alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1473. Commission proceeding on autodialing

#### (a) In general

Not later than 90 days after February 22, 2012, the Commission shall initiate a proceeding to create a specialized Do-Not-Call registry for public safety answering points.

#### (b) Features of the registry

The Commission shall issue regulations, after providing the public with notice and an opportunity to comment, that—

(1) permit verified public safety answering point administrators or managers to register the telephone numbers of all 9–1–1 trunks and other lines used for the provision of emergency services to the public or for communications between public safety agencies;

(2) provide a process for verifying, no less frequently than once every 7 years, that registered numbers should continue to appear upon the registry;

(3) provide a process for granting and tracking access to the registry by the operators of automatic dialing equipment;

(4) protect the list of registered numbers from disclosure or dissemination by parties granted access to the registry; and

(5) prohibit the use of automatic dialing or "robocall" equipment to establish contact with registered numbers.

#### (c) Enforcement

The Commission shall—

(1) establish monetary penalties for violations of the protective regulations established pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of not less than $100,000 per incident nor more than $1,000,000 per incident;

(2) establish monetary penalties for violations of the prohibition on automatically dialing registered numbers established pursuant to subsection (b)(5) of not less than $10,000 per call nor more than $100,000 per call; and

(3) provide for the imposition of fines under paragraphs (1) or (2) that vary depending upon whether the conduct leading to the violation was negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, or willful, and depending on whether the violation was a first or subsequent offence.

(Pub. L. 112–96, title VI, §6507, Feb. 22, 2012, 126 Stat. 243.)
### §383. Exemptions by Commission

The Commission shall exempt from the provisions of this part any vessel, or class of vessels, in the case of which the route or conditions of the voyage, or other conditions or circumstances, are such as to render a radio installation unreasonable, unnecessary, or ineffective, for the purposes of this chapter.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §383, as added Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 973, §1, 70 Stat. 1048; amended Pub. L. 103–414, title III, §303(a)(20)(C), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4295.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–414 inserted section catchline.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Mar. 1, 1957, see section 4 of act Aug. 6, 1956, set out as a note under section 381 of this title.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05719**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 05719\05719_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 05719\05719_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 05719\05719_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05719\05719_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05719\05719_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05719\05719_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05719\05719_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 05719\Certification Statement Plant ID 05719.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 05719\Supplemental Documents\05719_IT Drawings.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
11

Record of Discussion

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED

Airlines for America Bob Ireland 9/23/2015 Sent email to Bob 

informing him that an AD 

worksheet was generated 

to mandate actions in 

Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737-57A1326, 

Original Issue, dated 

September 22, 2015

The Boeing Company Dan Poblete, Paul Fiocca 9/22/2015, 9/23/2015 Requested information

regarding number of Nregistered airplanes and 

Major US Operators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
### §560. Scrambling of cable channels for nonsubscribers

#### (a) Subscriber request

Upon request by a cable service subscriber, a cable operator shall, without charge, fully scramble or otherwise fully block the audio and video programming of each channel carrying such programming so that one not a subscriber does not receive it.

#### (b) "Scramble" defined

As used in this section, the term "scramble" means to rearrange the content of the signal of the programming so that the programming cannot be viewed or heard in an understandable manner.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, §640, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, §504, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 136.)
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128325 & (42) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 128325 COA: 252727 Wayne CC: 03-008761-01 WENDELL GREEN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 24, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion

to remand is DENIED.

d0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 28, 2005

Clerk
### §1007. Enforcement orders

#### (a) Grounds for issuance

A court shall issue an order enforcing this subchapter under section 2522 of title 18 only if the court finds that—

(1) alternative technologies or capabilities or the facilities of another carrier are not reasonably available to law enforcement for implementing the interception of communications or access to call-identifying information; and

(2) compliance with the requirements of this subchapter is reasonably achievable through the application of available technology to the equipment, facility, or service at issue or would have been reasonably achievable if timely action had been taken.

#### (b) Time for compliance

Upon issuing an order enforcing this subchapter, the court shall specify a reasonable time and conditions for complying with its order, considering the good faith efforts to comply in a timely manner, any effect on the carrier's, manufacturer's, or service provider's ability to continue to do business, the degree of culpability or delay in undertaking efforts to comply, and such other matters as justice may require.

#### (c) Limitations

An order enforcing this subchapter may not—

(1) require a telecommunications carrier to meet the Government's 1 demand for interception of communications and acquisition of call-identifying information to any extent in excess of the capacity for which the Attorney General has agreed to reimburse such carrier;

(2) require any telecommunications carrier to comply with assistance capability requirement 2 of section 1002 of this title if the Commission has determined (pursuant to section 1008(b)(1) of this title) that compliance is not reasonably achievable, unless the Attorney General has agreed (pursuant to section 1008(b)(2) of this title) to pay the costs described in section 1008(b)(2)(A) of this title; or

(3) require a telecommunications carrier to modify, for the purpose of complying with the assistance capability requirements of section 1002 of this title, any equipment, facility, or service deployed on or before January 1, 1995, unless—

(A) the Attorney General has agreed to pay the telecommunications carrier for all reasonable costs directly associated with modifications necessary to bring the equipment, facility, or service into compliance with those requirements; or

(B) the equipment, facility, or service has been replaced or significantly upgraded or otherwise undergoes major modification.

(Pub. L. 103–414, title I, §108, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4285.)

1 So in original. Probably should not be capitalized.

2 So in original. Probably should be "requirements".
### §41107. Monetary penalties or refunds

(a) In General.—A person that violates this part or a regulation or order of the Federal Maritime Commission issued under this part is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty or, in addition to or in lieu of a civil penalty, is liable for the refund of a charge. Unless otherwise provided in this part, the amount of the penalty may not exceed $5,000 for each violation or, if the violation was willfully and knowingly committed, $25,000 for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation.

(b) Lien on Carrier's Vessels.—The amount of a civil penalty or, in addition to or in lieu of a civil penalty, the refund of a charge, imposed on a common carrier under this section constitutes a lien on the vessels operated by the carrier. Any such vessel is subject to an action in rem to enforce the lien in the district court of the United States for the district in which it is found.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1543; Pub. L. 117–146, §8(a)(1), June 16, 2022, 136 Stat. 1276.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 41107 | 46 App.:1712(a). | Pub. L. 98–237, §13(a), Mar. 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 82; Pub. L. 105–258, title I, §112(a), Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1911. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "is subject to an action in rem to enforce the lien" are substituted for "may be libeled therefore" to modernize the language.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–146, §8(a)(1)(A), inserted "or refunds" after "penalties" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–146, §8(a)(1)(B), inserted "or, in addition to or in lieu of a civil penalty, is liable for the refund of a charge" after "civil penalty".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–146, §8(a)(1)(C), inserted "or, in addition to or in lieu of a civil penalty, the refund of a charge," after "civil penalty".
### §53901. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) American vessel.—The term "American vessel" includes—

(A) a documented vessel with a registry or coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 of this title;

(B) an undocumented vessel owned or chartered by or made available to the United States Government; and

(C) a tug, barge, or other watercraft (whether or not documented) owned by a citizen of the United States and used in essential water transportation or in the fisheries, except only for sport fishing.

(2) Cargo.—The term "cargo" includes a loaded or empty container on a vessel.

(3) Transportation in the waterborne commerce of the united states.—The term "transportation in the waterborne commerce of the United States" includes the operation of a vessel in the fisheries, except only for sport fishing.

(4) War risks.—The term "war risks" includes, to the extent the Secretary of Transportation determines—

(A) any part of a loss excluded from marine insurance coverage under a "free of capture or seizure" clause or analogous clause; and

(B) any other loss from a hostile act, including confiscation, expropriation, nationalization, or deprivation.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1626.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53901(1) | 46 App.:1281(a). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title XII, §§1201(a), (b), as added Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 906, 64 Stat. 773. |
| 53901(2) | 46 App.:1283(b) (last sentence). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title XII, §1203(b) (last sentence), as added Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 906, 64 Stat. 774; Pub. L. 94–523, §2, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2474. |
| 53901(3) | 46 App.:1281(b). | |
| 53901(4) | 46 App.:1281(c). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title XII, §1201(c), as added Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 906, 64 Stat. 773; restated Pub. L. 107–107, title XXXV, §3502, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1392. |

Section

In paragraph (1)(A), the words "a documented vessel with a registry or coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 of this title" are substituted for "any vessel registered, enrolled, or licensed under the laws of the United States" because of 46 U.S.C. 12101(b).

In paragraph (1)(B). the words "or any department or agency thereof" are omitted as surplus.

In paragraph (1)(C), the word "fisheries" is substituted for "fishing trade or industry" because of the definition of "fisheries" in chapter 1 of the revised title.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 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, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods covered in the Report.
 /s/ Robert B. Nolen, Jr.Robert B. Nolen, Jr., Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2006(Date)
#### § 570.608 Lead-based paint.

The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851-4856), and implementing regulations at part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R of this part apply to activities under this program.

[64 FR 50226, Sept. 15, 1999]
### §703. Printing extra copies

Orders for printing copies in addition to the "usual number", otherwise than provided for by this section, shall be by simple, concurrent, or joint resolution. Either House may print extra copies to the amount of $1,200 by simple resolution; if the cost exceeds that sum, the printing shall be ordered by concurrent resolution, unless the resolution is self-appropriating, when it shall be by joint resolution. Resolutions, when presented to either House, shall be referred to the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, who, in making their report, shall give the probable cost of the proposed printing upon the estimate of the Director of the Government Publishing Office; and extra copies may not be printed before the committee has reported. The printing of additional copies may be performed upon orders of the Joint Committee on Printing within a limit of $700 in cost in any one instance.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1247; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §223(2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1751; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §133 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §2, 28 Stat. 601; Mar. 1, 1907, ch. 2284, §1, 34 Stat. 1013; Apr. 19, 1949, ch. 72, 63 Stat. 48).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".

1996—Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "House Oversight" for "House Administration".

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0194. KENNETH FOUNTAIN v. THE STATE.

A15A0281. KENNETH FOUNTAIN v. THE STATE.

Kenneth Fountain pled guilty to two counts of battery, simple battery, and

obstruction in 2012. He was sentenced to a total of 48 months, with 10 days to serve

in confinement and the remainder on probation. Fountain’s probation wasrevoked in

August 2014, and he filed a motion to correct illegalsentence. The trial court denied

Fountain’s motion, and he filed two separate notices of appeal from the trial court’s

order.

Because the underlying subject matter of these appeals is the revocation of

Fountain’s probation, he was required to file an application for discretionary appeal

in order to obtain appellate review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5); White v. State, 233

Ga. App. 873 (505 SE2d 228) (1998). His failure to do so renders us without

jurisdiction to review the revocation of his probation. In addition, because both

appeals are from the same trial court order, Case No. A15A0281 is subject to

dismissal as duplicative. For these reasons, these appeals are hereby DISMISSED.

October 21, 2014
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/21/2014
### SUBCHAPTER III—COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION
DRINKER BIDDLE &

REATH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING MEDIATION 

DEADLINE

SF01/ 665060.1 

CASE NO. 3:09-CV-01993-MHP 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Zoe M. Mosko, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DePUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. and 

DOES ONE through ONE HUNDRED, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:09-cv-01993-MHP 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING 

MEDIATION DEADLINE AND 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Judge: Hon. Marilyn H. Patel 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

Whereas the Court set a mediation deadline of December 20, 2009, and invited the parties 

to jointly request an extension within which this case must be mediated by stipulation, if needed; 

Whereas the parties have mutually agreed to use Craig Needham as their mediator and 

have scheduled the mediation for February 12, 2009. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

2010.

Case 3:09-cv-01993-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 2
DRINKER BIDDLE &

REATH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING MEDIATION 

DEADLINE

SF01/ 665060.1 

- 2 - CASE NO. 3:09-CV-01993-MHP 

Accordingly, plaintiff, Zoe M. Mosko and defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. hereby 

stipulate and jointly request that the deadline within which mediation be completed be extended 

to accommodate this mediation date. 

SO STIPULATED. 

Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger 

/s/ Spencer Pahlke 

Spencer Pahlke, Esq. 

Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger 

650 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Zoe Mosko 

Dated: December 18, 2009 

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 

/s/ Michelle A. Childers 

Michelle A. Childers, Esq. 

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 

50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Attorneys for Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, 

Inc. 

Dated: December 18, 2009 

GOOD CAUSE SHOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

The deadline within which the parties to the above-captioned case must be complete 

mediation has been extended to allow a February 12, 2009 mediation, or soon thereafter, as 

necessary to accommodate schedules. . 

DATED:_____________________________________________________________________

 Honorable Marilyn H. Patel 

 United States _Judge 

2010 1/4/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-01993-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2
### §9301. Definitions

In this chapter—

(1) "Canadian registered pilot" means an individual (except a regular crewmember of a vessel) who is registered by Canada on the same basis as an individual registered under section 9303 of this title.

(2) "Great Lakes" means Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, their connecting and tributary waters, the Saint Lawrence River as far east as Saint Regis, and adjacent port areas.

(3) "United States registered pilot" means an individual (except a regular crewmember of a vessel) who is registered under section 9303 of this title.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 557.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 9301(1) | 46:216(d) |
| 9301(2) | 46:216(a) |
| 9301(3) | 46:216(c) |

Section 9301 contains definitions which pertain to this chapter only.

Clause (1) defines "Canadian registered pilot" as an individual registered as a pilot in Canada on the same basis as the United States.

Clause (2) defines "Great Lakes" as the five lakes plus their connecting and tributary waters, a certain part of the Saint Lawrence River, and adjacent ports.

Clause (3) defines "United States registered pilot" as an individual registered under regulations for competency under section 9303.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Alma Jean Bass v. Deborah Bass, Independent Executrix of 

the Estate of Roberta Lois Stanbrough, Deceased

Appellate case number: 01-18-00837-CV

Trial court case number: 16-CPR-029294

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Fort Bend County

The record in this appeal was due in this Court on October 18, 2018. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 35.1(a). A clerk’s record was filed on October 11, 2018; however, a reporter’s 

record has not been filed.

On October 25, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the court 

reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record had not filed a reporter’s record 

because appellant had not requested preparation of a reporter’s record or had not paid, or 

made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparation of the record. See id. 37.3(c). The 

Clerk further notified appellant that unless she provided written evidence that she had 

paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record, or provided proof that she is

entitled to proceed without payment of costs by November 26, 2018, the Court might 

consider the appeal without a reporter’s record. See id. Appellant has not responded.

Accordingly, the Court will consider and decide those issues or points that do not 

require a reporter’s record for a decision. See id. 37.3. Appellant’s brief is due to be 

filed no later than 30 days from the date of this order. Id. 38.6(a), (d). 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Terry Jennings______

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __December 6, 2018____