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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 53876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 
131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is 
providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the 
Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the 
European Atomic Energy Community.

DATES: This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 
September 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sean Oehlbert, Office of 
Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-3806 or email: 
Sean.Oehlbert@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This subsequent arrangement concerns the 
retransfer of 2,959,580 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride 
(UF6) (67.60% U), 2,000,000 kg of which is uranium, from Cameco 
Corporation (Cameco) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, to URENCO in 
Almelo, Netherlands. The material, which is currently located at 
Cameco, will be used for toll enrichment by URENCO at their facility in 
Almelo, Netherlands. The material was originally obtained by Cameco 
from the Feed Component Substitution Implementing Contract.
    In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement 
concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin 
will not be inimical to the common defense and security.

    Dated: August 13, 2012.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anne M. Harrington,
Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2012-21684 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### Miller & Sons Company v. E. M. Sergeant Company.

Motion granted; question certified. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
### §7505a. Maintenance plans

#### (a) Plan revision

Each State which submits a request under section 7407(d) of this title for redesignation of a nonattainment area for any air pollutant as an area which has attained the national primary ambient air quality standard for that air pollutant shall also submit a revision of the applicable State implementation plan to provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at least 10 years after the redesignation. The plan shall contain such additional measures, if any, as may be necessary to ensure such maintenance.

#### (b) Subsequent plan revisions

8 years after redesignation of any area as an attainment area under section 7407(d) of this title, the State shall submit to the Administrator an additional revision of the applicable State implementation plan for maintaining the national primary ambient air quality standard for 10 years after the expiration of the 10-year period referred to in subsection (a).

#### (c) Nonattainment requirements applicable pending plan approval

Until such plan revision is approved and an area is redesignated as attainment for any area designated as a nonattainment area, the requirements of this part shall continue in force and effect with respect to such area.

#### (d) Contingency provisions

Each plan revision submitted under this section shall contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment area. Such provisions shall include a requirement that the State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the State implementation plan for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainment area. The failure of any area redesignated as an attainment area to maintain the national ambient air quality standard concerned shall not result in a requirement that the State revise its State implementation plan unless the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, requires the State to submit a revised State implementation plan.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §175A, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title I, §102(e), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2418.)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2698 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2698

     To suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,8-
                           bis(phenylthio)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,8-
                           bis(phenylthio)-.

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

SECTION 1. 9,10-ANTHRACENEDIONE, 1,8-BIS
              (PHENYLTHIO)-.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.03      9,10-               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Anthracenedione,                                                   31/2008
                         1,8-
                         bis(phenylthio)-.
                         (solvent yellow
                         163) (CAS No.
                         13676-91-0)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading 3204-
                         19.20)...........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 108.45 Compliance report.

Following a compliance review, a report shall be prepared promptly and the Assistant Secretary for FH&EO shall make a finding of compliance or noncompliance. If it is found that the applicant is in compliance, all parties concerned shall be notified of the findings. Whenever a finding of noncompliance is made pursuant to this part, the report shall list specifically the violations found. The applicant shall be sent a copy of the report by certified mail, return receipt requested, together with a notice that, if the matter cannot be resolved within ten days of receipt of the Notice, the matter will be referred to the Assistant Secretary for FH&EO to make a determination as to whether actions will be initiated for the imposition of sanctions.

[44 FR 47013, Aug. 9, 1979, as amended at 64 FR 44097, Aug. 12, 1999]
### §4701. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

The Congress hereby finds and declares—

That effective State and local governmental institutions are essential in the maintenance and development of the Federal system in an increasingly complex and interdependent society.

That, since numerous governmental activities administered by the State and local governments are related to national purpose and are financed in part by Federal funds, a national interest exists in a high caliber of public service in State and local governments.

That the quality of public service at all levels of government can be improved by the development of systems of personnel administration consistent with such merit principles as—

(1) recruiting, selecting, and advancing employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge, and skills, including open consideration of qualified applicants for initial appointment;

(2) providing equitable and adequate compensation;

(3) training employees, as needed, to assure high-quality performance;

(4) retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected;

(5) assuring fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, or religious creed and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights as citizens; and

(6) assuring that employees are protected against coercion for partisan political purposes and are prohibited from using their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office.

That Federal financial and technical assistance to State and local governments for strengthening their personnel administration in a manner consistent with these principles is in the national interest.

(Pub. L. 91–648, §2, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1909.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 91–648, §1, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1909, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter and sections 3371 to 3376 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, amending section 246(f) of this title, section 1304 of Title 5, repealing sections 1881 to 1888 of Title 7, Agriculture, and section 869b of Title 20, Education, and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 3371 of Title 5] may be cited as the 'Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970'."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clarence Smith, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 347]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 5, 1998 *(People v Smith,*254 AD2d 312), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 20, 1996.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*
      *333463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.
#### Florence N. Edwards, Respondent, v. Sally J. Huntting, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In an action by a sister of the defendant Daniel 0. Huntting to annul his marriage to the defendant Sally Jennings Huntting on the ground that at the time it was contracted he was a lunatic, the defendant wife appeals: (1) from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 20, 1960, granting the annulment after a *769nonjury trial; and (2) from the decision of said count on which such judgment was entered. Interlocutory judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event (see *Rattray*v. *Emitting,*11 A D 2d 785i). This disposition necessarily carries with it the reversal of the portion of the judgment fixing the fee of the guardian ad litem for the husband and directing plaintiff to pay such fee. In our opinion, the guardian’s fee should be re-evaluated and fixed in the light of all the supervening events. Appeal from decision dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from a decision. Nolan, P. J., Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Ughetta, J., dissents and votes to affirm the interlocutory judgment.
#### Jack Babbit et al., Appellants, v Arn Pat Realty Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed, without *743costs, upon stipulation. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—examination before trial.) Present—Simons, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Denman and Goldman, JJ.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2490 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Mayor 

Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005 

Mr. DENT (for himself, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. 

ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Ms. HART, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, 

Mr. GERLACH, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SHERWOOD, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. MURTHA, 

Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. HOLDEN, 

Mr. MURPHY, and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial 

Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MAYOR JOSEPH S. DADDONA MEMORIAL POST 

4 OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 442 West Hamilton Street, Al-
2 

•HR 2490 IH 

1 lentown, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mayor Joseph S. 

7 Daddona Memorial Post Office’’. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      35,926,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,377,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            71,773,000
<PP&E>                                       7,571,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,012,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,688,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       61,734,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       148,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,028,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,688,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,620,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,896,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (208,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,068,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,068,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,068,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Farmers Union Warehouse, Storage &c. Co. *v.*Stewart.

September 27, 1912.

Atkinson, J.

A case was referred to an auditor, who made his report. Exceptions of law and fact were filed thereto. The court overruled all the exceptions of law, and all exceptions of fact except one, which was sustained. Upon the report and brief of evidence as amended by the ruling sustaining the exception of fact, the court awarded a nonsuit. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, complaining that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was amended by the addition of two grounds, the first of which was disapproved and the last approved by reference to the record, which disproved the recital of fact. *Held,*that, inasmuch as the grant of a nonsuit is not reviewable by motion for new trial *(Buchanan*v. *James,*134 *Ga.*475 (68 S. E. 72)), there was no error in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*734Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Judge Eoan. Eockdale superior court. December 31, 1910.

*A. C. & J. H. McCalla,*for plaintiff.

*J. B. Irwin*and *J. E. & L. F. McClelland,*for defendant
### §6992g. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title V, §501(h)(1)(A), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3284

Section, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §11008, as added Pub. L. 100–582, §2(a), Nov. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2956, related to Administrator's report to Congress concerning demonstration medical waste tracking program.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code), I, Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of EdgePetroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Dated:   May 8, 2006 | /s/ Michael G. Long |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                | Name:               | Michael G. Long |
|                                |                | Chief Financial and Accounting Officer |

 

----
#### Smith *v.*Shaw *et al.*

Atkinson, J.

An action was instituted against a non-resident sojourning in this State, and certain other persons alleged to be purchasers from him under a contract by which the latter were paying the former large sums of money. The petition contained prayers for a money judgment against the alleged debtor, and for an injunction against all defendants in regard to payment of money "and disposition of stocks accruing to the debtor by virtue of the contract of purchase. On presentation to the judge the petition was sanctioned, restraining order granted, and rule issued, requiring defendants to show cause, etc., at the call of the motion docket on the first day of the term to which the action was returnable by law. Separate demurrers to the petition were filed, but nothing further was done until the next succeeding or trial term, at which time the case was heard' on demurrer. At this hearing the judge refused to allow an amendment offered by the plaintiff, and dismissed the petition in so far as it related to the alleged purchasers, and also in so far as it sought the injunction against the alleged debtor. Thereupon the plaintiff excepted to each of the several rulings, and tendered a bill of exceptions which was duly certified, returnable to the term of the Supreme Court then in session, assigning error. *Held:*

1. The decisions upon which error was assigned were not reviewable by a fast writ of error under the Civil Code, § 6153.

2. The bill of 'exceptions will be transferred to the docket of the Supreme *806Court next ensuing after that to which it was transmitted while in session. *Ivey*v. Rome, 126 *Ga.*806 (55 S. E. 1034).

October 30, 1912.

Petition for injunction, etc. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. May 3, 1912.

*Burton Smith*and *L. Z. Rosser,*for plaintiff.

*Anderson, Felder, Rountree & Wilson*and *King & Spalding and*Underwood, for defendants.

*All the Justices concur.*
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date: 

11 a.m., Friday, January 21, 2005.

# Place: 

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room

# Status: 

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered: 

Surveillance matters.

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-28413  Filed 12-22-04; 3:38 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Sergio Maldonado Facundo, Appellant

No. 06-17-00120-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 336th District Court of 

Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR-16-

25804). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Sergio Maldonado Facundo, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 1, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

FAITH MUNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERTZ LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-1942 VRW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: STATUS

This matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge to prepare proposed

findings of fact and recommendations for all outstanding matters. To assist the undersigned with

this assignment, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report by May 20, 2010,

which provides the following information:

1) Identify any pending motions (include title, docket number, and date filed);

2) Identify all documents (declarations, opposition, reply, etc.) related to any pending motions

(include title, docket number, and date filed); and 

3) Identify any briefing which remains to be filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-01942-VRW Document 76 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1