alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 550.200 Definitions. Acronyms and terms used in this subpart have the following meanings: ( a ) *Acronyms* used frequently in this subpart are listed alphabetically below: *BOEM* means Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
*BSEE* means Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
*CID* means Conservation Information Document.
*CZMA* means Coastal Zone Management Act.
*DOCD* means Development Operations Coordination Document.
*DPP* means Development and Production Plan.
*DWOP* means Deepwater Operations Plan.
*EIA* means Environmental Impact Analysis.
*EP* means Exploration Plan.
*IOP* means Integrated Operations Plan.
*NPDES* means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
*NTL* means Notice to Lessees and Operators.
*OCS* means Outer Continental Shelf.
( b ) Terms used in this subpart are listed alphabetically below: *Amendment* means a change you make to an EP, DPP, or DOCD that is pending before BOEM for a decision (see §§ 550.232(d) and 550.267(d)).
*Modification* means a change required by the Regional Supervisor to an EP, DPP, or DOCD (see § 550.233(b)(2) and § 550.270(b)(2)) that is pending before BOEM for a decision because the OCS plan is inconsistent with applicable requirements.
*New or unusual technology* means equipment or procedures that: ( 1 ) Have not been used previously or extensively in a BOEM OCS Region;
( 2 ) Have not been used previously under the anticipated operating conditions; or
( 3 ) Have operating characteristics that are outside the performance parameters established by this part.
*Non-conventional production or completion technology* includes, but is not limited to, floating production systems, tension leg platforms, spars, floating production, storage, and offloading systems, guyed towers, compliant towers, subsea manifolds, and other subsea production components that rely on a remote site or host facility for utility and well control services.
*Offshore vehicle* means a vehicle that is capable of being driven on ice.
*Resubmitted OCS plan* means an EP, DPP, or DOCD that contains changes you make to an OCS plan that BOEM has disapproved (see §§ 550.234(b), 550.272(a), and 550.273(b)).
*Revised OCS plan* means an EP, DPP, or DOCD that proposes changes to an approved OCS plan, such as those in the location of a well or platform, type of drilling unit, or location of the onshore support base (see § 550.283(a)).
*Supplemental OCS plan* means an EP, DPP, or DOCD that proposes the addition to an approved OCS plan of an activity that requires approval of an application or permit (see § 550.283(b)).
[76 FR 64623, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 46565, July 15, 2016]
#### § 56.12021 Danger signs.

Suitable danger signs shall be posted at all major electrical installations.
Exhibit 99.1





April 10, 2018





GCI Liberty Announces First Quarter Earnings Release and Conference Call





ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- GCI Liberty, Inc.’s (“GCI Liberty”) (Nasdaq: GLIBA, GLIBP) President and Chief Executive Officer, Greg Maffei, will host a conference call to discuss results for the first quarter of 2018 on Wednesday, May 9 th , at 5:00 p.m. (E.D.T.). Following prepared remarks, the company will host a brief Q&A session during which management will accept questions regarding both GCI Liberty and Liberty Broadband Corporation.  During the call, Mr. Maffei may discuss the financial performance and outlook of both companies, as well as other forward looking matters.





Please call ReadyTalk at (800) 281-7973 or (323) 794-2093, passcode 2595335, at least 10 minutes prior to the call. Callers will need to be on a touch-tone telephone to ask questions. The conference administrator will provide instructions on how to use the polling feature.





In addition, the first quarter earnings conference call will be broadcast live via the Internet. All interested participants should visit the GCI Liberty website at http://ir.gciliberty.com/events-and-presentations/upcoming-events to register for the web cast. Links to the press release and replays of the call will also be available on the GCI Liberty website. The conference call will be archived on the website for one year after appropriate filings have been made with the SEC.





About GCI Liberty, Inc.





GCI Liberty, Inc. (Nasdaq: GLIBA, GLIBP) operates and owns interests in a broad range of communications businesses. GCI Liberty’s principal assets consist of its subsidiary GCI and interests in Charter Communications and Liberty Broadband Corporation. GCI is the largest communications provider in Alaska, providing data, wireless, video, voice and managed services to consumer and business customers throughout Alaska and nationwide. GCI has delivered services for nearly 40 years to some of the most remote communities and in some of the most challenging conditions in North America.  GCI Liberty’s other businesses and assets consist of its subsidiary Evite and its interest in Lending Tree.





GCI Liberty, Inc.


Courtnee Chun, 720-875-5420





Source: GCI Liberty, Inc.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTIAN SERRANO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2767

[November 8, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14010663 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. 

Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Opinion issued January 29 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00956
- CV

——————————— AMBER AND RYAN CARROLL AND MARKET
- TIERS, INC. D/B/A

BLUE ENDO , Appellant s

V. NICOLE TRAN, MD , Appellee

O n Appeal fro m the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015
- 69798

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant s ha ve filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a)(1). No opinion has issued. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(c). Further, although appellant s failed to include a certificate of conference in their2

motion, appellants ’ motion includes a certificate of service, more than 10 days have passed since the motion was filed, and no party has responded to the motion.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss

.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 943 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to fentanyl. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. OGLES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect 

to fentanyl. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘It’s Your Fault Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CLARIFYING GROUNDS FOR INADMISSIBILITY OF 

6 CERTAIN ALIENS. 

7 (a) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TRAFFICKERS.—Sec8 tion 212(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

9 (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 943 IH

1 (1) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘, including 

2 fentanyl or a fentanyl analogue,’’ after ‘‘in any con3 trolled substance’’; and 

4 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘5’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘15’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### §80507. Employee protection

(a) Prohibition.—A person may not discharge or discriminate against an employee because the employee has reported the existence of an unsafe container or a violation of this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this chapter.

(b) Complaints.—An employee alleging to have been discharged or discriminated against in violation of subsection (a) may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. The complaint must be filed within 60 days after the violation.

(c) Enforcement.—The Secretary of Labor may investigate the complaint. If the Secretary of Labor finds there has been a violation, the Secretary of Labor may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States. The court has jurisdiction to restrain violations of subsection (a) and order appropriate relief, including reinstatement of the employee to the employee's former position with back pay.

(d) Notice to Complainant.—Within 30 days after receiving a complaint under this section, the Secretary of Labor shall notify the complainant of the intended action on the complaint.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §11, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1697.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 80507 | 46 App.:1506. | Pub. L. 95–208, §7, Dec. 13, 1977, 91 Stat. 1479. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "in any manner" and "to the Secretary or his agents" are omitted as unnecessary. The words "or a regulation prescribed under this chapter" are added for consistency.
### §47126. Criminal penalties for false statements

A person (including an officer, agent, or employee of the United States Government or a public agency) shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the person, with intent to defraud the Government, knowingly makes—

(1) a false statement about the kind, quantity, quality, or cost of the material used or to be used, or the quantity, quality, or cost of work performed or to be performed, in connection with the submission of a plan, map, specification, contract, or estimate of project cost for a project included in a grant application submitted to the Secretary of Transportation for approval under this subchapter;

(2) a false statement or claim for work or material for a project included in a grant application approved by the Secretary under this subchapter; or

(3) a false statement in a report or certification required under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1277.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 47126 | 49 App.:2216. | Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, §517, 96 Stat. 693. |

Section

In this section, before clause (1), the words "association, firm, or corporation" are omitted because of 1:1. The words "fined under title 18" are substituted for "a fine of not to exceed $10,000" for consistency with title 18. In clauses (1)–(3), the words "false representation" are omitted as surplus. In clauses (1) and (2), the words "false report" are omitted as surplus. The words "included in a grant application" are added for clarity and consistency in this chapter. In clause (3), the words "to be made" are omitted as surplus.
Dear Mr. Bryson:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−3505). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material(s) listed below, however the material(s) was/were

not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced 

materials:

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/26/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Donk, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 828]—

Appeal from an amended order of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), dated January 26, 2006. The amended order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by determining that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act and as modified the amended order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant incorrectly appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.),*rather than from an amended order deleting the statement that he consented to the risk level. In the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeal as taken *1269from the amended order *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in assessing 20 points against him for a continuing course of sexual misconduct and that, in the absence of those 20 points, the total points assessed against him do not reach the minimum necessary for a level three risk. We agree with defendant, and we therefore modify the amended order accordingly. The People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant engaged in “either (i) two or more acts of sexual contact, at least one of which is an act of sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, or aggravated sexual abuse, which acts are separated in time by at least 24 hours, or (ii) three or more acts of sexual contact over a period of at least two weeks” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 10 [Nov. 1997]; *see generally*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Brown,*302 AD2d 919, 920 [2003]).

We reject the further contention of defendant that the court erred in assessing 15 points against him for a history of drug or alcohol abuse. The People presented clear and convincing evidence establishing that defendant had a history of drug abuse, including evidence of a conviction related to an incident in which defendant blew marihuana smoke into the mouth of a baby as well as evidence of at least one disciplinary action in prison for a drug infraction. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green and Pine, JJ.
### §32919. Preemption

(a) General.—When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under this chapter.

(b) Requirements Must Be Identical.—When a requirement under section 32908 of this title is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may adopt or enforce a law or regulation on disclosure of fuel economy or fuel operating costs for an automobile covered by section 32908 only if the law or regulation is identical to that requirement.

(c) State and Political Subdivision Automobiles.—A State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe requirements for fuel economy for automobiles obtained for its own use.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1075, §32918; renumbered §32919, Pub. L. 103–429, §6(43)(A), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4382.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 32918 | 15:2009. | Oct. 20, 1972, Pub. L. 92–513, 86 Stat. 947, §509; added Dec. 22, 1975, Pub. L. 94–163, §301, 89 Stat. 914. |

Section

In subsection (a), the word "prescribed" is substituted for "established" for consistency.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–429 renumbered section 32918 of this title as this section.
### §20306. Exemption for technological improvements

(a) General.—Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary of Transportation may exempt from the requirements of this chapter railroad equipment or equipment that will be operated on rails, when those requirements preclude the development or implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation innovations under existing law.

(b) Conditions for Exemption.—The Secretary may grant an exemption under subsection (a) of this section only on the basis of—

(1) findings based on evidence developed at a hearing; or

(2) an agreement between national railroad labor representatives and the developer of the new equipment or technology.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 883.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20306 | 45:1013. | May 30, 1980, Pub. L. 96–254, §117, 94 Stat. 406. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" and "the mandatory requirements of" are omitted as surplus. The words "existing law" are substituted for "the existing statutes" for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (b), the words before clause (1) are added because of the restatement. Clause (1) is substituted for "after a hearing and consistent with findings based upon evidence developed therein" to eliminate unnecessary words. In clause (2), the words "an agreement" are substituted for "expressions of agreement" to eliminate unnecessary words.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RADICA HARRIPERSAD
, Appellant,

v.

LAKE PARK GARDENS #1, INC., a condominium

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 20 23

- 0 318 and 4D 20 23

- 0 319

[ November 15, 2023 ]

Consolidated appeal s from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael Robinson , Judge; L.T. Case

No s

. CACE20

- 11497 and CACE20

- 10884

.

Herbert B. Dell of Herbert B. Dell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Scott R. Shapiro of Straley | Ot to, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We consolidate these cases for purposes of this opinion. A ppellant challenges the entry of partial summary judgment s against her in two

related cases . She claims that the trial court erred by enforc ing a settlement agreement against her as to both cases without an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a settlement had been reached

, and by enforcing the settlement at the same hearing in which the court allowed her prior attorney to withdraw, leaving he r unrepresented. Appellant argues this was a denial of due process. We agree.

When parties dispute whether a settlement agreement has been reached, they are entitled to an evidentiary hearing

. Architectural Network, Inc. v. Gulf Bay Land Holdings II, Ltd. , 933 So. 2d 732, 733

– 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Further, the trial court erred by allowing appellant’s counsel to withdraw at the same hearing that the court considered the motion to compel appellant to sign the settlement agreement, thus le aving appellant unrepresented. See Buscemi v. 6060 Realty Corp. , 654 So. 2d 197 , 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Commendably, appellee has filed a notice that it does

not contest these issues. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.2 Reversed and remanded.

W ARNER
, M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExperimental effects of wing location on wing-body pressures at supersonic speedsAn experimental study was performed at supersonic speeds to measure wing and body spanwise pressure distributions on an axisymmetric-body delta wing model on which the wing vertical location on the body was systematically varied from low- to high-mounted positions. In addition, for two of these positions both horizontal and radial wing angular orientations relative to the body were tested, and roll angle effects were investigated for one of the positions. Seven different wing-body configurations and a body-alone configuration were studied. The test was conducted at Mach numbers from 1.70 to 2.86 at angles of attack from about -4 deg to 24 deg. Pressure orifices were located at three longitudinal stations on each wing-body model, and at each station the orifices were located completely around the body, along the lower surface of the right wing (looking upstream), and along the upper surface of the left wing. All pressure coefficient data are tabulated and selected samples are shown graphically to illustrate the effects of the test variables. The effects of angle of attack, roll angle, Mach number, longitudinal station, wing vertical location, wing angular orientation, and wing-body juncture are analyzed. The vertical location of the wing on the body had a very strong effect on the body pressures. For a given angle of attack at a roll angle of 0 deg, the pressures were virtually constant in the spanwise direction across the windward surfaces of the wing-body combination. Pressure-relieving, channeling, and vortex effects were noted in the data.Document ID19930016896Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsAllen, Jerry M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Watson, Carolyn B.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1993Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4434NASA-TM-4434L-17148Accession Number93N26085Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-59-30-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930016896.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 56.19121 Recordkeeping.

At the time of completion, the person performing inspections, tests, and maintenance of hoisting equipment required in standard 56.19120 shall certify, by signature and date, that they have been done. A record of any part that is not functioning properly shall be made and dated. Certifications and records shall be retained for one year.

(Sec. 101, Pub. L. 91-173 as amended by Pub. L. 95-164, 91 Stat. 1291 (30 U.S.C. 811))

[50 FR 4054, Jan. 29, 1985, as amended at 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995]