alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1354. Limitations on export of oil or gas

#### (a) Application of Export Administration provisions

Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, any oil or gas produced from the outer Continental Shelf shall be subject to the requirements and provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1969.

#### (b) Condition precedent to exportation; express finding by President of no increase in reliance on imported oil or gas

Before any oil or gas subject to this section may be exported under the requirements and provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1969, the President shall make and publish an express finding that such exports will not increase reliance on imported oil or gas, are in the national interest, and are in accord with the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1969.

#### (c) Report of findings by President to Congress; joint resolution of disagreement with findings of President

The President shall submit reports to the Congress containing findings made under this section, and after the date of receipt of such report Congress shall have a period of sixty calendar days, thirty days of which Congress must have been in session, to consider whether exports under the terms of this section are in the national interest. If the Congress within such time period passes a concurrent resolution of disapproval stating disagreement with the President's finding concerning the national interest, further exports made pursuant to such Presidential findings shall cease.

#### (d) Exchange or temporary exportation of oil and gas for convenience or efficiency of transportation

The provisions of this section shall not apply to any oil or gas which is either exchanged in similar quantity for convenience or increased efficiency of transportation with persons or the government of a foreign state, or which is temporarily exported for convenience or increased efficiency of transportation across parts of an adjacent foreign state and reenters the United States, or which is exchanged or exported pursuant to an existing international agreement.

(Aug. 7, 1953, ch. 345, §28, as added Pub. L. 95–372, title II, §208, Sept. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 668.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Export Administration Act of 1969, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is Pub. L. 91–184, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 841, which was formerly classified to sections 2401 to 2413 of the former Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, and which terminated on Sept. 30, 1979, pursuant to the terms of that Act. See chapter 56 (§4601 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense.
§ 103.202 Notification of respondent; joinder of additional or substitute respondents. ( a ) Within ten days of the filing of a complaint under § 103.40 or the filing of an amended complaint under § 103.42, the Assistant Secretary will serve a notice on each respondent by certified mail or by personal service. A person who is not named as a respondent in a complaint, but who is identified in the course of the investigation under subpart D of this part as a person who is alleged to be engaged, to have engaged, or to be about to engage in the discriminatory housing practice upon which the complaint is based may be joined as an additional or substitute respondent by service of a notice on the person under this section within ten days of the identification.
( b ) The Assistant Secretary will also serve notice on any person who directs or controls, or who has the right to direct or control, the conduct of another person who is involved in a fair housing complaint.
[54 FR 3292, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 52218, Oct. 4, 1996. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 18540, 18541, Apr. 14, 1999]
NO. C 09-01788 RS 

STANDBY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 

*E-Filed 4/26/10* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Craig Yates, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

Roy Lembi, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-1788 RS 

STANDBY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 The Court has been informed that the above-entitled action has settled. Accordingly, the 

Court vacates all pretrial and trial dates. The parties are required to file a stipulation of dismissal by 

July 1, 2010. If a stipulation of dismissal is not filed by that date, the parties are ordered to appear 

on July 8, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse and 

show cause why the case should not be dismissed. 

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the case. 

Case 3:09-cv-01788-RS Document 22 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 09-01788 RS 

STANDBY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 26, 2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-01788-RS Document 22 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT      32.2 **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

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

|   | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                              |                                                                |                           |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                                              |                                                                     |
|                                         |                                                           |                      |
| Dated                this14th day of March, 2007. | By:                                                       | /s/                Jibin Zhang |
|                                              | Jibin                Zhang Chief                  Financial Officer |

----
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MCCLELLAN,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-0085 SI (PR)

JUDGMENT

The action having been dismissed, judgment is hereby entered in favor of respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: July 19, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00085-SI Document 25 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Theodore R. Barnes, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person denied on the ground that the papers submitted show, as matter of law, that there is no merit in the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### § 241.1090 Accumulation of next premium.

The security instrument shall provide for payments by the borrower to the lender on each interest payment date of an amount sufficient to accumulate in the hands of the lender one payment period prior to its due date the next annual insurance premium payable by the lender to the Commissioner. These payments shall continue only as long as the contract of insurance remains in effect.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 78472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28440]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4901-N-53]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: December 22, 2004.
Mark R. Johnston,
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-28440 Filed 12-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2016

No. 04-16-00320-CR

Willie David FLOYD,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR10665

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record has been filed in this appeal. The reporter’s record was due July 18, 

2016. On July 27, 2016, the court reporter filed a notification of late record stating the reporter’s 

record was not filed because appellant has not requested a reporter’s record, appellant has failed 

to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record, and appellant is

not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. If appellant desires a reporter’s record to be filed in 

this appeal, he must request that a reporter’s record be prepared. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(1). 

Appellant is represented on appeal by retained counsel Mr. William L. Baskette.

Accordingly, if appellant desires a reporter’s record, Mr. Baskette is hereby ORDERED 

to (1) request in writing, no later than August 8, 2016, that a reporter’s record be prepared and 

(2) designate in writing, no later than August 8, 2016, the exhibits and those portions of the 

record to be included in the reporter’s record. Id. Mr. Baskette is hereby ORDERED to file a 

copy of the request with both the trial court clerk, id. at 34.6(b)(2), and this court no later than 

August 8, 2016.

It is further ORDERED that Mr. Baskette provide written proof to this court no later than 

August 8, 2016 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made 

to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. 

If Mr. Baskette fails to provide such written proof within the time provided, appellant’s brief will 

be due August 29, 2016, and this court will only consider those issues or points raised in 

appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

37.3(c).
It is so ORDERED on July 29, 2016.

PER CURIAM 

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2281 ) STANLEY RAPHAEL JEAN, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 3, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Edward Nicholas, Judge. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katie Salemi Ashby, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant. Peter Lombardo of Law Office of Peter Lombardo, Bradenton, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We treat this State appeal from an order to disclose the identity of a confidential informant as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it. See, e.g., State v. Borrego, 970 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant was reviewable by way of certiorari where there was no adequate remedy on appeal); State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d- 2 -

DCA 1998) (same). The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the disclosure without first conducting the in-camera hearing the law requires. See State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("Once a defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense."); see also Bailey v. State, 994 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing to consider the necessity of the informant's testimony and the State's interest in nondisclosure."). We accordingly quash the order to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.

Petition granted; order quashed.
SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3017 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3017

To provide certain requirements for the licensing of commercial nuclear 
                              facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2005

Mrs. Lowey (for herself and Mr. Hinchey) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide certain requirements for the licensing of commercial nuclear 
                              facilities.

    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 ``Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection b., by inserting ``, including that the 
        facility does not pose an unreasonable threat to persons or the 
        environment because of safety or security vulnerabilities 
        (including vulnerability to terrorist attacks), and that there 
        exist adequate evacuation plans for emergency events and that 
        those plans have been approved by the relevant Federal agencies 
        and States within 50 miles of the facility'' after ``by rule 
        establish''; and
            (2) in subsection c., by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Any such renewal shall be subject to the same criteria and 
        requirements that would be applicable for an original 
        application for initial construction, and the Commission shall 
        ensure that any changes in the size or distribution of the 
        surrounding population have not resulted in the facility being 
        located at a site at which a new facility would not be allowed 
        to be built.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York v. Hubert Tyler.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court filed herein. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §5891. Sex discrimination prohibited

No person shall on the ground of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied a license under, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity carried on or receiving Federal assistance under any subchapter of this chapter. This provision will be enforced through agency provisions and rules similar to those already established, with respect to racial and other discrimination, under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.]. However, this remedy is not exclusive and will not prejudice or cut off any other legal remedies available to a discriminatee.

(Pub. L. 93–438, title IV, §401, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1254.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Any subchapter of this chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "any title of this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–438, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1233, which enacted this chapter, amended sections 5313 to 5316 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, repealed sections 2031 and 2032 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 5801 of this title.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is classified generally to subchapter V (§2000d et seq.) of chapter 21 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of this title and Tables.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LEE CHOYCE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.; et al.,

Defendants.                                                   /

No. C 09-1528 MHP (pr)

ORDER 

On April 29, 2010, defense counsel filed a notice of the reported death of the plaintiff,

Edward Choyce, on April 7, 2010.  "If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may

order substitution of the proper party.  A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the

decedent's successor or representative.  If the motion is not made within 90 days after the service of

a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed."  Fed. R. Civ.

P. 25(a).  

The clerk will mail a copy of this order to plaintiff at the two addresses he provided:  the

Alameda County Jail and at Apt. # 802, 1050 7th Street, Oakland, CA 94607.  If plaintiff’s next of

kin or legal representative desires to prosecute this action, he or she shall file a motion for

substitution of party no later than July 29, 2010.  If no such motion is filed by that deadline, this

action will be dismissed without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2010 ______________________ Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01528-MHP   Document 43   Filed 05/12/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-08T16:30:24-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.

GLUMAC, a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DON TODD ASSOCIATES, INC., an

entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 TO

100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01442 WHA

ORDER REQUESTING

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

The Court notes that the contract has an arbitration provision. Counsel shall please

explain why plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment despite the arbitration provision. Please

submit a brief by NOON ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01442-WHA Document 26 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and

is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50663

Summary Calendar

STEVEN K. BEDFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY, Secretary of Health

and Human Services,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-94-CV-456

____________________________________________

May 14, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven K. Bedford appeals the judgment upho l ding the final decision of the Commissioner

awarding him only a closed period of disability.

Bedford does not argue the arguments he raised in the district court that insufficient evidence

supported the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination based on the medical evidence of hisphysical impairments and that he present ed new and material evidence entitling him to a remand.

These arguments are considered abandoned on appeal. S ee Brinkmann v. Abner

, 813 F.2d 744, 748

(5th Cir. 1987).

The dist rict court did not err in rejecting Bedford’s argument that the ALJ should have

considered his subjective complaints of pain to be evidence of somatoform disorder, a listed mental

impairment. Isolated comments referring to Bedford’s depression and anxiety without any evidence

of treatment did not create evidence sufficient t o suggest that such a mental impairment existed,

obligating the ALJ to develop t he record and ascertain whether Bedford suffered from a mental

impairme nt. See L eggett v. Chater

, 67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 1995). Bedford does not identify

anything that would demonstrate that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence

or that any errors of law were made. See Fraga v. Bowen , 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Bedford’s reply brief does not provide information that is new and relevant to his

issue, his motion to file the brief out of time is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.