alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §24310. Management accountability

(a) In General.—Within 3 years after the date of enactment of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, and 2 years thereafter, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation shall complete an overall assessment of the progress made by Amtrak management and the Department of Transportation in implementing the provisions of that Act.

(b) Assessment.—The management assessment undertaken by the Inspector General may include a review of—

(1) effectiveness in improving annual financial planning;

(2) effectiveness in implementing improved financial accounting;

(3) efforts to implement minimum train performance standards;

(4) progress maximizing revenues, minimizing Federal subsidies, and improving financial results; and

(5) any other aspect of Amtrak operations the Inspector General finds appropriate to review.

(Added Pub. L. 110–432, div. B, title II, §221(a), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4931.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, referred to in subsec. (a), is div. B of Pub. L. 110–432, Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4907. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2008 Amendment note set out under section 20101 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 24310, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 914, allowed petition or application for assistance in upgrading facilities to correct dangerous conditions or State and local violations, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–134, title IV, §403, Dec. 2, 1997, 111 Stat. 2585.
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                                                                                                             |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |                                                                                                                                             |   |
| Date:      December 14 , 2009 | By:    | /s/ Robert      Cheney                                                                                                                      |   |
|                          |   | Robert      Cheney                                                                                                                               |   |
|                          |   | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer      and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  |   |
|                          |   |                                                                                                                                             |   |
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1118

VENTURE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, VEMCO, INC.,

PATENT HOLDING COMPANY, and LARRY J. WINGET,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

AUTOLIV ASP, INC. (successor to Morton International, Inc.),

Defendant-Appellant.

John E. Anding , Drew, Cooper & Anding, of Gr and Rapids, Michigan, argued for

plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief was Thomas V. Hubbard

.

Peter E. Greene , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, of New York, New

York, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was Cyrus Amir-Mokri

.

Appealed from: United States District Cour t for the Eastern District of Michigan

Senior Judge Avern CohnNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1118

VENTURE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, VEMCO, INC.,

PATENT HOLDING COMPANY, and LARRY J. WINGET,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

AUTOLIV ASP, INC. (successor to Morton International, Inc.),

Defendant-Appellant.



### Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan

in CASE NO(S). 2:99-CV-75354

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges , CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: July 11, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Traveling Water Screen Design

Innovative Water Intake Screening Equipment Protects

Fish at Power Plant Facility

When Con Edison Development began working with its

affiliate, Newington Energy, LLC, in October 2000 to design a

new 525-megawatt gas- and oil-fired combined cycle power

plant in Newington, New Hampshire, the company wanted to

make sure the cooling intake structure for the new plant met

Best Technology Available (BTA) requirements. Meeting

these requirements would ensure compliance with future U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.

Read Full Case Study

Traveling Water Screens

Travelling water screens are designed to remove trash, sticks, and other debris from surface

water sources such as rivers and lakes before entering a drinking water treatment plant. Power

plants also use a very large amount of surface water for cooling, and are required to protect the

lives of fish by using special fish screens.

Traveling water screens take many forms—from simple to more

sophisticated automated screens that have self cleaning features. Some are

designed as coarse screens for removal of large floating debris like sticks,

trash and plastic; fine screens are capable of removing finer suspended

materials. Some screens are configured to safely prevent fish from

entering water intake systems.

Siemens Water Technologies offers a variety of raw water intake screens to

meet every application, including drinking waster plants, power plants,

paper mills, and cooling and boiler feed water systems. 

We have been supplying raw water screening equipment since 1890. Our

Rex® and Link-Belt® brands are known throughout the world as the

premium names in debris removal for power plants, municipal drinking water

intakes and other screening applications.

Some of our technologies include:

Traveling water screens

Fine and coarse screens

Fish screens

Screen repair and replacement services

Siemens also provides pilot treatment systems and analytical testing to document the efficacy of treatment prior to

installation. We also provide parts and service on all of our equipment, as well as equipment that may have been provided

by other manufacturers.

Contact Us

For more information about Traveling Water Screens, contact the Information Desk, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5

p.m., Eastern Standard Time: 1.866.926.8420 or 1.724.772.1402 or information.water@siemens.com

Traveling Water Screens Case Study

Traveling Water Screens 

Home Market-specific Solutions Water Technologies Products Separation and Clarification Traveling Water Screens

Featured Traveling Water Screen Products

Center Flow Screens

Rex® Modified Ristroph Fish Screen

Dual Flow Traveling Water Screen

Through Flow Screen

Aftermarket Parts and Service

Intake Diving Services

Traveling Water Screen Parts

Traveling Water Screen Rebuilds

Water Technologies Language Contact search search

Traveling Water Screens http://www.water.siemens.com/en/products/separation_clarification/trave...

1 of 2
Traveling Water Screens http://www.water.siemens.com/en/products/separation_clarification/trave...

2 of 2
Exhibit 23

          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
WLR Foods, Inc.:

We  consent   to  incorporation  by  reference   in  the  registration
statements on Form S-8  (No. 33-27037, No 33-63364 and  No. 33-55649),
on Form  S-3 (No. 33-56775) and  on Form S-3(D) (No.  33-54692) of WLR
Foods,  Inc. of  our reports  dated August  20, 1997, relating  to the
consolidated  balance sheets of WLR Foods, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
June  28, 1997  and  June  29,  1996,  and  the  related  consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each
of the  fiscal years in the three-year period ended June 28, 1997, and
the  related schedule,  which reports  appear or  are  incorporated by
reference  in the  June 28,  1997 annual  report on  Form 10-K  of WLR
Foods, Inc.




                    KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Richmond, Virginia
September 25, 1997
### §44948. National Deployment Office

(a) Establishment.—There is established within the Transportation Security Administration a National Deployment Office, to be headed by an individual with supervisory experience. Such individual shall be designated by the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration.

(b) Duties.—The individual designated as the head of the National Deployment Office shall be responsible for the following:

(1) Maintaining a National Deployment Force within the Transportation Security Administration, including transportation security officers, supervisory transportation security officers and lead transportation security officers, to provide the Administration with rapid and efficient response capabilities and augment the Department of Homeland Security's homeland security operations to mitigate and reduce risk, including for the following:

(A) Airports temporarily requiring additional security personnel due to an emergency, seasonal demands, hiring shortfalls, severe weather conditions, passenger volume mitigation, equipment support, or other reasons.

(B) Special events requiring enhanced security including National Special Security Events, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(C) Response in the aftermath of any manmade disaster, including any terrorist attack.

(D) Other such situations, as determined by the Administrator.

(2) Educating transportation security officers regarding how to participate in the Administration's National Deployment Force.

(3) Recruiting officers to serve on the National Deployment Force, in accordance with a staffing model to be developed by the Administrator.

(4) Approving 1-year appointments for officers to serve on the National Deployment Force, with an option to extend upon officer request and with the approval of the appropriate Federal Security Director.

(5) Training officers to serve on the National Deployment Force.

(Added Pub. L. 115–254, div. K, title I, §1988(a), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3622.)

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

#### Career Development

Pub. L. 115–254, div. K, title I, §1988(d), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3623, provided that: "The Administrator [of the Transportation Security Administration] may consider service in the National Deployment Force as a positive factor when evaluating applicants for promotion opportunities within the TSA [Transportation Security Administration]."
§ 285.102 What are BSEE's responsibilities under this part? ( a ) BSEE will ensure that any activities authorized in this part and 30 CFR parts 585 and 586 are carried out in a manner that provides for: ( 1 ) Safety;
( 2 ) Protection of the environment;
( 3 ) Prevention of waste;
( 4 ) Conservation of the natural resources of the OCS;
( 5 ) Coordination with relevant Federal agencies (including, in particular, those agencies involved in planning activities that are undertaken to avoid conflicts among users and maximize the economic and ecological benefits of the OCS, including multifaceted spatial planning efforts);
( 6 ) Protection of national security interests of the United States;
( 7 ) Protection of the rights of other authorized users of the OCS; and
( 8 ) Oversight, inspection, research, monitoring, and enforcement of activities authorized by a lease or grant issued under 30 CFR parts 585 or 586.
( b ) BSEE will require compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, other requirements, and the terms of your lease or grant issued under 30 CFR parts 585 or 586, and approved plans. BSEE will approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions any applications or other documents submitted to BSEE for approval under the provisions of this part.
( c ) Unless otherwise provided in this part, BSEE may give oral directives or decisions whenever prior BSEE approval is required under this part. BSEE will document in writing any such oral directives within 10 business days.
( d ) BSEE will establish practices and procedures to govern the collection of all payments due under this part to the Federal Government, including any cost recovery fees and other fees or payments. BSEE will do this in accordance with the terms of this part, the leasing notice, the lease or grant under 30 CFR parts 585 or 586, and applicable Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) regulations or guidance.
#### FAIRCHILD et al., Respondents, v. EBERHARD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Fairchild Bros, against Matilda Eberhard and others. G. H. Taylor, for appellants. G. T. Kirby, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 550.296 When and how must I submit a CID or a revision to a CID? ( a ) You must submit one original and two copies of a CID to the appropriate OCS Region at the same time you first submit your DOCD or DPP for any development of a lease or leases located in water depths greater than 400 meters (1,312 feet). You must also submit a CID for a Supplemental DOCD or DPP when requested by the Regional Supervisor. The submission of your CID must be accompanied by payment of the service fee listed in § 550.125.
( b ) If you decide not to develop a reservoir you committed to develop in your CID, you must submit one original and two copies of a revision to the CID to the appropriate OCS Region. The revision to the CID must be submitted within 14 calendar days after making your decision not to develop the reservoir and before the reservoir is bypassed. The Regional Supervisor will approve or disapprove any such revision to the original CID. If the Regional Supervisor disapproves the revision, you must develop the reservoir as described in the original CID.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9511 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9511

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption that 
  certain veterans were exposed to radiation and other toxins at the 
Nevada Test and Training Range for purposes of the treatment of certain 
 disabilities under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 10, 2024

Mr. Amodei (for himself and Ms. Lee of Nevada) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption that 
  certain veterans were exposed to radiation and other toxins at the 
Nevada Test and Training Range for purposes of the treatment of certain 
 disabilities under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT AS RADIATION-RISK ACTIVITIES.

    Section 1112(c)(3)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following new clause:
                    ``(viii) At any time on or after January 1, 1972, 
                onsite participation in any aspect of the development, 
                construction, operation, or maintenance of a military 
                installation (as defined in section 2801 of title 10) 
                at the Nevada Test and Training Range, Nevada.''.

SEC. 2. PRESUMPTIONS OF TOXIC EXPOSURE.

    Section 1119(c)(1) of such title is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
        subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting before subsection (B), as so redesignated, 
        the following:
                    ``(A) on or after January 1, 1972, performed active 
                military, naval, air, or space service while assigned 
                to a duty station in, including airspace above, the 
                Nevada Test and Training Range, Nevada;''.

SEC. 3. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION.

    Section 1120(b) of such title is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (15) as paragraph (16); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(15) Only in the case of a covered veteran described in 
        section 1119(c)(1)(A), lipomas and tumor related conditions.''.
                                 <all>
```
No.---.

#### Thompson *v.*Covington Housing Development.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.
### §2312. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1034, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3429

Section, Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XIV, §1412, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2718; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title XV, §1513, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1273, related to emergency response assistance for civilian personnel in case of use or threatened use of weapons of mass destruction.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Scott D. Josey, certify that:     (1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mariner Energy, Inc.;     (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     (5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2006       /s/ Scott D. Josey Scott D. Josey,    Chairman of the Board,    Chief Executive Officer and President
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 14, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00988-CV No. 05-14-00989-CV No. 05-14-00990-CV No. 05-14-00991-CV IN RE RAUL DAVID JACKSON, Relator Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F- 0554511; F-0555473; F-0556279; F-0557397 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGera ld, Francis, and Lewis Opinion by Justice FitzGerald Relator filed this petition fo r writ of mandamus contending that his conviction is void because the trial court withdrew the relator’s guilty plea afte r a disagreement arose between counsel for the state and counsel for relator c oncerning the terms of the plea agreement. The State subsequently re-indicted th e relator and he pleaded guilty. Relator argues that the decision of the court of criminal appeals in Perkins v. Court of Appeals for Third Supreme Judi cial District of Texas 1 requires this Court to grant a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to specifica lly enforce his original plea agreement. The Perkins case stood in a different procedural posture than this case, however. In this case a final

1 738 S.W.2d 276, 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).–2– felony conviction is in place on the charges br ought by the state following the withdrawal of relator’s guilty plea. In Perkins , the relator had not yet been re quired to proceed following the trial court’s withdrawal of the origin al plea agreement. Accordingly, in Perkins there was no conviction the relator could challe nge by writ of habeas corpus. The only proper means of collaterally attackin g a final felony conviction is via petition for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure. 2 In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the rela tor must show two things: (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act. 3 A petition for writ of habeas corpus is an adequate remedy at law and mandamus does not lie when the relator can seek relief via petition for writ of habeas corpus. 4 As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction over relator’s peti tion for writ of mandamus. We DISMISS the petition.

140988F.P05

2 T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07, § 5 (“After conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force a nd effect in discharg ing the prisoner.”); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. pr oceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus to vacate j udgment of conviction, c ourt of appeals usurped th e exclusive authority of court of criminal app eals to grant post-conviction relief). 3 In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding). 4 Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 243. /Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE