alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6401. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–58, title I, §104(c)(3), July 2, 1985, 99 Stat. 105

Section, Pub. L. 94–163, title V, §531, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 965, provided for the expiration of all authority under subchapters I and II of this chapter at midnight June 30, 1985.
§ 232.895 Assignment of insured loans. ( a ) An insured loan may be transferred only to a transferee who is a lender approved by the Commissioner. Upon such transfer and the assumption by the transferee of all obligations under the contract of insurance the transferor shall be released from its obligations under the contract of insurance.
( b ) The contract of insurance shall terminate with respect to loans described in paragraph (a) of this section upon the happening of either of the following events: ( 1 ) The transfer or pledge of the insured loan to any person, firm, or corporation, public or private, other than an approved lender.
( 2 ) The disposal by a lender of any partial interest in the insured loan to other than an approved lender.
#### § 203.483 Forms and amounts of debentures.

Debentures issued under this part shall be in such form and amounts; and shall be subject to such terms and conditions; and shall include such provisions for redemption, if any, as may be prescribed by the Secretary, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury; and may be in book entry or certificated registered form, or such other form as the Secretary by regulation may prescribe.

[59 FR 49816, Sept. 30, 1994]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2969 

To amend title 9 of the United States Code to exclude all employment 

contracts from the arbitration provisions of chapter 1 of such title; 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2005 

Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. CONYERS, 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. MARKEY, and Mr. ANDREWS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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 title 9 of the United States Code to exclude 

all employment contracts from the arbitration provisions 

of chapter 1 of such title; 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 ‘‘Preservation of Civil 

5 Rights Protections Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2969 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. 

2 Section 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended 

3 by striking ‘‘of seamen’’ and all that follows through 

4 ‘‘commerce’’. 

5 SEC. 3. UNENFORCEABILITY OF ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN 

6 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. 

7 (a) PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS.—Notwith8 standing any other provision of law, any clause of any 

9 agreement between an employer and an employee that re10 quires arbitration of a claim arising under the Constitu11 tion or laws of the United States shall not be enforceable. 

12 (b) EXCEPTIONS.— 

13 (1) WAIVER OR CONSENT AFTER CLAIM

14 ARISES.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect 

15 to any claim if, after such claim arises, the parties 

16 involved voluntarily consent to submit such claim to 

17 arbitration. 

18 (2) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.— 

19 Subsection (a) shall not preclude an employee or 

20 union from enforcing any of the rights or terms of 

21 a valid collective bargaining agreement. 

22 SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

23 This Act and the amendment made by section 2 shall 

24 apply with respect to all employment contracts in force 

25 before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### Archive of digital boomer seismic reflection data collected during USGS field activity 04SGI01 in the Withlacoochee River of West-Central Florida, March 2004

By: Karynna CalderonShawn V. DadismanDann K. YobbiW. Scott McBrideJames G. Flocks**Dana S. Wiese

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds119

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

In March of 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted a geophysical survey in the Withlacoochee River of west-central Florida. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital boomer seismic reflection data, trackline maps, navigation files, GIS information, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, observer's logbook, and FGDC metadata. Filtered and gained digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Acronyms page for expansion of all acronyms and abbreviations used in this report.

The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG-Y format (Barry and others, 1975) and may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (SU). Example SU processing scripts and USGS software for viewing the SEG-Y files (Zihlman, 1992) are also provided.

#### Study Area
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVENDER FLEMING,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

VICTOR JONES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ

BRIEFING ORDER

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration (Doc. No. 104) is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that

the motion SHALL be filed by JUNE 9, 2010. Plaintiffs shall

attach the proposed discovery requests. Any Opposition SHALL

be filed by JUNE 23, 2010. Any reply SHALL be filed by JUNE

28, 2010. The matter is scheduled to be heard on JULY 7,

2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 107 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California

94102. 

Dated: June 3, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\SEC BRIEFING ORD.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 107 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2
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

Case No. C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO RESET HEARING DATE

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 5/3/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSE R. CARNERO, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

LUKE WEAVER, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO RESET

HEARING DATE

On April 28, 2010, Plaintiff Marta Carnero telephoned chambers staff to request that the

May 14, 2010 hearing date on Defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike be continued; Ms.

Carnero stated that Defendants had not cleared the hearing date with Plaintiffs and that she and

her husband would be on vacation on May 14. Chambers staff emailed Defendants’ counsel to

ask for a response to Plaintiffs’ request; Plaintiffs were copied on the email. Counsel for both

moving Defendants responded by email, objecting to continuance of the hearing date. Plaintiffs

also filed a written request to continue the hearing date until June 18 or June 25. Defendant

Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc. filed opposition to that request on April 29.

While the Court is sympathetic to Defendants’ frustration at the lateness of Plaintiffs’

request, it is not clear that the hearing date in fact was cleared with Plaintiffs. Moreover,

Case 3:09-cv-01995-SI Document 68 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Case No. C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO RESET HEARING DATE

(JFLC2)

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. Accordingly, while the Court is not inclined to grant a

continuance of the length requested by Plaintiffs, the Court will grant a two-week continuance, to

May 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs may file opposition to the motions to dismiss and strike on

or before May 14, 2010; any such opposition shall explain why Plaintiffs failed to file opposition

on or before April 23, 2010 as required under the Court’s Civil Local Rules. Defendants may file

replies on or before May 21, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01995-SI Document 68 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 09-1995 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO RESET HEARING DATE

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Eric D. Houser scleere@houser-law.com 

Joshua Howard Abel jabel@houser-law.com, chershey@houser-law.com 

Lee P. Bardellini cmcalice@bscb.com, storres@bscb.com 

Jose and Marta Carnero jrcarnero@gmail.com

Jose R. Carnero

Marta C. Carnero

1558 Minnesota Avenue 1/2

San Jose, CA 95125-4445

Case 3:09-cv-01995-SI Document 68 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3
[File

No. 6717.]

#### CARL S. BRYE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM E. GREENFIELD et al. and State of North Dakota, and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Appellant.

(296 N. W. 746.)

Opinion filed March 3, 1941.

*Alvin G. Strulz,*Attorney General, and *C. E. Brace,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

*Binness & Duffy,*for respondent.

Per Cueiam.

The state appeals from an order overruling its demurrer to the complaint in an action to determine adverse claims to real property in Benson county. The complaint conforms to the provisions of § 8147 of the N. D. Compiled Laws 1913, and alleges, among other things regarding the property, “that the defendants claim certain estates or interests in or liens or encumbrances upon the same adverse to the plaintiff.”

*598The demurrer alleges: “The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

Appellant urges two points. The first is that as the state may not be sued except in “such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct” (§ 22 of the Constitution), and the legislature, by the provisions of § 8175, N. D. Compiled Laws 1913, has limited such an action as this to one “respecting the title to property,” it is not sufficient, so far as the state is concerned, merely to state in the complaint that the state claims an interest in the property, but the complaint must show also “What Possible Claim to the Property the State May Have, and (the complaint) Does Not Give the Defendant Information Necessary to Defend.”

This contention is answered by our recent decision in Dunham Lumber Co. v. Gresz, ante, 455, 295 N. W. 500. A complaint is sufficient as against such demurrer by the state when it alleges the state claims some interest in the land, inferior to the interest of the plaintiff, and demands the state set forth a statement of its claims. The rule laid down in the case cited .is decisive of this point. “An objection that a pleading is not sufficiently full, definite, certain or specific is not reached by demurrer, but rather by motion to make it more definite and specific.” 21 E. O. L. 600.

The second point is that the complaint is defective in that it “does not allege compliance with the conditions precedent to the right to sue the state provided by §§ 8175--8177, inclusive of the Compiled Laws of 1913.”

Appellant points out that the complaint does not show that, at the time of commencing this action, the plaintiff had filed an undertaking to pay “any judgment for costs that may be rendered against him,” though § 8175, N. D. Comp. Laws 1913, requires that in actions brought against the state the plaintiff shall do so, “at the time of commencing such action.”

In Dunham Lumber Co. v. Gresz, supra, we held that “the complaint is not demurrable because it fails to plead the filing of the bond.”

The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed.

Burr, Ch. J., and Nubssle, Burke, Morris, and Christianson, JJ\, concur.
### §31h. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 31a to 31h of this title $64,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2031.

#### (b) Allocation of appropriations

Of any amounts appropriated for any fiscal year in excess of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005—

(1) 50 percent shall be available for the State component; and

(2) 4 percent shall be available for the education component.

(Pub. L. 102–285, §9, as added Pub. L. 106–148, §9, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1724; amended Pub. L. 111–11, title XI, §11001(i), Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1416; Pub. L. 116–9, title V, §5002(a)(1), Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 768; Pub. L. 117–58, div. D, title II, §40202(b), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 959.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 31a to 31h of this title, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 102–285, known as the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, which is classified principally to sections 31a to 31h of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 31a of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 31h, Pub. L. 102–285, §9, May 18, 1992, 106 Stat. 171; Pub. L. 105–36, §3(g), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1111, authorized appropriations for the national cooperative geologic mapping program, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 106–148, §9, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1724.

#### Amendments

2021—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–58 substituted "2031" for "2023".

2019—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–9 substituted "2023" for "2018".

2009—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–11, §11001(i)(1), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which appropriated funds to carry out sections 31a to 31h of this title for fiscal years 1999 to 2005.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–11, §11001(i)(2)(A), substituted "2005" for "2000" in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 111–11, §11001(i)(2)(B), substituted "50" for "48".

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 111–11, §11001(i)(2)(C), which directed amendment of par. (2) "by striking 2 and inserting '4' ", was executed by substituting "4" for "2", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

#### Wage Rate Requirements

For provisions relating to rates of wages to be paid to laborers and mechanics on projects for construction, alteration, or repair work funded under div. D or an amendment by div. D of Pub. L. 117–58, including authority of Secretary of Labor, see section 18851 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Ohana Estimating Service ’ s exemption request furthers the public interest. National policy set by Congress favors early integration of UAS into the national airspace in controlled, safe working environments such as those propose in this petition. In addition,

maint aining worksite safety has been a priority of state and local governments for

decades. Conducting aerial videography with the sUAS, instead of manned aircraft, will greatly benefit the public by drastically reducing the levels of air and noise pollution g enerated during traditional aerial video production flight operations. By using battery power and electric motors, the sUAS produces no air pollution, and is the most viable environmentally conscious alternative to piston or turbine powered rotorcraft. The sUAS, while reducing the carbon footprint of aerial video productions, also eliminates noise pollution as its battery

- powered electric motors are barely audible during the takeoff phase, and cannot be heard when operating more than 100 feet above ground l evel. By using the sUAS to perform aerial videography, the substantial risk to life and property in the air and on the ground, which is usually associated with traditional manned aircraft flight operations, will be substantially reduced or completely elim inated. Aside from the lack of aircrew members located onboard the aircraft, the minimal size and weight of a sUAS creates less physical potential for collateral damage to life and property on the ground, and in the air, compared to the manned aircraft tha t typically conduct aerial videography. In addition, granting the exception will help advance the knowledge base for conducting commercial UAS operations. This additional data will help the FAA set future rules regarding UAS flight operations, maintenance , and crew qualifications. The public also has an interest in reducing the hazards and emissions associated with alternate use of helicopters to conduct similar aerial videography operations. The UAS in question is very light weight and does not carry any flammable fuel, further reducing the risk from any potential accid e nt.
### §5204. Insular areas disaster survival and recovery; definitions

As used in sections 5204 to 5204c of this title—

(1) the term "insular area" means any of the following: American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands;

(2) the term "disaster" means a declaration of a major disaster by the President after September 1, 1989, pursuant to section 5170 of this title; and

(3) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.

(Pub. L. 102–247, title II, §201, Feb. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 37.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 5204 to 5204c of this title, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 102–247, Feb. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 37, which enacted sections 5204 to 5204c of this title and amended section 5122 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Omnibus Insular Areas Act of 1992, and not as part of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
pre-planninghasbeenperformed.Theaircraftwillbeoperatedatalow

altitudeallowing,ifapowerunitfails,anemergencylandingwithoutundue

hazardtopersonsorpropertyonthesurface.Thereforewemaintainthat

duetothesmallsizeoftheUAS,thehazardtopersons,vehiclesand

structuresisminimalcomparedtomannedaircraft,whichshouldbe

consideredingrantingtheexemption.

CFR91.121Altimetersettings.

Theregulationrequiresthataircraftshallmaintaincruisingaltitudesby

referencetoanaltimetersettingavailablewithin100NMoftheaircraft.The

UASwillalwaysflybelow400feetAGLandwillnotneedtomaintaincruising

altitudesinordertopreventconflictwithotheraircraft.AnAboveGround

Levelaltimetermeasurementabovethetakeoffpointistransmittedviaradio

fromtheUASon-boardcomputertothedisplayscreenheldbythePIC,

providingaconstantlyupdatedAGLreadout.

14CFR91.151FuelrequirementsforflightinVFRconditions.

Theregulationprovidesthatnopersonmaybeginaflightinanairplane

underday-VFRconditionsunlessthereisenoughfueltoflytothefirstpoint

ofintendedlandingandtoflyafterthatforatleast30minutesandnight-VFR

conditionsanadditional45minutes.Wefeeltheintentionofthis

paragraphistoprovideanenergyreserveasasafetybufferfordelaysto

landing.TheUASisbatteryoperatedandthemaximumdurationofflight

fromasinglebatterychargeisapproximately15minuteswithanadditional

25% reserve.Sincetheaircraftwillneverflymorethan1/2NMfromthe

pointofintendedlanding,afullbatterychargeatlaunchwillensurethatwe

meetthereserveenergyrequirementofthisparagraph.ThePIChasa

visualreferencetotheremainingbatteryenergylevelandanestimated

“returntohome”energyrequirement.Werequestanexemptiontotheword

"fuel"andaskforanequivalentinterpretationwiththeword"energy".

14CFR91.203(a)&(b)Civilaircraft:Certificationsrequired.

Theregulationprovidesthatanairworthinesscertificate,withthe

registrationnumberassignedtotheaircraftandaregistrationcertificate

mustbeaboardtheaircraft.Additionally,subparagraph(b)providesthatthe

airworthinesscertificatebe"displayedatthecabinorcockpitentranceso

thatitislegibletopassengersorcrew."Atamaximumgrossweightof5.3

pounds,theUASistoosmalltocarrydocumentation,doesnothavean

entrance,andisnotcapableofcarryingpassengersorcrew.Toobtainan

equivalentlevelofsafetyandmeettheintentof91.203,weproposethat

documentsdeemedappropriateforthisaircraftbytheFAAwillbeco-located

withthecrewatthegroundcontrolstationandavailableforinspectionupon

request.Inordertoidentifytheaircraft,weproposethattheinformation
MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 1 , 201 1 FROM: Becky Mitschele , EPA/O W/ OWM/WPD /RB TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2011 - 0188 , proposed N ational P ollutant D ischarge E limination S ys tem (NPDES) C oncentrated Animal F eeding O peration (CAFO) Reporting Rule SUBJECT: In corporation by reference of Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2005 - 0037 , Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem Permit Regulation and Effluent L imit Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision . Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2005 - 0037 contains information that is relevant to the proposed NPDES CAFO Reporting Rule, and Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2005 - 0037 is incorporated by reference into this docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2011 - 0188 .
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

A

^2__1ll-E-182 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:11 AM Sheet 222 of 264 
P.2 

Wtt_flNaTOHD.C.-fl8SEAJS£H—IANGLBRMW.NC •WSAN8EUS.C* •ONC8«UI1.0H 

r 

A 9A 5 ? 

&»V 2 ? i_i"i | 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

From: 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

August 19,1998 

Mr. Randy "Wilson 

Wilson Marble, Inc. 

Telephone Number: (828) 724-4782 

Fax Number: (828) 724-9846 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Randy Wilson was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to update Morrr__on provided 

in the 1993 EPA Reinforced Plastic Composites Sasening Survey sabmitted by Wilson Marble, Inc. 

for their fecility located in Marion, NC. In response to my questions Mr. Wilson indicated the 

following: 

The fecility uses atomized spray lay-Tip to apply a clear production gel coat in the fabrication 

of the facility's products. The clear production gel coat contains 43.0% - 47.0% HAP by weight 

(43.0% - 47.0% styrene, 0.0% methyl methacrylate). No additional HAP (styrene or methyl methacrylate) is added to the'clear gel coat during or prior to the febrication process with the exception of 

smgll amounts of HAP that may (or may not) be present in initiators, promoters and/or catalysts 

added to the gel coats. The facility also uses very small quantities of tooling gel coats for mold 

repair. The facility applies these tooling gel coats using hand lay-up. The facility does not used 

pigmented production gel coals in the febrication of its products. 

TwTr«Ti» # t «PT«VT TC Af/TIT? 4T R