to pediatric research loan repayment program. Another section 487F of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 288–5a of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–255.
Opinion filed August 8, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00130-CR

__________

TORY LEVON KIRK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-0962440-L

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

O N M O T I O N F O R R E H E A R I N G

On July 11, 2013, this court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction that was filed by Tory Levon Kirk, and we dismissed this appeal for 

want of jurisdiction. The State has filed a combination motion for rehearing and 

State’s brief in which the State (1) contends that this court erred in dismissing the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction and (2) attempts to assert for the first time its right 

to cross-appeal under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.01(c) (West Supp. 
2

2012). We write to address the jurisdiction of this court over the State’s crossappeal.

In its motion/brief, the State asserts in a cross-issue that it “now challenges 

the validity of the May 17 order granting a new trial on punishment and asks this 

Court to reverse that order.” The State did not file a notice of appeal from the 

May 17 order granting a new trial. See id. § 44.01(a)(3), (d) (authorizing the State 

to appeal an order that “grants a new trial” if the prosecuting attorney timely files a 

notice of appeal within twenty days of the order). Thus, any right to appeal that 

the State may have is limited to Article 44.01(c), which provides that the State “is 

entitled to appeal a ruling on a question of law if the defendant is convicted in the 

case and appeals the judgment.” When a defendant has invoked this court’s 

jurisdiction and the State raises a cross-point concerning a question of law, as 

provided for in Article 44.01(c), the State is not required to file its own notice of 

appeal. Pfeiffer v. State, 363 S.W.3d 594, 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); see 

Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804, 806–07 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

However, because the State did not file a notice of appeal as provided for in

Article 44.01(a)(3) and (d) and because, as addressed in our original opinion, this 

court lost jurisdiction over the defendant’s appeal when the trial court granted the 

new trial on punishment and restored the case to the position it was in after the 

defendant was found guilty, we are of the opinion that we have no jurisdiction over 

the State’s attempted cross-appeal under Article 44.01(c). Without jurisdiction, we 

have no authority to address the State’s challenge to the May 17 order granting a 

new trial on punishment. See State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1994).
3

We dismiss the State’s cross-issue for want of jurisdiction, and we deny the

State’s motion for rehearing.

PER CURIAM

August 8, 2013

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**




**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Narrowstep Inc. (the "Company"), I, David
      McCourt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or 78o(d);
      and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.







Dated:  October
              15, 2007
            
            /s/
              David McCourtDavid
              McCourtInterim
              Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2022

No. 04-22-00221-CR

IN RE Juan Roberto RODRIGUEZ

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On April 14, 2022, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. After considering 

the petition and the record, this court concludes relator did not show he is entitled to the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on April 27, 2022.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of April, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1990CR1294, styled State of Texas v. Juan Roberto Rodriguez, pending in 

the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4076 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4076

    To amend the Truth in Lending Act to add a rule of construction 
 relating to certain payments to an employee of a mortgage originator.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 2012

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Truth in Lending Act to add a rule of construction 
 relating to certain payments to an employee of a mortgage originator.

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

SECTION 1. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Section 129B(c)(4) of the Truth in Lending Act is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) prohibiting a creditor or mortgage originator 
                from reducing compensation to an employee mortgage 
                originator if, after an initial annual percentage rate 
                (`APR') offer has been disclosed to a consumer by the 
                employee mortgage originator, such employee mortgage 
                originator makes a subsequent offer to the consumer 
                that--
                            ``(i) consists only of a reduction in the 
                        APR from the initial disclosed APR; and
                            ``(ii) is made in response to a lower APR 
                        offer disclosed to the consumer by another 
                        creditor or mortgage originator.''.
                                 <all>
```
### -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40 

## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/02 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
§ 126.15 Expedited processing of license applications for the export of defense articles and defense services to Australia, the United Kingdom, or Canada. ( a ) Any application submitted for authorization of the export of defense articles or services to Australia or the United Kingdom will be expeditiously processed by the Department of State, in consultation with the Department of Defense. Such license applications will not be referred to any other Federal department or agency, except when the defense articles or defense services are classified or exceptional circumstances apply. (See section 1225, Pub. L. 108-375).
( b ) To be eligible for the expedited processing in paragraph (a) of this section, the destination of the prospective export must be limited to Australia or the United Kingdom. No other country may be included as intermediary or ultimate end-user.
( c ) Any application submitted for authorization of the export of defense articles or defense services to Australia, the United Kingdom, or Canada, describing an export that cannot be undertaken under an exemption provided in this subchapter, will be expeditiously processed by the Department of State. The prospective export must occur wholly within, or between the physical territories of Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, or the United States, and between governments or persons from such countries.
( d ) To the extent practicable, any application in paragraph (c) of this section to export defense articles and defense services related to a government-to-government agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, or Canada, and the United States must be approved, returned, or denied within 30 days of submission. For all other license applications, any review shall be completed no later than 45 calendar days after the date of the application. The provisions of this paragraph (d) do not apply to any applications which require congressional certification.
[70 FR 39919, July 12, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 67291, Aug. 20, 2024]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3876 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from leasing Federal lands to 

any person who has violated the Trading with the Enemy Act or who 

conducts business with a state sponsor of terrorism, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2012 

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

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from leasing Federal 

lands to any person who has violated the Trading with 

the Enemy Act or who conducts business with a state 

sponsor of terrorism, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reinforcing Existing 

5 Permit Sanctions On Leases Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3876 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR LEASES. 

2 (a) RESTRICTION.—The Secretary of the Interior 

3 shall not issue any lease of Federal lands (including sub4 merged lands) to— 

5 (1) any person who has violated the Trading 

6 with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.); 

7 (2) any person who conducts business with a 

8 state sponsor of terrorism; or 

9 (3) any person 5 percent or more of which is 

10 owned or controlled by one or more persons who 

11 conduct business with a state sponsor of terrorism. 

12 (b) DEFINITION.—In subsection (a), the term ‘‘state 

13 sponsor of terrorism’’ means any country the government 

14 of which the Secretary of State has determined has repeat15 edly provided support for acts of international terrorism 

16 pursuant to— 

17 (1) section 6(j) of the Export Administration 

18 Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) (as continued 

19 in effect pursuant to the International Emergency 

20 Economic Powers Act); 

21 (2) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act 

22 of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371); or 

23 (3) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act 

24 (22 U.S.C. 2780). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §2297h–1. Sale of Corporation

#### (a) Authorization

The Board of Directors of the Corporation, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall transfer the interest of the United States in the United States Enrichment Corporation to the private sector in a manner that provides for the long-term viability of the Corporation, provides for the continuation by the Corporation of the operation of the Department of Energy's gaseous diffusion plants, provides for the protection of the public interest in maintaining a reliable and economical domestic source of uranium mining, enrichment and conversion services, and, to the extent not inconsistent with such purposes, secures the maximum proceeds to the United States.

#### (b) Proceeds

Proceeds from the sale of the United States' interest in the Corporation shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.

(Pub. L. 104–134, title III, §3103, Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321–336.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the USEC Privatization Act and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, and not as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which comprises this chapter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MELISSA BEAL; TAMMY TAYLOR, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16199 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00631-NVWMHB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-16199 

(9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Beal and 

Taylor were deliberately indifferent to her complaints of heart and chest pain. See 

id. at 1066-68 (an official is deliberately indifferent if she “knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”; a difference of opinion 

between a physician and the prisoner concerning what medical care is appropriate 

does not amount to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Valenzuela’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 14 and

16) are granted. 

Valenzuela’s “motion to submit” (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied as moot. 

The court granted Valenzuela in forma pauperis status and she completed the 

prisoner authorization form (Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 13).

Valenzuela’s motion to seal her medical records attached to defendants’ 

excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied as unnecessary because the 
3 17-16199 

excerpts of record containing her medical records are sealed.

AFFIRMED.
### §17611. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 17611 was editorially reclassified as section 21111 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4186 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the provision of law 

preventing certain State and local employees from seeking elective office, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2012 

Mr. NUGENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the provision of law preventing certain State and local employees 

from seeking elective office, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Allowing Qualified 

5 Local Employees to Serve Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMITTING STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES TO 

7 SEEK ELECTIVE OFFICE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1502 of title 5, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4186 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a)— 

2 (A) in paragraph (1), by adding ‘‘or’’ after 

3 the semicolon; 

4 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘pur5 poses; or’’ and inserting ‘‘purposes.’’; and 

6 (C) by striking paragraph (3); and 

7 (2) by striking subsection (c). 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

9 (1) SECTION REPEALED.—Section 1503 of title 

10 5, United States Code, is repealed. 

11 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The item relating 

12 to section 1503, in the table of sections for chapter 

13 15 of title 5, United States Code, is repealed. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §283a. Annual reporting to increase interagency collaboration and coordination

#### (a) Collaboration with other HHS agencies

On an annual basis, the Director of NIH shall submit to the Secretary a report on the activities of the National Institutes of Health involving collaboration with other agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services.

#### (b) Clinical trials

Each calendar year, the Director of NIH shall submit to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs a report that identifies each clinical trial that is registered during such calendar year in the databank of information established under section 282(i) of this title.

#### (c) Human tissue samples

On an annual basis, the Director of NIH shall submit to the Congress a report that describes how the National Institutes of Health and its agencies store and track human tissue samples.

#### (d) First report

The first report under subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall be submitted not later than 1 year after January 15, 2007.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §403A, as added Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §104(a)(3), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3691.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 403A of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 403D and is classified to section 283a–3 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable only with respect to amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2007 or subsequent fiscal years, see section 109 of Pub. L. 109–482, set out as an Effective Date of 2007 Amendment note under section 281 of this title.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3917 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Disperse Red 60. 

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 the temporary suspension of duty on Disperse 

Red 60. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISPERSE RED 60. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.49 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2014’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

9 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

254) ll-K- (I) -67 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:57AM Sheet 254 of 325 

P.1 
P.2_ 

/A\ Pl 

A\ __ Q 

II-K-(I)-67 

INDUSTRIAL BOILER NSPS IMPACT ANALYSIS - SIXTH ROUND 

TEST CASES - IFCAM MODEL RESULTS. 

EEA, Inc. 

September 9, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-67
§ 134.26 Further proceedings. ( a ) Ordinarily, the determination of an award will be made on the basis of the written record. However, on request of either the applicant or Department of State counsel, or on his or her own initiative, the adjudicative officer may order further proceedings, such as an informal conference, oral argument, additional written submissions, or an evidentiary hearing. Such further proceedings shall be held only when necessary for full and fair resolution of the issues arising from the application, and shall be conducted as promptly as possible.
( b ) A request that the adjudicative officer order further proceedings under this section shall specifically identify the information sought or the disputed issues and shall explain why the additional proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues.
§ 120.19 Violations and penalties. ( a ) Part 127 of this subchapter specifies conduct that constitutes a violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and/or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations in this subchapter and the sanctions that may be imposed for such violations.
( b ) The Department strongly encourages the disclosure of information to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls by persons that believe they may have violated any export control provision of the AECA, or any regulation in this subchapter, order, license, or other authorization issued under the authority of the AECA.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Trafficking in persons report.**
 
2001-15| 2016 | 2017| 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023
 
SuDoc Number:S 1.152:
Item Number:0876-A-12 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000609072
 
January 30, 2020