alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Irving Hirsch, Respondent. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Motion by Robert L. Harder, Esq., heretofore appointed to represent the claimant-respondent herein for an order fixing his fee and disbursements. Motion granted and his fee is hereby allowed and fixed in the sum of $150 and his disbursements are allowed in the sum of $25 pursuant to the provisions of section 538 of the Labor Law.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.427 What are the requirements for pressure integrity tests? You must conduct a pressure integrity test below the surface casing or liner and all intermediate casings or liners. The District Manager may require you to run a pressure-integrity test at the conductor casing shoe if warranted by local geologic conditions or the planned casing setting depth. You must conduct each pressure integrity test after drilling at least 10 feet but no more than 50 feet of new hole below the casing shoe. You must test to either the formation leak-off pressure or to an equivalent drilling fluid weight if identified in an approved APD. ( a ) You must use the pressure integrity test and related hole-behavior observations, such as pore-pressure test results, gas-cut drilling fluid, and well kicks to adjust the drilling fluid program and the setting depth of the next casing string. You must record all test results and hole-behavior observations made during the course of drilling related to formation integrity and pore pressure in the driller's report.
( b ) While drilling, you must maintain the safe drilling margin identified in § 250.414. When you cannot maintain the safe drilling margin, you must: ( 1 ) Suspend drilling operations and submit proposed remedial actions to the District Manager. The District Manager must review and approve your proposed remedial actions, which may include limited drilling through a lost circulation zone; or
( 2 ) Notify the District Manager and take further action in accordance with API Bulletin 92L (as incorporated by reference in § 250.198), if appropriate. You must submit a revised permit documenting any responsive actions taken.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 26019, Apr. 29, 2016; 84 FR 21974, May 15, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9487 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9487

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 to authorize the 
 Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives to designate more 
than one of the attorneys of the Office of the Legislative Counsel as a 
          Deputy Legislative Counsel, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``House Office of Legislative Counsel 
Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF MULTIPLE DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS.

    (a) Designation.--Section 522(b)(1) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970 (2 U.S.C. 282a(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: 
        ``The Legislative Counsel shall designate one or more of the 
        attorneys appointed under subsection (a) as a Deputy 
        Legislative Counsel.''; and
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``the Deputy 
        Legislative Counsel shall perform the functions of the 
        Legislative Counsel.'' and inserting ``the functions of the 
        Legislative Counsel shall be performed by a Deputy Legislative 
        Counsel. If there is more than one Deputy Legislative Counsel, 
        the Deputy Legislative Counsel who shall perform such functions 
        shall be determined in accordance with the order specified in a 
        notice filed with the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the 
        House by the Legislative Counsel.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 522(b)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
282a(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``Deputy Legislative Counsel'' and 
inserting ``Deputy Legislative Counsels''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 9487

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 to authorize the 
 Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives to designate more 
than one of the attorneys of the Office of the Legislative Counsel as a 
          Deputy Legislative Counsel, and for other purposes.
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 

## DEC 1 1 2009 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor ofCalifornia State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: I am writing concerning California's efforts to comply with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements to meet the I-hournational ambient air quality standard for ozone (NAAQS). Specifically, byDecember 31, 2000, States with areas designated severe or extreme nonattainment for the NAAQS were required to submit State Implementation Plan revisions (SIPs) to implement nonattainment fee requirements described in CAA section 185. The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit has ruled that these SIPs are required despite EPA's revocation ofthe I-hourNAAQS. EPA recognizes the need to implement the law consistent with the court's decision and, through today's letter, is notifying Californiathat EPA intends to make a CAA section 179(a) finding offailure to submit section 185 SIPs for the Los Angeles-South Coast, Southeast Desert and portions ofthe Sacramento Metropolitan I-hourozone nonattainment areas. This finding would become effective uponpublication ofa rulemaking notice announcing the finding in the Federal Register. Once the finding becomes effective, if California does not submit timely SIPs for these areas, sanction and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) obligations will apply as described in CAA sections 11O(c) and 179. We understand that California agencies are interested in developing alternative equivalent fee programs that address the CAA section 185 requirements. EPA intends to issue guidance on CAA section 185 shortly, and intends to work closely withthe CaliforniaAirResources Board and affected local agencies (Placer County AirPollution Control District and Antelope Valley, El Dorado County, FeatherRiver, South Coast and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Districts) to develop complete and approvable SIPs that obviate sanction and FIP obligations and meet local needs. Please have your staffcontact Deborah Jordan (415-947-8715) with questions in this regard. Sincerely,

Laura Yos ii Acting Regional Administrator

Printed on Recycled PaperPage 2

cc: MaryNichols, Chairman California AirResources Board James Goldstene, Executive OfficerCalifornia AirResources BoardEldon Heaston, Executive Director Antelope Valley Air QualityManagement District Marcella McTaggart, Air Pollution Control Officer El Dorado CountyAir QualityManagement District Dave ValIer, AirPollution Control Officer Feather River Air QualityManagement District Tom Christofk, Air Pollution Control Officer Placer County AirPollution Control District Larry Greene, AirPollution Control Officer Sacramento Metropolitan Air QualityManagement District Dr. BarryWallerstein, Executive Officer South Coast Air QualityManagement District MatEhrhardt, AirPollution Control Officer Yolo-Solano Air QualityManagement District
#### Empire National Bank, Respondent, v Judal Construction of New York, Inc., et al., Defendants, and David J. Flitt et al., Appellants.

In an action on a promissory note, defendants David and Grace Flitt, alleged guarantors, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered October 27, 1976, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order modified by adding thereto, after the words: "adheres to its original determination”, the following: "as to defendant Grace Flitt and a hearing is ordered to be held on the issue whether proper service was made upon defendant David J. Flitt in accordance with the requirements of CPLR 308 (subd. 2).” As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Neither appellant (a husband and wife, residing at the same address in Teaneck, New Jersey) denies that the summons and complaint were duly delivered to a person of suitable age and discretion at their residence. However, appellant David J. Flitt averred in his moving affidavit on the original motion that "[m]y wife and I have *never*received a copy of the summons and complaint in the mail” (emphasis in original). Although the answering affidavits in both the original motion and the motion for reargument in effect challenged appellant Grace Flitt to also aver that she had not received the summons in the mail, such averment was not forthcoming. As a result, the statement in the process server’s affidavit of service that he had mailed the summons and complaint to Grace Flitt has not been effectively contradicted and Special Term properly denied the motion to dismiss as to her. However, the sworn denial by appellant David J. Flitt of his receipt by mail of the summons and complaint requires a hearing to determine whether those papers had in fact been mailed to him. The affidavit of service, asserting mailing, is not conclusive once there has been *790a sworn denial of receipt. Plaintiff is then required to establish facts showing that the letter was indeed mailed and that it was properly addressed and stamped, and the asserter of these facts must be made available for cross-examination *(Cashman, Inc. v Spellman,*233 App Div 45; *Uni-Serv Corp. v Frede,*50 Misc 2d 823; cf. McLaughlin, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, 1977-1978 Pocket Part, CPLR 306:1). Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05942**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 05942\05942_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05942\05942_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 05942\05942_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05942\05942_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05942\05942_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05942\05942_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05942\05942_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05942\05942_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05942\05942_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05942\Certification Statement_05942.pdf Plant certification statement 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_A5-2 aerial maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_Cover Page.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_Part A Sect 8 for CT1 of SEU-A.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_Part A Sect 8 for CT2 of SEU-A.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_Part E.doc Technical Reviewer Notes x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_PartA.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_PartB.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_PartC.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_PartD.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_PartE.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_PartH.pdf Plant submitted survey file

05942\Supporting Documentation\05942_Xmal Ltr. SIGNED.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x x 05942\Supporting Documentation\A5 - 3 Water Balance Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
TRADING AGREEMENT AND ORDER MODIFICATION

1. Delete Table 1 in paragraph A.4. and substitute the following therefor:

Trading Agreement

and Order No. 8115B

Modification No. 1

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Table 1

UCONN-NOx Emission Rates and Allowable Limits (lbsIMMBtu)

Unit: DEP Fuel Heat Stack NOx Allowable Date of Next

Reg. # Input Test FLER Emission Limits Last Emission

Rate Emission Test Due

Test

Boiler 2: No.2 oil 89 0.24 0.27 0.20 3/23/00 3/23/05

98-15115

.

(Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106 - 5127

hllp:lfdcp.statc. ct.us

An Equal Opportunity Employer

WHEREAS, the Commissioner and UCONN, having agreed to the terms and conditions set

forth in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8115B issued on March 27,2003, do now, by mutual

agreement, modify said Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 8115B issued by the

Commissioner acting under Chapter 446c, Sections 22a-6, 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-176, and 22a177 ofthe Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

State ofConnecticut and

UNNERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

In the matter of a Trading Agreement and Order between the Commissioner ofEnvironmental

Protection ("Commissioner") and the University ofConnecticut("UCONN").

In the matter of

,

-'< ~,' ....
University ofConnecticut 2 Trading Agreement and Order

No. 8115B Modification NO.1

\\DEP3ISYS2\USERS\RSEVERAN\-TRAD ING-RLS\-TRADINGORDERS\UCONN.RLS\8115BMOD1(6-12-03).doc

Entered as a modification of an Order ofthe Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection

MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

numbered 8115B on ---'~..

Certified Document No.

Type Name:

TOWN OF STORRS

LAND RECORDS

Type Title: Exeq.ltive Director of Architectural &Engineering Services

Date: 7/~o703 r'

Signature:

UCONN hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Order

without further notice.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard J. Tanzella

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14627.

*Jack W. Fischer,*deputy state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

*Jon L. Schoenhorn,*in opposition.

Decided October 30, 1992

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 581 (AC 9914), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the amendments of the counts against the defendant constitute different offenses under Practice Book § 624 and, if so, whether the trial court properly held that the defendant was required to make a showing that his substantive rights would be prejudiced?”
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00763-CR

Bryan G. Kelley, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 720661, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

The appeal is dismissed.

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 25, 2007

Do Not Publish
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CENTURION SYSTEMS, LLC, as )

successor trustee, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4163

)

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed July 3, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.130 from the Circuit Court for

Pasco County; Kimberly Sharpe Byrd, 

Judge.

Mark P. Stopa of Stopa Law Firm, 

Tampa (withdrew after briefing); Latasha 

Scott of Lord Scott, PLLC, Tampa 

(withdrew after briefing); and Lee Segal 

of Segal & Schuh Law Group, P.L., 

Clearwater, for Appellant.

Jason F. Joseph of Tromberg Law 

Group, P.A., Boca Raton; and Richard 

S. McIver and H. Michael Muniz of Kass 

Shuler, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and KELLY and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
V.s. P,nvironmenta{Protection.Jlgency

Presents

SamuelCo(e7tU1n, !P.'E lJ)ate

IJ)irector, SuperfutulIJ)ivision, 'E!P)!. 'Rfgion 6

Certificate ofComp{etion

%

Cfinton gregg Investments) L. P.

Por

Comp(etion ofSoi(CJ<fmedia(;zLctionfor Opera6(e Vnit 1

9vtanl CDive "S. oedInterests, Inc. SupeifundSite

9/19/02
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3432 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3432

 To create a system of background checks for certain workers who enter 
                people's homes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To create a system of background checks for certain workers who enter 
                people's homes, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Domestic Consumer Safety Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK IN HOMES.

    The Federal Trade Commission shall make rules, on the record after 
opportunity for an agency hearing, to assure that businesses in 
commerce that send employees into people's homes perform adequate and 
appropriate background checks on those employees.

SEC. 3. SANCTIONS.

    Whoever violates a rule made by the Federal Trade Commission under 
section 2 shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than 
$1,000,000.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

    As used in this Act, the term ``business in commerce'' means a 
business that is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.
                                 <all>
```
§ 550.1464 May I request a hearing on the record regarding the amount of a civil penalty if I did not request a hearing on the Notice of Noncompliance? ( a ) You may request a hearing on the record to challenge only the amount of a civil penalty when you receive a Notice of Civil Penalty regarding violations without a period to correct, if you did not previously request a hearing on the record under § 550.1462. If you did not request a hearing on the record on the Notice of Noncompliance under § 550.1462, you may not contest your underlying liability for civil penalties.
( b ) You must file your request within 10 days after you receive Notice of Civil Penalty with the Hearings Division (Departmental), Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 351 South West Temple, Suite 6.300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.
[76 FR 64623, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 57096, Sept. 22, 2015]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Nomination of Arthur M. Okun

              																	United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1913-1970					 and 	Eighty-Ninth Congress, 1965-1967. 						*Nomination of Arthur M. Okun : Hearing Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Eighty-Ninth Congress, First Session, January 26, 1965*,												Washington: 								Government Printing Office, 										January 26, 1965,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/345,			accessed on September 10, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-80,602-01

EX P ARTE MARCU S ANTHONY SH UF F , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 10CR0506-83- 1 IN THE 405 DISTRICT COURT FROMGA LVEST ON COUNTY T H
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s co n v i cted of murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The First Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Shuff v. State , No. 01-12-00034- CR (Tex. App.–Houston [ 1 ] May 2, 2013). st Applicant contends that he was denied his right to file a pro se petit i o n fo r d i s cr etionary revie w because his counsel wa s not timely notified of the appellate court’s decision and there fore did not tim ely

notify Applicant of the appellatecourt’s de cision. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court2

has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that Applicant was denied his right to file a pro
se petition for discretionar y revie w. The State and the trial court rec ommend that relief be grante d. Ex parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the judgme nt of the First Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 01-12-00034- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Cause No. 10CR0506-83-1 from the 405 District Court of Galveston t h County
. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: Dec ember

18, 2013 Do not publish