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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2996 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2996

  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                                claims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2005

Mr. Brady of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                                claims.

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

SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN DRAWBACK CLAIMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection shall, not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the 
drawback claims, as filed, that are described in subsection (c).
    (b) Payment of Amounts Due.--Any amounts due pursuant to the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the claims described in subsection (c) 
shall be paid not later than 90 days after the date of such liquidation 
or reliquidation.
    (c) Drawback Claims.--The drawback claims referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:

 
                   Drawback claim number                     Filing date
 
AA6-0246667-1                                                  11/03/94
AA6-0246689-5                                                  12/02/94
AA6-0246690-3                                                  11/10/94
AA6-0302619-3                                                  01/21/97
 

                                 <all>
```
§ 35.1000 Purpose and applicability. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart K is to establish procedures to eliminate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards in a residential property that receives Federal assistance under certain HUD programs for acquisition, leasing, support services, or operation. Acquisition, leasing, support services, and operation do not include mortgage insurance, sale of federally-owned housing, project-based or tenant-based rental assistance, rehabilitation assistance, or assistance to public housing. For requirements pertaining to those activities or types of assistance, see the applicable subpart of this part.
( b ) The grantee or participating jurisdiction may assign to a subrecipient or other entity the responsibilities set forth in this subpart.
( c ) ( 1 ) The requirements of this subpart shall not apply to HOME funds which are committed to a specific project in accordance with § 92.2 of this title before September 15, 2000. Such projects shall be subject to the requirements of § 92.355 of this title that were in effect at the time of project commitment, or the requirements of this subpart.
( 2 ) For purposes of the CDBG Entitlement program and the Indian Housing Block Grant program, the requirements of this subpart shall apply to activities (except those otherwise exempted) for which funds are first obligated on or after September 15, 2000. For the purposes of the State, HUD-Administered Small Cities, and Insular Areas CDBG programs, the requirements of this subpart shall apply to all covered activities (except those otherwise exempted) for which grant funding is awarded to the unit of local government by the State or HUD, as applicable, on or after September 15, 2000. For the purposes of the Emergency Shelter Grant Program (42 U.S.C. 11371-11378) and the formula grants awarded under the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA) (42 U.S.C. 12901 et. seq.), the requirements of this subpart shall apply to activities for which program funds are first obligated on or after September 15, 2000.
( 3 ) For the purposes of competitively awarded grants under the HOPWA Program and the Supportive Housing Program (42 U.S.C. 11481-11389), the requirements of this subpart shall apply to grants awarded under Notices of Funding Availability published on or after September 15, 2000.
( 4 ) For the purposes of the Indian CDBG program (§ 1003.607 of this title), the requirements of this subpart shall not apply to funds whose notice of funding availability is announced or funding letter is sent before September 15, 2000. Such project grantees shall be subject to the regulations in effect at the time of announcement or funding letter.
[64 FR 50213, Sept. 15, 1999; 65 FR 3387, Jan. 21, 2000]
EX-10.5


  Exhibit 10.5

  EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

  	This Executive Employment Agreement Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made as of November 7, 2022, by and among Precision BioSciences, Inc. (the “Company”) and the individual whose name appears on the signature page hereto (the “Executive”).  Except as set forth in this Amendment, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement (as defined below).

  WITNESSETH

  	WHEREAS, the Executive previously entered into an executive employment agreement with the Company (the “Employment Agreement”); and

  	WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company each desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.

  	NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Executive and the Company hereby agree to the following:

  1.Amendment to the Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following to the definition of “Good Reason” set forth in Section 4.4:


  “a material, adverse change in Executive’s title, authority, duties, or responsibilities (other than temporarily while the Executive is physically or mentally incapacitated or as required by applicable law), provided that this shall not apply following an acquisition of or merger by the Company if Executive is provided with similar title, responsibilities, duties and authority in a larger organization, but only with respect to the business of the Company and its subsidiaries;”

  2.No Other Amendment. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms.


  3.Entire Agreement. This Amendment, together with the Employment Agreement (to the extent not amended hereby), represents the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall supersede any and all previous contracts, arrangements or understandings between the parties.


  [signature page follows]

   

   

   

   

  |

  

   

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

  PRECISION BIOSCIENCES, INC.

   

   

  By: /s/ Michael Amoroso

  Name: Michael Amoroso

  Title: Chief Executive Officer

   

   

  EXECUTIVE

   

   

  /s/ Derek Jantz

  Derek Jantz

   

   

   

   

   

  |
### §§581 to 586. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 581, act Feb. 21, 1925, ch. 277, §1, 43 Stat. 956, defined "veteran".

Section 582, act Feb. 21, 1925, ch. 277, §2, 43 Stat. 956, related to authorization for refund to World War veterans.

Section 583, act Feb. 21, 1925, ch. 277, §3, 43 Stat. 956, related to right of estate of a veteran to benefits.

Section 584, act Feb. 21, 1925, ch. 277, §3, 43 Stat. 956, related to relinquishment of rights on acceptance of refund.

Section 585, act Feb. 21, 1925, ch. 277, §4, 43 Stat. 957, related to cancellation of water-right application.

Section 586, act Feb. 21, 1925, ch. 277, §5, 43 Stat. 957, related to regulations by Secretary of the Interior as to refunds.
### Beach morphology monitoring in the Columbia River Littoral Cell: 1997-2005

By: Peter RuggieroJodi L. EshlemanEtienne KingsleyDavid M. Thompson**Brian VoigtGeorge M. KaminskyGuy Gelfenbaum

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds260

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Metadata:  **Metadata**
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3085 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                    September 29, 2006.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
3085) entitled ``An Act to amend the National Trails System Act to 
update the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for 
the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the 
inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds 
associated with that trail, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the 
following

                               AMENDMENT:

On page 3, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following:
                    ``(iv) The related campgrounds located along the 
                routes and land components described in clauses (i) 
                through (iii).
            ``(D) No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated 
        to carry out subparagraph (C). The Secretary may accept 
        donations for the Trail from private, nonprofit, or tribal 
        organizations.''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3085

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
### §390h–12m. Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary, in cooperation with the City of Oceanside, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, and construction of a 3,000,000 gallon per day expansion of the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project in Oceanside, California.

#### (b) Cost share

The Federal share of the cost of a project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.

#### (c) Limitation

The Secretary shall not provide funds for the operation or maintenance of a project described in subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1627, as added Pub. L. 104–266, §2(a)(2), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3293.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Muscato, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, imposed June 6, 1977. Sentence affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.
§ 26.44 Protective orders. ( a ) A party, a prospective witness, or a deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) Protective orders may be issued by an ALJ if the ALJ determines such an order is necessary to protect a party or other person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense because: ( 1 ) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
( 2 ) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or
( 3 ) The burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.
on the idea that the latter motion was the functional equivalent of a

motion for a new tria1. 1We disagree.

The order denying the post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus is appealable. NRS 34.575(1). The notice of appeal had to be filed within 30 days after the court served written notice that the order
had been entered. 

### Id. In this case, the order was entered on December 14, 2012, and the district court clerk served a notice of entry on appellant and his counsel on December 21, 2012. The notice of appeal was not filed until March 3, 2013, long after the 30-day appeal period expired.

Appellant implies that the appeal period was tolled under NRAP 4(b)(3) because his motion to alter, amend, clarify and reconsider was the functional equivalent of a motion for new trial. Based on the same rationale, appellant asserts that the order denying that motion also is appealable. 

### See NRS 177.015(1)(b). Despite appellant's arguments, the motion was not the equivalent of a motion for new trial. Although the ultimate goal behind the motion, as with the post-conviction habeas petition, undoubtedly was to obtain a new trial, the same can be said of virtually all post-conviction challenges to a judgment of conviction. That
does not turn them into motions for a new trial.

NRAP 4(b)(3) is clearly referring to a motion filed pursuant to NRS 176.515. Because appellant did not file his motion within 7 days after the verdict, he can only assert that his motion was the equivalent of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. 

### See NRS 176.515(3), (4). Such an argument does not hold up. Appellant's motion
'Appellant does not appear to contest that the order denying his motion for bail is not appealable.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1937A 2

### J.

J. does not assert newly discovered evidence that would render a different result probable on retrial. See Sanborn v. State, 

### 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812, P.2d 1279, 1284-85 (1991) (listing factors relevant to motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence). Instead, the motion takes issue with various findings and conclusions in the order denying the post-conviction habeas petition. It is quintessentially a motion to alter, amend, or reconsider that order. As such, it does not toll the time to file a notice of appeal from the order denying the post-conviction habeas petition, see Klein v. Warden, 

### 118 Nev. 305, 309-10, 43 P.3d 1029, 1032-33 (2002), and is not itself an appealable order, see Phelps, 

### 111 Nev. 1021, 900 P.2d 344.

For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction and therefore ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Alan R. Johns Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3
### §3103. Transfer of records to records centers

When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.

(Added Pub. L. 94–575, §3(a)(3), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2726; amended Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §107(b)(20), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2290; Pub. L. 113–187, §8(9), Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2012.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3103, Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1298, contained provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 94–575, §3(a)(3).

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–187 substituted "the head of such agency" for "he".

1984—Pub. L. 98–497 substituted "Archivist" for "Administrator" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–497 effective Apr. 1, 1985, see section 301 of Pub. L. 98–497, set out as a note under section 2102 of this title.
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION**









I,
      Joseph
      Restivo, Chief Financial Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
      March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii)
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/
      Joseph Restivo


Joseph
      Restivo


Chief
      Financial Officer


Dated:
      May 15, 2006
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service

# AGENCY:

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission (the Commission) will be held on Friday, January 21, 2005, at park headquarters, 1850 Dual Highway, Hagerstown, Maryland. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m.

Items on the agenda include planning initiatives, construction and development projects, and park operational issues.

The meeting will be open to the public. Any person may file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons who wish to file a written statement or testify at the meeting or who want further information concerning the meeting may contact Superintendent Kevin Brandt at (301) 714-2201.

# DATES:

January 21, 2005, at 10 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

1850 Dual Highway, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent Kevin Brandt, (301) 714-2201.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission was established by Public Law 91-664 to meet and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on general policies and specific matters related to the administration and development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

Members of the Commission are: Mrs. Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld, Chairman, Mr. Charles J. Weir, Mr. Barry A. Passett, Mr. Terry W. Hepburn, Ms. JoAnn M. Spevacek, Mrs. Mary E. Woodward, Mrs. Donna Printz, Mrs. Ferial S. Bishop, Ms. Nancy C. Long, Mrs. Jo Reynolds, Dr. James H. Gilford, Brother James Kirkpatrick. 

Dated: November 23, 2004.

Kevin D. Brandt, 

Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

[FR Doc. 04-28291  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-52-M