alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.50 What is the purpose of this subpart? ( a ) This subpart applies to all oil produced from Indian (Tribal and allotted) oil and gas leases (except leases on the Osage Indian Reservation, Osage County, Oklahoma). This subpart does not apply to Federal leases, including Federal leases for which revenues are shared with Alaska Native Corporations. This subpart: ( 1 ) Explains how you as a lessee must calculate the value of production for royalty purposes consistent with Indian mineral leasing laws, other applicable laws, and lease terms.
( 2 ) Ensures the United States discharges its trust responsibilities for administering Indian oil and gas leases under the governing Indian mineral leasing laws, treaties, and lease terms.
( b ) If you dispose of or report production on behalf of a lessee, the terms “you” and “your” in this subpart refer to you and not to the lessee. In this circumstance, you must determine and report royalty value for the lessee's oil by applying the rules in this subpart to your disposition of the lessee's oil.
( c ) If the regulations in this subpart are inconsistent with: ( 1 ) A Federal statute;
( 2 ) A settlement agreement between the United States, Indian lessor, and a lessee resulting from administrative or judicial litigation;
( 3 ) A written agreement between the Indian lessor, lessee, and the ONRR Director establishing a method to determine the value of production from any lease that ONRR expects at least would approximate the value established under this subpart; or
( 4 ) An express provision of an oil and gas lease subject to this subpart then the statute, settlement agreement, written agreement, or lease provision will govern to the extent of the inconsistency.
( d ) ONRR or Indian Tribes, which have a cooperative agreement with ONRR to audit under 30 U.S.C. 1732, may audit, or perform other compliance reviews, and require a lessee to adjust royalty payments and reports.
#### § 1228.1 Purpose.

It is the purpose of cooperative agreements to effectively utilize the capabilities of the States and Indian tribes in developing and maintaining an efficient and effective Federal royalty management system as indicated at 30 U.S.C. 1701.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9459 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enable 

secure and trustworthy technology through other transaction contracting authority, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 9459 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Producing Advanced 

3 Technologies for Homeland Security Act’’ or the ‘‘PATHS 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION 

6 PILOT PROGRAM EXTENSION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 831 of the Homeland Se8 curity Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 391) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 

10 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

11 by striking ‘‘Until September 30, 2024, and 

12 subject to subsection (d)’’ and inserting ‘‘Until 

13 September 30, 2027, and subject to subsection 

14 (c)’’; and 

15 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

16 paragraph: 

17 ‘‘(3) OTHER TRANSACTION AUTHORITY INVOLV18 ING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.—Not later than 72 

19 hours after the use or extension of the transaction 

20 authority authorized under paragraph (1) involving 

21 artificial intelligence technology, the Secretary shall 

22 notify the Committee on Appropriations and the 

23 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

24 Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Appro25 priations and the Committee on Homeland Security 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 9459 RDS

1 of the House of Representatives and offer a briefing 

2 explaining the reason for the use or extension.’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (c)(1), in the matter preceding 

4 subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘September 30, 

5 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2027’’. 

6 (b) REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF COVERED CONTRACT

7 AWARD.—Subparagraph (A) of section 7113(d)(1) of the 

8 James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for 

9 Fiscal Year 2023 (6 U.S.C. 112 note; Public Law 117– 

10 263) is amended by striking ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘$1,000,000’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZERS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585 

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Room 8E-089

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested parties on the 

Notice of Proposed Rule (NOPR) documents addressing potential energy conservation standards for 

walk-in coolers and freezers. 

Agenda

9:00 – 9:10 am Welcome and Introductions, Opening Remarks 

 Doug Brookman 

9:10 – 9:30 am Overview, Scope, Test Procedure 

 Charles Llenza

Summary presentation and overview of the rulemaking process, scope of 

coverage, and test procedures. 

9:30 – 10:00 am Market and Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis

 Laura Degitz 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the proposed approach and 

factors considered for the market assessment and screening analysis

10:00 – 10:45 am Engineering Analysis

 Rebecca Legett

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the proposed approach and 

factors considered for the engineering analysis

10:45 – 11:00 am Break

11:00 – 11:15 am Markups Analysis; Energy Use Analysis 

 Katie Coughlin

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors 

considered for the markups to determine equipment price analysis, and energy 

use analysis. 

11:15 – 11:30 pm Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period Analysis

 Katie Coughlin

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors 

considered for the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

WALK-IN COOLERS AND FREEZERS

Agenda (cont.)

11:30 – 12:00 pm Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis 

 Katie Coughlin

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors 

considered for the shipments analysis and national impact analysis 

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch 

1:00 – 1:30 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

 Christopher Lau 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors 

considered for the manufacturer impact analysis 

1:30 – 2:00 pm NOPR Analyses 

 Katie Coughlin

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the analyses that were conducted 

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) stage. These include: life-cycle 

cost subgroups analysis, utility impact analysis, employment impact analysis, 

environmental assessment, and regulatory impact analysis 

2:00 – 2:15 pm Break

2:15 – 2:45 pm Proposed Standard 

 Rebecca Legett

Summary presentation and discussion of the proposed standard. 

2:45 – 3:00 pm Closing Remarks 

 Charles Llenza
#### §§ 285.422-285.432 [Reserved]
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00042-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

ANNY HELENE KYLE AND JERRY DAVID KYLE

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-42497

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 16, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant Jerry David Kyle 

that we have not received the docketing statement and that this appeal would be 

dismissed if the docketing statement was not filed within twenty-one days of the date of 

the letter. No response has been received from Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
In re Marriage of Kyle Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 26, 2017

[CV06]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEVENSON A. WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

ESTATE OF ROBERT YEE, deceased, TED YEE, and

ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellees.

No. 4D2023-0366

[January 10, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Tabitha Blackmon, Judge; L.T. Case No. COWE22-

001495. 

Devenson A. Walker, Sunrise, pro se. 

Kansas R. Gooden and Nicholas Ryan Consalvo of Boyd & Jenerette, 

P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees Estate of Robert Yee and Ted Yee. 

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pro se, appeals the final order dismissing his complaint with 

prejudice, as well as the order denying his motion to vacate dismissal and 

motion for rehearing, after appellant failed to appear at the hearing on the 

motion to dismiss. Appellant’s brief cites no legal authority and contains 

no citations to the record on appeal. “It is the duty of counsel to prepare 

appellate briefs so as to acquaint the Court with the material facts, the 

points of law involved, and the legal arguments supporting the positions 

of the respective parties.” Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 

So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). “When points, positions, facts and 

supporting authorities are omitted from the brief, a court is entitled to 

believe that such are waived, abandoned, or deemed by counsel to be 

unworthy.” Id. Appellant, as a pro se litigant, was still required to 

adequately present his arguments on appeal. Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 

So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound 

by the same rules that apply to counsel.”); Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 

611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[I]t is a mistake to hold a pro se 

litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably competent attorney.”); 
2

Figueroa v. Kossiver, 336 So. 3d 1260, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (applying 

Polyglycoat principles to a pro se litigant’s brief). The deficiencies in 

appellant’s brief mandate affirmance. 

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS, and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**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**

 

In connection with the annual report ofOutdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, William A. Owen, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and operating results of the Company.

 
| /s/ William A. Owen     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Chief Financial Officer |
| March 16, 2006          |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings,Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### §46504. Interference with flight crew members and attendants

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §811(i), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 382.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 46504 | 49 App.:1472(j). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, §902(j); added Sept. 5, 1961, Pub. L. 87–197, §1, 75 Stat. 466; Oct. 14, 1970, Pub. L. 91–449, §1(3), 84 Stat. 921. |

Section

The words "or threatens" are omitted as being included in "intimidating". The words "(including any steward or stewardess)" are omitted as being included in "attendant". The words "fined under title 18" are substituted for "fined not more than $10,000" for consistency with title 18. The words "deadly or" are omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2001—Pub. L. 107–56 inserted "or attempts or conspires to do such an act," before "shall be fined under title 18,".
#### § 56.14219 Brakeman signals.

When a train is under the direction of a brakeman and the train operator cannot clearly recognize the brakeman's signals, the train operator shall bring the train to a stop.
2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-5-2009

Edward Benkoski v. Bonnie Wasilewski

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-4200

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Edward Benkoski v. Bonnie Wasilewski" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 516.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/516
E-mail to Dr. Dave Moody, DOE/CBFO (1/25/10)

Dave,

Attached are follow-up comments and questions related to our initial completeness letter (May 21, 2009) and the chemistry questions 1-23-6a and 1-23-6c.

My staff and contractor staff are continuing to review the responses that you provided to our comments in our various completeness letters, but especially the May 21, 2009 letter. We need clarification on some issues raised by your resp onses on the effects of borate on the +III actinide solubility in the WIPP repository, the Nd so lubility data included in CRA-2009 Appendix SOTERM and Borkowski et al 2008, and possible issu es related to the geochemistry conceptual model and FMT modeling calculations for th e CRA-2009 PABC. Below are nine potential issues/questions that will need to be settled a nd additional information that we will require before the related completeness comments can be reso lved. These are not in order of potential importance and additional questions and data requirements are likely to arise as we continue the

evaluation.

Please ensure that these questions are responded to promptly and clearly. Our questions result, in part, from the lack of clarity in the current responses. We need your documentation to "tell the story" in a straightforward manner. Some of this may be addressed in some documentation that we have been promised but have not yet rece ived (but need to receive in short order). In addition to specific responses to the items below, we will be reviewing the information to understand if it represents a change to the current chemistry model or just the parameterization of

the current model. We will be reviewing the responses to 1) ma ke sure that they completely address the issue, and 2) whether they app ear to be technically adequate. Also, our understanding of these issues woul d benefit from the cl arification of the re lationship between the findings from recent or ongoing experiments and the implementation of the modelling for the current performance assessment.

This email will be placed in the docket. Please c onsider these comments and questions as part of completeness letter 1, question 1-23-6.

Tom Peake

Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations US EPA (6608J) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 phone: 202-343-9765
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 10, 2020.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 4, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 180 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-40, CP2021-41.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2020-27081 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
### §1505. Unlicensed services in guard bands

#### (a) In general

After public notice and comment, and in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the head of each affected Federal agency (or a designee thereof), with respect to frequencies allocated for Federal use, the Commission shall adopt rules that permit unlicensed services where feasible to use any frequencies that are designated as guard bands to protect frequencies allocated after March 23, 2018, by competitive bidding under section 309(j) of this title, including spectrum that acts as a duplex gap between transmit and receive frequencies.

#### (b) Limitation

The Commission may not permit any use of a guard band under this section that would cause harmful interference to a licensed service or a Federal service.

#### (c) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Commission or the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information from otherwise making spectrum available for licensed or unlicensed use in any frequency band in addition to guard bands, including under section 1502 of this title, consistent with their statutory jurisdictions.

(Pub. L. 115–141, div. P, title VI, §611, Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1109.)
§ 983.7 Uniform Relocation Act. ( a ) *Relocation assistance for displaced person.* ( 1 ) A displaced person must be provided relocation assistance at the levels described in and in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) (42 U.S.C. 4201-4655) and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24.
( 2 ) The cost of required relocation assistance may be paid with funds provided by the owner, or with local public funds, or with funds available from other sources. Relocation costs may not be paid from voucher program funds; however, provided payment of relocation benefits is consistent with state and local law, PHAs may use their administrative fee reserve to pay for relocation assistance after all other program administrative expenses are satisfied. Use of the administrative fee reserve in this manner must be consistent with legal and regulatory requirements, including the requirements of 24 CFR 982.155 and other official HUD issuances.
( b ) *Real property acquisition requirements.* The acquisition of real property for a PBV project is subject to the URA and 49 CFR part 24, subpart B.
( c ) *Responsibility of PHA.* The PHA must require the owner to comply with the URA and 49 CFR part 24.
( d ) *Definition of initiation of negotiations.* In computing a replacement housing payment to a residential tenant displaced as a direct result of privately undertaken rehabilitation or demolition of the real property, the term “initiation of negotiations” means the execution of the Agreement between the owner and the PHA.
Argued and submitted April 7,

affirmed April 29,

petition for review allowed August 11, 1998 (327 Or 484)

#### Sydney RODRIGUEZ, by her guardian ad litem, Gina Rodriguez, *Appellant, v.*THE HOLLAND, INC., a Washington corporation, dba Burgerville USA, *Respondent.*THE HOLLAND, INC., a Washington corporation, dba Burgerville USA, *Third-Party Plaintiff, v.*Kim FROSAKER, an individual, *Third-Party Defendant.*

(960705514; CA A98544)

957 P2d 203

John S. J. Marandas argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Marandas & Perdue.

Janet M. Schroer argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Marjorie A. Speirs and Hoffman, Hart & Wagner.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Linder, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Wyatt v. Sweitz,*146 Or App 723, 934 P2d 544, *rev dismissed*326 Or 63 (1997).
### §51305. Prohibited basis for appointment

Preference may not be given to an individual for appointment as a cadet at the United States Merchant Marine Academy because one or more members of the individual's immediate family are alumni of the Academy.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(b), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1572.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 51305 | 46 App.:1295b(b) (3)(E). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title XIII, §1303(b)(3)(E), as added Pub. L. 96–453, §2, Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 1999. |

Section
§ 550.185 When is there no compensation for a lease cancellation? You will not receive compensation from BOEM for lease cancellation if: ( a ) BOEM disapproves a DPP because you do not receive concurrence by the State under section 307(c)(3)(B)(i) or (ii) of the CZMA, and the Secretary of Commerce does not make the finding authorized by section 307(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CZMA;
( b ) You do not submit a DPP under 30 CFR part 550, subpart B or do not comply with the approved DPP;
( c ) As the lessee of a nonproducing lease, you fail to comply with the Act, the lease, or the regulations issued under the Act, and the default continues for 30 days after BOEM mails you a notice by overnight mail;
( d ) The Regional Supervisor disapproves a DPP because you fail to comply with the requirements of applicable Federal law; or
( e ) The Secretary forfeits and cancels a producing lease under section 5(d) of the Act (43 U.S.C. 1334(d)).