alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2009-NM-261-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 asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation inAlaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation inAlaska. Is

### it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated inAlaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transpoI1ation? YES ( )explain NO (X)
#### § 518.13 Debarment and suspension.

Federal awarding agencies and recipients shall comply with the nonprocurement debarment and suspension rule, implementing E.O.'s 12549 and 12689, “Debarment and Suspension.” This rule restricts subawards and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities.
#### § 2.3 Notification of foreign officials.

( a ) Any notification of a foreign official for purposes of section 1116(b)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code shall be directed by the foreign government or international organization concerned to the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. For persons normally accredited to the United States in diplomatic or consular capacities and also for persons normally accredited to the United Nations and other international organizations and in turn notified to the Department of State, the procedure for placing a person in the statutory category of being “duly notified to the United States” shall be the current procedure for accreditation, with notification in turn when applicable. The Chief of the Office of Protocol will place on the roster of persons “duly notified to the United States” the names of all persons currently accredited and, when applicable, notified in turn, and will maintain the roster as part of the official files of the Department of State adding to and deleting therefrom as changes in accreditations occur.

( b ) For those persons not normally accredited, the Chief of Protocol shall determine upon receipt of notification, by letter from the foreign government or international organization concerned, whether any person who is the subject of such a notification has been duly notified under the Act. Any inquiries by law enforcement officers or other persons as to whether a person has been duly notified shall be directed to the Chief of Protocol. The determination of the Chief of Protocol that a person has been duly notified is final.

(18 U.S.C. 1116(b)(2), 1116(c)(4); sec. 4 of the Act of May 26, 1949, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2658))

[37 FR 24818, Nov. 22, 1972]
§ 513.415 Period of suspension. ( a ) Suspension shall be for a temporary period pending the completion of an investigation or ensuing legal, debarment, or Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act proceedings, unless terminated sooner by the suspending official or as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) If legal or administrative proceedings are not initiated within 12 months after the date of the suspension notice, the suspension shall be terminated unless an Assistant Attorney General or United States Attorney requests its extension in writing, in which case it may be extended for an additional six months. In no event may a suspension extend beyond 18 months, unless such proceedings have been initiated within that period.
( c ) The suspending official shall notify the Department of Justice of an impending termination of a suspension, at least 30 days before the 12-month period expires, to give that Department an opportunity to request an extension.
§ 1006.145 Does this part address persons who are disqualified, as well as those who are excluded from nonprocurement transactions? Except if provided for in Subpart J of this part, this part— ( a ) Addresses disqualified persons only to— ( 1 ) Provide for their inclusion in the *EPLS;* and
( 2 ) State responsibilities of Federal agencies and participants to check for disqualified persons before entering into covered transactions.
( b ) Does not specify the— ( 1 ) Inter-American Foundation transactions for which a disqualified person is ineligible. Those transactions vary on a case-by-case basis, because they depend on the language of the specific statute, Executive order, or regulation that caused the disqualification;
( 2 ) Entities to which the disqualification applies; or
( 3 ) Process that the agency uses to disqualify a person. Unlike exclusion, disqualification is frequently not a discretionary action that a Federal agency takes.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6/2/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MANDANA D. FARHANG and M.A.

MOBILE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

KHARAGPUR; TECHNOLOGY

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TRAINING

SOCIETY; PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI;

PALLAB DASGUPTA; GURASHISH S.

BRAR; RAKESH GUPTA; PRAVANJAN

CHOUDHURY; SUBRAT PANDA;

ANIMESH NASKAR,

Defendants.

No. C-08-02658 RMW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The original complaint in this action was filed on May 27, 2008. Two years have passed,

and the following defendants still have not been served: Technology Entrepreneurship and Training

Society, Partha P. Chakrabarti, Pallab Dasgupta, Rakesh Gupta, Pravanjan Choudhury, Subrat

Panda, and Animesh Naskar. The court therefore orders plaintiffs to appear at 9:00 a.m. on July 2,

2010 and show cause why the unserved defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiffs must file a declaration by June 22, 2010 showing good cause why this case should not be

dismissed against the unserved defendants for failure to prosecute. Good cause must include a

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 144 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 2

showing that plaintiffs have undertaken all steps required to accomplish service under the Hague

Convention. Absent a showing of good cause, the unserved defendants will be dismissed from this

action. 

DATED: 6/2/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 144 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-08-02658 RMW

CCL 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Micah R. Jacobs mjacobs@mbvlaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant IIT:

I. Neel Chatterjee nchatterjee@orrick.com 

Christopher Yeh cyeh@orrick.com

Nitin Gambhir ngambhir@orrick.com 

Theresa Ann Sutton tsutton@orrick.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 6/2/10 CCL

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 3:08-cv-02658-WHO Document 144 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 3
#### Samuel Koplowitz, Appellant, v Country-Wide Insurance Company, Respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 13, 1976, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Ascione, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Lynch, JJ.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGAL ADDITIONS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEROME KOWALKSI, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-2754 EMC

NOTICE AND ORDER REGARDING

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

The Court intends to give the attached instructions at trial commencing on June 23, 2010.

Any objections shall be filed by 12:00 Noon, June 22, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02754-EMC Document 193 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harry Morgenstein, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Smith, Merrell and Greenbaum, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel F. Crewell, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga County Court, convicting defendant of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
#### Scott *v.*The State.

April 9, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Sheppard. Bryan superior court. January 31, 1912.

Fish, C. J.

1. The admission of evidence upon which error was assigned, when considered in connection with the statement of the judge made at the time and in the presence of the jury, as to the restrictive consideration of it by the jury, was not cause for the grant of a new trial.

2. It is a well-settled rule that a verdict can not be impeached upon tho evidence of one of the jurors who returned it.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*30
      *J. E. Smith*and *B. F. 0. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. S. Felder, attorney-general,*and *N. J. Norman, solicitor-general,*contra.'
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

November 4, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W


Washington, D.C. 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This
certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part
of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the
Report) accompanying this letter.

H. Wayne Huizenga, the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Boca Resorts, Inc., and Wayne Moor, the
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
Boca Resorts, Inc., each certifies that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. the Report fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     
|
| | 2. the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of Boca Resorts, Inc.

/s/ H. Wayne Huizenga




H. Wayne Huizenga


Chairman of the Board and Chief


Executive Officer


/s/ Wayne Moor




Wayne Moor


Senior Vice President, Treasurer and


Chief Financial Officer


16
### §4901. Congressional findings and statement of policy

(a) The Congress finds—

(1) that inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the Nation's population, particularly in urban areas;

(2) that the major sources of noise include transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery, appliances, and other products in commerce; and

(3) that, while primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments, Federal action is essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce control of which require national uniformity of treatment.

(b) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of this chapter to establish a means for effective coordination of Federal research and activities in noise control, to authorize the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce, and to provide information to the public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products.

(Pub. L. 92–574, §2, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1234.)

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

#### Short Title of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–609, §1, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3079, provided: "That this Act [amending sections 4905, 4910, 4913, 4918, 6901, 6903, 6907, 6913, 6922, 6923, 6925, to 6928, 6947, 6961, 6962, 6964, 6972, 6973, 6977, and 6981 to 6984 of this title and section 1431 of former Title 49, Transportation, and enacting provision set out as a note under section 1431 of former Title 49] may be cited as the 'Quiet Communities Act of 1978'."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 92–574, §1, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1234, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter, amending section 1431 of former Title 49, Transportation, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1431 of former Title 49] may be cited as the 'Noise Control Act of 1972'."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Federal Compliance With Pollution Control Standards

For provisions relating to the responsibility of the head of each Executive agency for compliance with applicable pollution control standards, see Ex. Ord. No. 12088, Oct. 13, 1978, 43 F.R. 47707, set out as a note under section 4321 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76769-76770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27953]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control; Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention and 
Surveillance in South Africa-Developing Community-Level Strategies that 
Work, Request for Applications (RFA) DD05-011

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:

    Name: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control 
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention and 
Surveillance in South Africa-Developing Community-Level Strategies 
that Work, RFA DD05-011.
    Times and Dates: 1 p.m.-1:35 p.m., January 11, 2005 (Open), 1:50 
p.m.-4:30 p.m., January 11, 2005 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference Number: USA Toll Free 888-769-8515 
Passcode 42438.

[[Page 76770]]

    Status: Portions of the meeting will be closed to the public in 
accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), 
Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management 
Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to: 
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention and Surveillance in South Africa-
Developing Community-Level Strategies that Work, Request for 
Applications (RFA) DD05-011.
    Contact Person for More Information: JoAnn Thierry, PhD., 
M.S.W., Scientific Review Administrator, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental 
Disabilities, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E88, Atlanta, GA 
30333, Telephone (404) 498-3022.
    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 16, 2004.
Alvin Hall,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 04-27953 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOHN ARLIN PRICE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3968 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed June 6, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Daniel L. Perry, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
§ 214.13 Responsibilities within A.I.D. ( a ) The A.I.D. Office or Bureau seeking establishment of a new A.I.D. advisory committee: ( 1 ) Justifies the need for the advisory committee to the satisfaction of the A.I.D. Advisory Committee Management Officer, the A.I.D. Administrator, and the OMB Secretariat.
( 2 ) Prepares, clears with the Advisory Committee Management Officer and the General Counsel, and submits to the Administrator all documentation necessary to establish or use the advisory committee.
( b ) The Advisory Committee Management Officer with assistance as appropriate from the General Counsel and the Office of Legislative Affairs: ( 1 ) Appraises the need for the proposed advisory committee;
( 2 ) Assures that the requirements of the Act and OMB guidelines have been followed;
( 3 ) If satisfied with paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, clears the proposal for submission to the Administrator and obtains OMB concurrence in Agency actions to establish advisory committees;
( 4 ) Maintains the agency file of approved charters and formal determinations;
( 5 ) Publishes approved charters in the Agency's internal directives system;
( 6 ) Reviews proposed committee membership for compliance with legal requirements, including conflict of interest;
( 7 ) Assures publication of the Administrator's formal determinations in the Federal Register; and
( 8 ) Transmits approved advisory committee charters to the House International Relations Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Library of Congress.
[40 FR 33205, Aug. 7, 1975, as amended at 40 FR 54778, Nov. 26, 1975]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2456 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2456

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act to eliminate certain mandatory minimum penalties 
                  relating to crack cocaine offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, 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 the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act to eliminate certain mandatory minimum penalties 
                  relating to crack cocaine offenses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. TREATING CRACK AND OTHER FORMS OF COCAINE THE SAME FOR 
              TRAFFICKING PENALTIES.

    (a) Treating 50 Grams of Crack the Same as 50 Grams of Other Forms 
of Cocaine.--Section 401(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking clause (iii).
    (b) Treating 5 Grams of Crack the Same as 5 Grams of Other Forms of 
Cocaine.--Section 401(b)(1)(B) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking clause (iii).

SEC. 3. TREATING THE POSSESSION OF CRACK THE SAME AS THE POSSESSION OF 
              OTHER FORMS OF COCAINE.

    Section 404(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844(a)) 
is amended by striking the sentence that begins ``Notwithstanding the 
preceding sentence''.

SEC. 4. TREATING THE IMPORTATION OF CRACK THE SAME AS THE IMPORTATION 
              OF OTHER FORMS OF COCAINE.

    (a) Treating 50 Grams of Crack the Same as 50 Grams of Other Forms 
of Cocaine.--Section 1010(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)) is amended by striking out 
subparagraph (C).
    (b) Treating 5 Grams of Crack the Same as 5 Grams of Other Forms of 
Cocaine.--Section 1010(b)(2) of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(2)) is amended by striking out 
subparagraph (C).

SEC. 5. SENTENCING COMMISSION TO AMEND GUIDELINES.

    As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate such 
amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines as are necessary to conform 
those Guidelines to the amendments made by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Short *v.*Dowling, mayor, *et al.*

November 14, 1912.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Tbomas. Colquitt superior court. September 7, 1912.

*A. R. Kline,*for plaintiff. *J. D. McKenzie,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

E. L. Short instituted habeas corpus proceedings against J. L. Dowling, mayor, and J. A. Collier, marshal, of the town of Doe-run. On the trial it appeared that in December, 1911, Short was convicted in the mayor’s court for a violation of a municipal ordinance, and given an alternative sentence. An appeal was entered to the mayor and council. The defendant having neither paid the fine nor served out the sentence, the marshal, in August, 1912, arrested him. The following contentions were made: *(a)*That the criminal docket of the municipal court showed that the case against Short had been dismissed, and that he had been released from any sentence by the officers of the town, who had informed him that the case had been dismissed, and allowed ten months to elapse from the imposition of the sentence before attempting to enforce it, it being insisted that to enforce the sentence in the circumstances would be contrary to public policy. (&) That the period for which he was sentenced had expired, and the sentence thereby executed. *Held: '*

1. Relatively to the dismissal, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the trial court to find that an entry of dismissal appearing on the mayor’s docket related to dismissal of the appeal at the defendant’s request, rather than to dismissal of the case.

2. Under the ruling in tlie case of *Neal*v. *State,*104 *Ga.*509 (30 S. E. 858, 42 L. R. A. 190, 69 Am. St. R. 175), and eases cited, as applied to the evidence adduced on the trial, the court did not err in adjudging that the sentence had not been executed.

3. Nor upon any other theory advanced was the case of such character as to show error in remanding the prisoner to the custody of the officer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*