alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §53403. Award of operating agreements

(a) In General.—The Secretary of Transportation shall require, as a condition of including any vessel in the Fleet, that the program participant of the vessel enter into an operating agreement with the Secretary under this section.

(b) Procedure for Applications.—

(1) Eligible vessels.—The Secretary of Transportation shall accept an application for an operating agreement for an eligible product tank vessel under the priority under paragraph (2) only from a person that has authority to enter into an operating agreement under this chapter.

(2) Establishment of priority.—The Secretary of Transportation may enter into a new operating agreement with an applicant that meets the requirements of section 53402(c) for a vessel that meets the qualifications of section 53402(b), and shall give priority to applications based on—

(A) vessel capabilities, as established by the Secretary of Defense; then

(B) after consideration of vessel type, according to an applicant's record of owning and operating vessels; then

(C) after consideration of ownership and operation, according to such additional priorities as the Secretary of Transportation may consider appropriate.

(3) Concurrence of award.—The Secretary of Transportation may not approve an application for an operating agreement without the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.

(c) Limitation.—The Secretary of Transportation may not award operating agreements under this chapter that require payments under section 53406 of this title for more than—.1

(1) for each of fiscal years 2022 and 2023, 10 vessels; and

(2) for any subsequent fiscal year, 20 vessels.

(d) Judicial Review.—No court shall have jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision with respect to the award or non-award of an operating agreement issued under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. C, title XXXV, §3511(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4412; amended Pub. L. 117–263, div. C, title XXXV, §3501(b)(2), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3064.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–263 substituted "The Secretary" for "For any fiscal year, the Secretary" and "more than—" for "more than 10 vessels", designated existing provisions as introductory provisions, and added pars. (1) and (2).

1 So in original. The period probably should not appear.
#### § 882.406 [Reserved]
NATH
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX
Hoa 0

DEPTH
GRADIENTS
Meters Feet

28 BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 METERS

wap a Ise WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 2 METER CONTOURS

‘ate DATUM [5 MEAN LOWER LOW WATER

SEATTLE, WASH.

#90 ad mCentie ar PUG

a 22°00"
— a0"
Weal

io oyy
H L
H } vy
pope
fa

(23°00°

“[

: S
wh
|
|
1

WO "INiAES

ab
oe
oh
es
€
>

|
|
|

= |

1
|
|
j
i
S \FG
NS)

|
|

; o |

_— Z|

5 al

a

=|

z |

a |

Z|

Cc |

ol

|

|

NIAAVHEO |

WON §)

VES SK A)
y N\A Z K NIA)
: SA \ 3 \ f° MALY,
\ S
\ e \ ¢ \ \ Ss

: i\¢e . B= 6 N Bo *}

. ~ NAN QY 233
47°30" AW) LW WYLy 1 \0TM ( RA : 7 "ii co |
. ° 47°30" ‘ 2 mi}

122°00° 2 U
. {| 3

Low Water AkeAS ; a0
Reef, and Ledges ed . seaTrte, wAsH.C 42)

“ ¥ PRELIMINARY |
|

we { COPY. $58 | |

CONTOURS IN CORRECTED METER
Baker Hughes Declares Increase in Quarterly Dividend


HOUSTON (May 9, 2014) - Baker Hughes Incorporated (NYSE: BHI) announced today that the Board of Directors declared the regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.17 per share of common stock payable August 15, 2014, to holders of record on August 4, 2014. This represents a $0.02 or 13% increase per share over the previous quarter's dividend of $0.15 per share of common stock.


“The increase to our dividend is a result of recent earnings growth, and reflects our commitment to deploy capital in a way which best benefits our shareholders,” said Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Martin S. Craighead.


Baker Hughes is a leading supplier of oilfield services, products, technology and systems to the worldwide oil and natural gas industry. The company's 59,000-plus employees today work in more than 80 countries helping customers find, evaluate, drill, produce, transport and process hydrocarbon resources. For more information about Baker Hughes, visit: www.bakerhughes.com .





# # #





CONTACTS:





Media Relations:Melanie Kania, +713.439.8303, melanie.kania@bakerhughes.comInvestor Relations:Trey Clark, +1.713.439.8039,trey.clark@bakerhughes.comEric Holcomb, +1.713.439.8822,eric.s.holcomb@bakerhughes.com
#### BRIAN K. MCMAHON, JR. *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 25302)

Dranginis, Bishop and DiPentima, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 1

officially released May 31, 2005

*Aaron J. Romano,*special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner).

*James M. Ralls*and *Jo Anne Sulik,*assistant state’s attorneys, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Brian K. McMahon, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the habeas court following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner was convicted, following a trial to the court, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-55 (a) (3) and 53a-55a in connection with a hunting incident that *367resulted in the death of the victim, Ronald Eckert, Jr. The trial court also found that he had used a firearm in the commission of a class B felony in violation of General Statutes § 53-202k. The petitioner was given an effective sentence of thirty-five years incarceration, execution suspended after nineteen years, and five years probation. Our Supreme Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction. See *State*v. *McMahon,*257 Conn. 544, 778 A.2d 847 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1130, 122 S. Ct. 1069, 151 L. Ed. 2d 972 (2002).1

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal and (2) concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, which was prejudicial to him. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner alleged several ways in which trial counsel’s assistance was ineffective. In this court, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that the investigation conducted by trial counsel was adequate and that the petitioner was not prejudiced because counsel did not call a land surveyor as an expert witness to testify as to the angle of the bullet fired by the petitioner. Before we may reach that claim, however, the petitioner must demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.

After a careful review of the record and briefs, we conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues he has raised are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See *Lozada*v. *Deeds,*498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860,112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991); *368
      *Simms*v. *Warden,*230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner also was convicted of violating numerous statutes pertaining to hunting and criminal trespass in the third degree. The petitioner did not appeal from those convictions. *State*v. *McMahon,*supra, 257 Conn. 546-47 n.3.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION IN RELATION TO
                INTERSTAR SECURITISATION MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED


I, Andrew Twyford, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K,  and all reports on Form
     8-K  containing  distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect of
     periods  included in the year covered by this annual  report,  of Interstar
     Millennium Series 2004-2G Trust;

2.   Based on my knowledge,  the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
     does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
     material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in light of the
     circumstances  under which such  statements were made, not misleading as of
     the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge,  the distribution or servicing  information required
     to be  provided  to the  trustee  by the  servicer  under the  pooling  and
     servicing,  or  similar,  agreements,  for  inclusion  in these  reports is
     included in these reports;

4.   I am  responsible  for reviewing the  activities  performed by the servicer
     under the pooling and servicing,  or similar,  agreements and based upon my
     knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,
     and except as  disclosed in the reports,  the  servicer has  fulfilled  its
     obligations under that agreement; and

5.   The  reports  disclose  all  significant   deficiencies   relating  to  the
     servicer's  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards based upon the
     report provided by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a
     review in  compliance  with the  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program  for
     Mortgage  Bankers or similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and
     servicing, or similar, agreements, that is included in these reports.




 /S/  ANDREW TWYFORD
-----------------------
Name:   Andrew Twyford
Title:  Chief Financial Officer, Interstar Securitisation Management Pty Limited
Date:   March 24, 2005
212 A.2d 647.

#### Opinion to the Senate.

AUGUST 19 AS OF AUGUST 18, 1965.

Present: Condon, C. J., Roberts, Paolino, Powers and Joslin, JJ.

*195August 18, 1965

To the Honorable, the Senate of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

We have received from the HononaJble Senate a resolution requesting, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 2 of art. XII of amendments to the constitution of this state, our written opinion upon the following questions of law pursuant to Senate Resolution 478, passed at the January session 1965.

> *“1.*The revenue ibonds of the Mount Hope bridge authority issued pursuant to sections 24-13-17 through 24-13-19 of the general laws, in chapter 24-13, entitled 'Mount Hope bridge authority,’ having been paid in full, does the state now have the right to charge and collect tolls for the use of the Mount Hope bridge?

> *“2.*Do the provisions of sections 24-12-26 of the general laws in chapter 24-12, entitled 'Rhode Island turnpike and bridge authority,’ as amended by section 14 of chapter 165 of the public laws. 1963, and 24-12-40 (A) of said chapter 24-12, as enacted by section 19 of said chapter 165 of the public laws which vest in the Rhode Island turnpike and bridge authority the title to the Mount Hope bridge and grant to said authority the right to receive the moneys held by the trustee under the trust indenture securing the Mount Hope bridge revenue bonds and to charge and collect tolls for the use of the Mount Hope bridge, violate section 14 of article IV of the constitution of the State of Rhode Island, two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the general assembly not having assented thereto?”

The questions submitted by Your Honors relate exclusively to the validity of legislation which has already been enacted by the general assembly, and not to the consistency of proposed legislation with particular constitutional provisions. For the reasons stated unanimously by the judges of this court in *Opinion to the House of Representatives,*
      *19699 R. I. 377, 208 A.2d 126, tihe instant request does not come within the purview of the provisions of sec.' 2 of art.. XII of .amendments relating to advisory opinions.

Nevertheless, because of our desire to cooperate with the coordinate branches of the government, we conclude our answer here, as we did in *Opinion to the House of Representatives, supra,*.by respectfully directing Your Honors’ attention to the settled rule that statutes, having been enacted by the legislature, are presumed to be constitutional unless in some appropriate litigation the contrary is established.

Francis B. Condon

Thomas H. Roberts

Thomas J. Paolino

William E. Powers

Alfred H. Joslin
### §53510. Tax treatment of qualified withdrawals and basis of property

(a) Order of Withdrawals.—A qualified withdrawal from a capital construction fund shall be treated as made—

(1) first from the capital account;

(2) second from the capital gain account; and

(3) third from the ordinary income account.

(b) Ordinary Income Account Withdrawals.—If a portion of a qualified withdrawal for a vessel, barge, or container is made from the ordinary income account, the basis of the vessel, barge, or container shall be reduced by an amount equal to that portion.

(c) Capital Gain Account Withdrawals.—If a portion of a qualified withdrawal for a vessel, barge, or container is made from the capital gain account, the basis of the vessel, barge, or container shall be reduced by an amount equal to that portion.

(d) Withdrawals To Pay Principal.—If a portion of a qualified withdrawal to pay the principal on indebtedness is made from the ordinary income account or the capital gain account, an amount equal to the total reduction that would be required by subsections (b) and (c) if the withdrawal were a qualified withdrawal for a purpose described in those subsections shall be applied, in the order provided in joint regulations, to reduce the basis of vessels, barges, and containers owned by the person maintaining the fund. The remaining amount of the withdrawal shall be treated as a nonqualified withdrawal.

(e) Gain on Property With Reduced Basis.—If property, the basis of which was reduced under subsection (b), (c), or (d), is disposed of, any gain realized on the disposition, to the extent it does not exceed the total reduction in the basis of the property under those subsections, shall be treated as an amount referred to in section 53511(c)(1) of this title withdrawn on the date of disposition of the property. Subject to conditions prescribed in joint regulations, this subsection does not apply to a disposition if there is a redeposit, in an amount determined under joint regulations, that restores the fund as far as practicable to the position it was in before the withdrawal.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1596.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53510 | 46 App.:1177(g). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title VI, §607(g); 49 Stat. 2005; June 23, 1938, ch. 600, §§23–28, 52 Stat. 960; Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §10, 53 Stat. 1185; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §§17–19, 66 Stat. 764; Pub. L. 85–637, Aug. 14, 1958, 72 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 86–518, §1, June 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 87–45, §6, May 27, 1961, 75 Stat. 91; Pub. L. 87–271, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 570; restated Pub. L. 91–469, §21(a), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1029; Pub. L. 99–514, title II, §261(e)(5), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2215. |

Section
1

Thomas H. Adams, Executive Director 

American Coal Ash Association 

15200 E. Girard Ave., Suite 3050 

Aurora, CO 80014 

720.870.7987 

fax – 720.870.7889 

www.acaa-usa.org 

ACAA 

Memo

To: Mathy Stanislaus, EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

From: Thomas Adams 

CC: Barry Breen, Matt Hale, John Sager 

Date: August 11, 2009 

Re: Wisconsin Beneficial Use Regulations 

During our meeting of July 24, 2009, I observed that the state of Wisconsin had the highest level of 

beneficial use of coal combustion products of all 50 states. Interest was expressed in obtaining a copy 

of the Wisconsin beneficial use regulations. Please use the following link to obtain this information. 

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr538.pdf
PUBLIC LAW 106–317—OCT. 19, 2000 114 STAT. 1277

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2641:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–886 (Comm. on Commerce).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Sept. 27, considered and passed House.

Oct. 5, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–317

106th Congress

An Act

To make technical corrections to title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DATE EXTENSIONS.

Section 1001 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 2296a)

is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), by striking ‘‘2002’’ and

inserting ‘‘2007’’;

(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘placed in escrow

not later than December 31, 2002,’’ and inserting ‘‘incurred

by a licensee after December 31, 2007,’’; and

(3) in subsection (b)(2)(E)(i) by striking ‘‘July 31, 2005’’

and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2008’’.

Approved October 19, 2000.

Oct. 19, 2000

[H.R. 2641]
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.321 Lease provisions. ( a ) *Lease provisions.* ( 1 ) PHAs which have established pet rules and project owners shall ensure that the leases for all tenants of projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities: ( i ) State that tenants are permitted to keep common household pets in their dwelling units (subject to the provisions of this subpart and the pet rules);
( ii ) Shall incorporate by reference the pet rules promulgated by the project owner or PHA;
( iii ) Shall provide that the tenant agrees to comply with these rules; and
( iv ) Shall state that violation of these rules may be grounds for removal of the pet or termination of the pet owner's tenancy (or both), in accordance with the provisions of this subpart and applicable regulations and State or local law.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) Where a PHA has not established pet rules, the leases of all tenants of such projects shall not contain any provisions prohibiting the owning or keeping of common household pets, and shall state that owning and keeping of such pets will be subject to the general obligations imposed on the PHA and tenants in the lease and any applicable State or local law or regulation governing the owning or keeping of pets in dwelling accommodations.
#### In the Matter of Stephen Saikin, Petitioner, v Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the Board of Education of the City of New York which, after a hearing, dismissed petitioner from his position as a teacher with tenure. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination to dismiss petitioner, a tenured teacher, was made upon substantial evidence adduced at the hearing. Titone, J. P., Rabin, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
BATHYMETRIC MAP

ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION

100 Statute Miles

SAINT GEORGE BASIN
REGIONAL MAP
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







In connection with the Annual Report of Furio Resources Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Paul Fong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Patrick McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





By /s/ Paul Fong

Paul Fong

Chief Executive Officer

July 26, 2005





By /s/ Patrick McGrath

Patrick McGrath

Chief Financial Officer

July 26, 2005
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

TONY WEST

Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

COLIN KISOR

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

STACEY I. YOUNG, DCBN 499324

Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Tel.: (202) 305-7171

Facsimile: (202) 305-7000

Email: stacey.young@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSE ALCARAZ VELAZQUEZ )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ERIC HOLDER, United States Attorney General; )

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP and )

IMMIGRATION SERVICES )

)

Defendants. )

)

No. C 09-1146-MEJ

STIPULATION TO MOVE MOTION

HEARING TO MAY 20, 2010

Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate, through their respective counsel, that the hearing on

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, set for April 29, 2009, at 10:00 am, be moved to Thursday,

May 20, 2010, at 10:00 am. The parties stipulate to these changes because they want to reserve

ample time for settlement negotiations.

Stipulation to Move Motion Hearing

to May 20, 2010

C09-1146-MEJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:09-cv-01146-MEJ Document 37 Filed 04/12/10 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

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 9, 2010

/s/ Maria Matan

MARIA MATAN

P.O. Box 489

Novato, CA 94945

Dated April 9, 2010

TONY WEST

Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

COLIN KISOR

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

/s/ Stacey I. Young

STACEY I. YOUNG

Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

Office of Immigration Litigation

District Court Section

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Tel.: (202) 305-7171

Facsimile: (202) 305-7000

Email: stacey.young@usdoj.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Stipulation to Move Motion Hearing

to May 20, 2010

C09-1146-MEJ -3-

Case 3:09-cv-01146-MEJ Document 37 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 712.605 Inspector General report. ( a ) The Inspector General, or other official as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, of each agency shall prepare and submit to Congress each year, commencing with submission of the President's Budget in 1991, an evaluation of the compliance of that agency with, and the effectiveness of, the requirements herein. The evaluation may include any recommended changes that may be necessary to strengthen or improve the requirements.
( b ) In the case of an agency that does not have an Inspector General, the agency official comparable to an Inspector General shall prepare and submit the annual report, or, if there is no such comparable official, the head of the agency shall prepare and submit the annual report.
( c ) The annual report shall be submitted at the same time the agency submits its annual budget justifications to Congress.
( d ) The annual report shall include the following: All alleged violations relating to the agency's covered Federal actions during the year covered by the report, the actions taken by the head of the agency in the year covered by the report with respect to those alleged violations and alleged violations in previous years, and the amounts of civil penalties imposed by the agency in the year covered by the report.