alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8454. Study of compliance problem of small electric utility systems

#### (a) Study

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the problems of compliance with this chapter experienced by those electric utility systems which have a total system generating capacity of less than 2,000 megawatts. The Secretary shall report his findings and his recommendations to the Congress not later than 2 years after the effective date of this chapter.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the fiscal year 1979 not to exceed $500,000 to carry out the provisions of this section.

(Pub. L. 95–620, title VII, §744, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3343.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–620, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3289, known as the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8301 of this title and Tables.

The effective date of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), is the effective date of Pub. L. 95–620. See section 901 of Pub. L. 95–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8301 of this title.
#### In re BARBER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 21, 1905.)

In the matter of the petition of William S. Barber for an injunction against James Wilson. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 2003.7 Authority to make law enforcement-related requests for records maintained by other agencies. ( a ) The Inspector General is authorized by written delegation from the Secretary of HUD and under the Inspector General Act to make written requests under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7) for transfer of records maintained by other agencies which are necessary to carry out an authorized law enforcement activity under the Inspector General Act.
( b ) The Inspector General delegates the authority under paragraph (a) of this section to the following OIG officials: ( 1 ) Deputy Inspector General;
( 2 ) Assistant Inspector General for Audit;
( 3 ) Assistant Inspector General for Investigation; and
( 4 ) Assistant Inspector General for Management and Policy.
( c ) The officials listed in paragraph (b) of this section may not redelegate the authority described in paragraph (a) of this section.
August 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM. 

Case 3:08-cv-04850-VRW Document 41 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
Date: March 30, 2010 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:08-cv-04850-VRW Document 41 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-04630-SI Document 70 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-04630-SI Document 70 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2
#### BRETERMAN et al., Respondents, v. ADLER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term. Action by Charles Breterman and another against Ettie Adler and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed. Benjamin Reass, for appellants." Henry Kuntz, for respondents.

BLANCHARD, J.

Upon the stipulation, entered into between the parties to this action, that this appeal should be disposed of upon the record in the appeal now before us in the case of Lederer v. Adler et al., 92 N. Y. Supp. 827, the judgment and order are reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

O’GORMAN, J., concurs.

SCOTT, J.

I concur, for the reasons stated in Lederer v. Adler, 92 N. Y. Supp. 827.
###### Editorial Note on Part 64

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 64 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

#### § 64.8 Obligation of employee to advise agency.

Any Federal employee receiving any offer of a grant or other assistance under a cultural exchange program approved by the Secretary of State shall advise the employee's agency of such offer and shall not accept such offer unless the employee's agency states that it has no objection to such acceptance. In the case of the Department, an employee shall advise the DAEO who may, after consultation with appropriate officials of the Department, furnish a “no objection” statement.

[44 FR 42247, Sept. 20, 1978. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999]
#### § 1508.25 How is this part organized?

(a) This part is subdivided into ten subparts. Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities, as shown in the following table:

| In subpart . . . | You will find provisions related to . . . |
| --- | --- |
| A | general information about this rule. |
| B | the types of ADF transactions that are covered by the Governmentwide nonprocurement suspension and debarment system. |
| C | the responsibilities of persons who participate in covered transactions. |
| D | the responsibilities of ADF officials who are authorized to enter into covered transactions. |
| E | the responsibilities of Federal agencies for the *Excluded Parties List System* (Disseminated by the General Services Administration). |
| F | the general principles governing suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion and settlement. |
| G | suspension actions. |
| H | debarment actions. |
| I | definitions of terms used in this part. |
| J | [Reserved] |

(b) The following table shows which subparts may be of special interest to you, depending on who you are:

| If you are . . . | See subpart(s) . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) a participant or principal in a nonprocurement transaction | A, B, C, and I. |
| (2) a respondent in a suspension action | A, B, F, G and I. |
| (3) a respondent in a debarment action | A, B, F, H and I. |
| (4) a suspending official | A, B, D, E, F, G and I. |
| (5) a debarring official | A, B, D, E, F, H and I. |
| (6) a (n) ADF official authorized to enter into a covered transaction | A, B, D, E and I. |
| (7) Reserved | J. |
#### FITZPATRICK, Appellant, v. HUDSON RIVER WATER POWER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division,.Third Department.

January 20, 1903.)

Action by Ed*1135ward Fitzpatrick against the Hudson River Water Power Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
### §7276. Regulations to require integrated resource planning

#### (a) Regulations

Within 1 year after October 24, 1992, the Administrator shall, by regulation, revise the Final Amended Guidelines and Acceptance Criteria for Customer Conservation and Renewable Energy Programs published in the Federal Register on August 21, 1985 (50 F.R. 33892), or any subsequent amendments thereto, to require each customer purchasing electric energy under a long-term firm power service contract with the Western Area Power Administration to implement, within 3 years after October 24, 1992, integrated resource planning in accordance with the requirements of sections 7275 to 7276c of this title.

#### (b) Certain small customers

Notwithstanding subsection (a), for customers with total annual energy sales or usage of 25 Gigawatt Hours or less which are not members of a joint action agency or a generation and transmission cooperative with power supply responsibility, the Administrator may establish different regulations and apply such regulations to customers that the Administrator finds have limited economic, managerial, and resource capability to conduct integrated resource planning. The regulations under this subsection shall require such customers to consider all reasonable opportunities to meet their future energy service requirements using demand-side techniques, new renewable resources and other programs that will provide retail customers with electricity at the lowest possible cost, and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse environmental effects.

(Pub. L. 98–381, title II, §202, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §114, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2800.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7276, Pub. L. 98–381, title II, §202, Aug. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 1341, related to regulations of Western Area Power Administration, including amendment of regulations after notice and comment, evaluation of energy conservation programs, and allowance by Western for incorporation of elements of such programs, prior to the general amendment of title II of Pub. L. 98–381 by section 114 of Pub. L. 102–486.
#### McNEILL v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.

(¡supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Damages—Personal Injuries—Question op Permanency—Evidence.

Mere proof of the existence of a personal Injury not essentially permanent is not enough to authorize submission of the question of permanent injuries.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Lizzie McNeill against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Bayard H. Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, for appellant.

Wentworth, Lowenstein & Stern, for respondent.

O’GORMAN, J.

Upon the trial of this action brought to recover damages for personal injuries, the trial justice submitted to the jury the question of permanent injuries, to which the defendant excepted. An inspection of the record fails to disclose any evidence of perma*768nent injuries. The attending physician, who was called as a witness, said he could tell with reasonable certainty whether the injuries were permanent; but he at no time stated that they were permanent, nor was he asked to do so. The alleged injury was a dislocated uterus, but mere proof of the existence of an injury not essentially permanent is insufficient evidence of permanency. There was therefore no basis for the instruction, and the defendant’s exception requires a reversal.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 43 ) IV-E-3 1 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20089:15:28AM

Sheet 43 of 105P. 2 

# RADIA N ' i?!" ^ CORPORATIO N TELEPHON E CAL L REPOR T - INDUSTRIAL BOILE RS0 2
DATE : Novembe r 4 , 198 6 TO : Bil l Wolf e

C- E Lurg i 100 0 Prospec t Hil l Roa d Windsor , C T 0609 5 (203 ) 688-191 1 FROM : J . Thoma s Waddel l SUBJECT : Informatio nonFB C uni t a t Scot t Pape r
Mr . Wolf e provide dth e followin g information :
o 1 FB C uni t a t 650,00 0 pph o boile r i s inshakedow nperio d o designe dt o bur n7 type s o f fuel ; th e mai nfue l i s anthracit e cul m o designe dfo r a t leas t 90 % SO * remova l o subjec t t o 0.4 5 l bSO^/MMBt uemissio nlimi t o produce s stea

m a t 1,45 0 psig , 950°F .

Progres s Center/320 0 E . Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso n Hwy./P.O . Bo x13000/Researc h Triangl e Park . N. C 27709/(919)541-910 0
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RAFAEL FRANCO-PEREZ,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-0103-1 CRB

ORDER DENYING SENTENCE

REDUCTION

Rafael Franco-Perez moves for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and

U.S.S.G. §1B1.10 based on Amendment 782. See Motion (dkt. 403). Assuming that the

amendment applies, Franco-Perez’s new base offense level is the same as the original base

offense level, and his advisory guideline range (360 months to life) would be the same. See

Sentence Reduction Investigation Report (dkt. 412). The Court varied downward due to

Franco-Perez’s acceptance of responsibility, and sentenced Franco-Perez to 300 months. Id.

Even if the Court took away Franco-Perez’s career offender status, his new guideline range

would be 324 to 405 months; his sentence still represents a below-guidelines sentence. Id.

The Court thus declines to reduce Franco-Perez’s sentence further. His Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00103-CRB Document 417 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 1
SERVED: DECEMBER 30, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MESA AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0722 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 

_., 

' }'_:; ·;--) 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011SW070036) was received by the 

Office of Hearings on December 19, 2013, and has been assigned to the undersigned. On 

December 20, 2013, Complainant's Counsel served a Withdrawal of Complaint, stating that the 

parties had reached a settlement and withdrawing its complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the FAA Hearing Docket a copy of any compromise 

order or final order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Annjenet Chennault, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7E4, AC 

Federal Aviation Administration I 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5071 

FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 

Bri~ S. Gillman, Respondent's Counsel 

Exec. VP & General Counsel, Mesa Air Group 

410 N. 44th Street, Suite 700 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

TEL: 602-685-4000 

FAX: 602-685-4350 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0722 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
### §5772. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5772 was editorially reclassified as section 11292 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

### JAN 

# a5 lOla

REPLY TO THE ArTENTION OF: AT-18J

Jim Ross Manager DivisionofAir Pollution Control Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springtield, Illinois 62794-9276



# .----:r;..-..-;**Dear~** The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 has reviewed 'Illinois Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan-2010'. We have approved the network plans for the criteriapollutants and tine particulate network. EPA, Region 5 believes the proposed network meets all the currentmonitoring requirements as ofJuly I, 2009 for the criteriapollutants. This review does not include the proposed lead network andthe Neore site; they will be reviewed in separate letters.

EPA, Region 5 agrees that the ozone datacollected at site 17-031-0042 (Chicago Sears Tower) can notbe used for comparison to the National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) due to the placement ofthe probe. We also note that none ofthe continuous PM2.5 monitors are Federal EquivalentMethods thus the datacollected by these instruments can not be used for NAAQS comparison. We would like to advise you Region 5 is using 2006-2008 design value datato determine whether a site must do daily PM2.5 sampling so there should be no changes to the samplers required to sample on a daily schedule. This is a departure from what we did in the past, but it is required for consistency throughout the ten EPA Regions.

The Region would also like to note the NAAQS and monitoring requirements for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide are currently underreview. The tinalizedchanges for these pollutants may require changes to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency monitoring network in future years. [fyou have questions do not hesitate to contact PatriciaSchraufnagel, afmy staft: at 312-886-5955. 

# D**~incerelYi,**

## ~~ / LorettaLehrman Chief Air Monitoring and Analysis Section

RecycledlRecyclable • Printed wittl Vegetallfe Oil Based Inks on ,00";" Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
99–008 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–214 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 2 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 

[To accompany H. Res. 409] 

This supplemental report includes the results of the record vote 

on the motion to report H. Res. 409, together with the names of 

those voting for and against. This information was inadvertantly 

omitted from the original report filed with the Clerk. The results 

are as follows: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 130 

Motion by Mr. Sessions to report the resolution. Adopted: 8 yeas 

and 3 nays. 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Mr. Sessions ..................................................... Yea Ms. Slaughter.

Ms. Foxx ............................................................ Yea Mr. McGovern ................................................... Nay 

Mr. Bishop of Utah .......................................... Yea Mr. Hastings of Florida ................................... Nay 

Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea Mr. Polis ........................................................... Nay 

Mr. Nugent ....................................................... Yea 

Mr. Scott of South Carolina ............................. Yea 

Mr. Webster ...................................................... Yea 

Mr. Dreier, Chairman ....................................... Yea 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
#### § 203.464 Effect of termination.

Upon termination of the contract of insurance, the obligation to pay any subsequent insurance premium shall cease and all rights of the borrower and lender shall be terminated.
### §7385s. Definitions

In this part:

(1) The term "covered DOE contractor employee" means any Department of Energy contractor employee determined under section 7385s–4 of this title to have contracted a covered illness through exposure at a Department of Energy facility.

(2) The term "covered illness" means an illness or death resulting from exposure to a toxic substance.

(3) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Labor.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3671], as added Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, §3161, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2178.)
### §5175. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §105(m)(2), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4696

Section, Pub. L. 93–288, title IV, §405, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 155, related to protection of environment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,688
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,666,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (167,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,620,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,624,618
<PP&E>                                       1,386,214
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,234,732)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,938,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,760,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,994
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,938,224
<SALES>                                      8,376,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,376,861
<CGS>                                        5,819,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,819,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,058,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             214,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                250,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                   168,096
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .005
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .005
        

</TABLE>