alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 56.4230 Self-propelled equipment. ( a ) ( 1 ) Whenever a fire or its effects could impede escape from self-propelled equipment, a fire extinguisher shall be on the equipment.
( 2 ) Whenever a fire or its effects would not impede escape from the equipment but could affect the escape of other persons in the area, a fire extinguisher shall be on the equipment or within 100 feet of the equipment.
( b ) A fire suppression system may be used as an alternative to fire extinguishers if the system can be manually activated.
( c ) Fire extinguishers or fire suppression systems shall be of a type and size that can extinguish fires of any class in their early stages which could originate from the equipment's inherent fire hazards. Fire extinguishers or manual actuators for the suppression system shall be located to permit their use by persons whose escape could be impeded by fire.
### §2216. Judicial review

#### (a) Deadline for filing of a claim

A claim arising under this subchapter must be brought no later than 30 days after the date of the decision or action giving rise to the claim.

#### (b) Expedited consideration

The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall set any action brought under this subchapter for expedited consideration, taking into account the interest of enhancing Puerto Rico's infrastructure for electricity, water and sewer services, roads and bridges, ports, and solid waste management to achieve compliance with local and Federal environmental laws, regulations, and policies while ensuring the continuity of adequate services to the people of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico's sustainable economic development.

(Pub. L. 114–187, title V, §506, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 602.)
### §2530. Testing of nuclear weapons

#### (a) Underground testing

No underground test of nuclear weapons may be conducted by the United States after September 30, 1996, unless a foreign state conducts a nuclear test after this date, at which time the prohibition on United States nuclear testing is lifted.

#### (b) Atmospheric testing

None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 107 Stat. 1547) or any other Act for any fiscal year may be available to maintain the capability of the United States to conduct atmospheric testing of a nuclear weapon.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLII, §4210, formerly Pub. L. 102–377, title V, §507(f), Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1345; renumbered Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLII, §4210, and amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(e)(11), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1760; Pub. L. 112–239, div. C, title XXXI, §3131(d)(1), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 2180.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 103–160, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1547. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out in a note under section 2121 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 108–136.

Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(e)(11), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1760, which directed the transfer to this section of section 507(f) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1993, "(Public Law 102–337; 106 Stat. 1345)", was executed by transferring section 507(f) of Pub. L. 102–377 to this section, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### Amendments

2013—Pub. L. 112–239 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "No underground test of nuclear weapons may be conducted by the United States after September 30, 1996, unless a foreign state conducts a nuclear test after this date, at which time the prohibition on United States nuclear testing is lifted."

2003—Pub. L. 108–136, §3141(e)(11)(C)(i), inserted section catchline.
#### In the Matter of Mary De Groof v. Joseph J. Caputa, as State Rent Administrator.

Motion for an enlargement of time granted insofar as to extend the petitioner-appellant’s time to serve and file the record on appeal and appellant’s points to and including February 28, 1961, with notice of argument for the April 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
Order entered July 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00365-CR

STEVEN WARE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-76179-R

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 23, 2019 second motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before 

August 22, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by August 22, 2019, this appeal may be abated 

for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
§ 551.13 Reimbursement for the costs of reproducing data and information and certain processing costs. ( a ) BOEM will reimburse you or a third party for reasonable costs of reproducing data and information that the Regional Director requests if: ( 1 ) You deliver G&G data and information to BOEM for the Regional Director to inspect or select and retain (according to § 551.11 or § 551.12);
( 2 ) BOEM receives your request for reimbursement and the Regional Director determines that the requested reimbursement is proper; and
( 3 ) The cost is at your lowest rate (or a third party's) or at the lowest commercial rate established in the area, whichever is less.
( b ) BOEM will reimburse you or the third party for the reasonable costs of processing geophysical information (which does not include cost of data acquisition): ( 1 ) If, at the request of the Regional Director, you processed the geophysical data or information in a form or manner other than that used in the normal conduct of business; or
( 2 ) If you collected the information under a permit that BOEM issued to you before October 1, 1985, and the Regional Director requests and retains the information.
( c ) When you request reimbursement, you must identify reproduction and processing costs separately from acquisition costs.
( d ) BOEM will not reimburse you or a third party for data acquisition costs or for the costs of analyzing or processing geological information or interpreting geological or geophysical information.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9418 

To permit a single application to be submitted to the COPS Director or 

BJA Director for the matching grant program for school security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 27, 2024 

Mr. NICKEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit a single application to be submitted to the COPS 

Director or BJA Director for the matching grant program for school security. 

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 ‘‘Single Application for 

5 School Safety Act’’ or the ‘‘SASS Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SECU7 RITY APPLICATION REQUIREMENT. 

8 Section 2702 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

9 Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10552) is amended by 

10 adding at the end the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9418 IH

1 ‘‘(c) MULTIPURPOSE APPLICATIONS.—The Attorney 

2 General shall establish a process under which a single 

3 grant application may be submitted for a grant that is 

4 authorized to be made by the COPS Director under para5 graph (1) of section 2701(a) and the BJA Director under 

6 paragraph (2) of such section. 

7 ‘‘(d) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The COPS Director 

8 or the BJA Director, as the case may be, shall provide 

9 technical assistance to applicants to complete an applica10 tion for a grant under this part.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### § 57.12018 Identification of power switches.

Principal power switches shall be labeled to show which units they control, unless identification can be made readily by location.
§ 92.610 Program requirements. The following program requirements contained in subpart E of this part apply to the ADDI: ( a ) *Private-public partnership.* The private-public partnership provisions contained in § 92.200 apply to the ADDI.
( b ) *Distribution of assistance.* The distribution of assistance requirements contained in § 92.201 apply to the ADDI.
( c ) *Income determinations.* The income determination requirements contained in § 92.203 apply to the ADDI.
( d ) *Pre-award costs.* The requirements regarding pre-award costs contained in § 92.212 apply to the ADDI.
( e ) *Matching contribution requirement.* The matching contribution requirements contained in §§ 92.218 through 92.222 apply to FY2003 ADDI funds only.
#### § 57.19056 Availability of hoist operator for automatic hoists.

When automatic hoisting is used, a competent operator of the hoist shall be readily available at or near the hoisting device while any person is underground.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:(1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-139381) pertaining to theTrubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2002 Stock Plan and the TrubionPharmaceuticals, Inc. 2002 Equity Incentive Plan; and, (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-143056) pertaining to theTrubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan;of our reports dated March 12, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of TrubionPharmaceuticals, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TrubionPharmaceuticals, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2007.                                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         Seattle, Washington
#### § 57.20009 Tests for explosive dusts.

Dusts suspected of being explosive shall be tested for explosibility. If tests prove positive, appropriate control measures shall be taken.
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00051-CR

IN RE KIM WAYNE BURDEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kim Wayne Burden has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting this Court to

order the Honorable Eddie Northcutt, judge of the 8th Judicial District Court in Delta County, to 

issue process and order a hearing on his application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 

Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

11.07 (Supp.). Burden alleges that he filed an original application for a writ of habeas corpus 

that the trial court neither timely ruled on nor forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 

“The procedure set forth in Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is the 

exclusive post-conviction judicial remedy available when the conviction is final and the 

applicant is confined by virtue of his felony conviction.” In re Woods, No. 06-12-00036-CR, 

2012 WL 13046384, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 9, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (citing Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1989) (orig. proceeding); McBride v. State, 114 S.W.3d 556, 557 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no 

pet.); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07). Jurisdiction over habeas corpus relief under 

Article 11.07 rests exclusively in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Bd. of Pardons & 

Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Ct. of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1995) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding).

Because Burden filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07, this 

Court has no authority to issue a writ of mandamus in connection with it. In re Woods, 2012 WL 

13046384, at *1; see In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, 

orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (holding that appellate courts have no authority to grant
3

mandamus relief when trial court fails to rule on application for writ of habeas corpus). Since 

exclusive jurisdiction over this proceeding lies in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Burden

must seek relief in that court. See In re Woods, 2012 WL 13046384, at *1; In re Watson, 253 

S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

For the reasons stated, we dismiss Burden’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

Scott E. Stevens

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 25, 2023

Date Decided: April 26, 2023

Do Not Publish
§ 556.704 When may BOEM disapprove an assignment or sublease of an interest in my lease? ( a ) BOEM may disapprove an assignment or sublease of all or part of your lease interest(s): ( 1 ) When the transferor, transferee, or sublessee is not in compliance with all applicable regulations and orders, including financial assurance requirements;
( 2 ) When a transferor attempts a transfer that is not acceptable as to form or content (*e.g.,* not on standard form, containing incorrect legal description, not executed by a person authorized to bind the corporation, transferee does not meet the requirements of § 556.401); or
( 3 ) When the transfer does not conform to these regulations, or any other applicable laws or regulations (e.g., departmental debarment rules).
( b ) A transfer will be void if it is made pursuant to any prelease agreement that would cause a bid to be disqualified, such as those described in § 556.511(c), (d), or (e).
[81 FR 18152, Mar. 30, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 31593, Apr. 24, 2024]
----

----

|   | N/A | N/A |
|--------|-----|-----|

| [      ] | Check the box      if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Rule 0-11(a)(2) and      identify the filing with which the offsetting fee was previously      paid.  Identify the previous filing by registration statement      number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its  filing. |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [x] | Check the box      if the filing relates solely to preliminary communications made before the      commencement of a tender offer. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| [      ] | third-party      tender offer subject to Rule 14d-1. |
|----------|------------------------------------------------------|

| [x] | issuer tender      offer subject to Rule 13e-4. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------|

| [      ] | going-private      transaction subject to Rule 13e-3. |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| [      ] | amendment to      Schedule 13D under Rule 13d-2. |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| ExhibitNumber | Description                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1          | Notice of      Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement for the 2009 Annual      Meeting of Stockholders (incorporated by reference to the Definitive Proxy      Statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange      Commission on May 18, 2009) |

----
#### § 553.12 May I ask BOEM for a determination of whether I must demonstrate OSFR?

You may submit to BOEM a request for a determination of OSFR applicability. Address the request to the office identified in § 553.45. You must include in your request any information that will assist BOEM in making the determination. BOEM may require you to submit other information before making a determination of OSFR applicability.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-12-01046-CR

Style: Mark Anthony Castillo

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: November 14, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for extension to file Anders response

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Anders response

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: December 2, 2013

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: December 2, 2013

Date Requested: March 27, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part

If document is to be filed, document due: January 31, 2013

 No further extensions of time will be granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

We direct the Clerk of this Court to provide appellant with a copy of the appellate 

record in this case. We further grant in part Appellant’s request for an extension 

of time to file his Anders response and ORDER that his response be filed no later

than January 31, 2014. All other relief requested in the motion is denied.

Judge's signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: November 21, 2013
Brian A. Eisel

2536 2nd Ave

Ketchikan, AK 99901

2/10/2013

Lauralyn (“Laura”) J. Remo

DOT, Office of Aviation Analysis, Air Carrier Fitness Division, X-56

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

United States of America

Dear Ms Remo,

I’m writing this letter to you today in support of Island Air Express being granted the ability to 

transport mail to and from Klawock, Alaska. I am currently an employee of Island Air Express in 

Ketchikan. Even though the mail doesn’t directly affect me, I have friends and family living on 

Prince of Wales Island that could go days, if not weeks at a time without receiving their mail 

due to the mentioned carrier’s inability to maintain an on time schedule and fly in the 

treacherous Southeast Alaska weather. I dealt with one of our competitors mail with my 

previous employer and know firsthand how long the mail has sat before it was sent to its 

destination or returned to the post office due to numerous days of inclement weather. Our IFR 

service has proven itself reliable over the last 3 years helping our passengers make it home 

safely and in a timely manner. Our passengers and the Prince of Wales community are our top 

priority, unlike our competitors who will drop local passenger and mail to make a buck off of 

the cruise ships doing tours during the summer months. With that being said I feel that the 

people of Prince of Wales deserve reliable service with their mail, freight, groceries, medical 

supplies, etc. We are the only Prince of Wales based air carrier, with our home base is at the 

Klawock Airport, and Island Air is the only carrier with scheduled daily service to Klawock with 3 

flights in and 3 flights out in the winter months and 4 flights in and 4 flights out in the summer 

months. Not to mention when the weather worsens and the floatplanes or even other modes 

of transportation such as the Inter-Island Ferry are unable to make it we will add extra flights to 

accommodate as many stranded passengers as possible. I want the best possible service for the 

Prince of Wales community and I personally believe that Island Air’s day/night time IFR service 

to Klawock is the best possible and most logical fit for the US Postal Service mail going to 

Klawock and I back this approval 100%. Thank you for your time and consideration in this 

matter.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Eisel

Ketchikan- Alaska
Order filed August 25, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00832-CR

____________

BRETT DAVID BOGUS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1433472

O R D E R

On July 14, 2016, this court abated this appeal for appointment of counsel. On 

August 9, 2016, the court reporter filed a record of the hearing in which the trial 

court agreed to appoint counsel on appeal. The appellate record does not contain the 

order appointing an attorney.
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before September 8, 2016, containing the trial court’s order appointing 

an attorney.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of John Deere Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

 
| 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. |

 
| May 27, 2011 | * * | */s/ S. R.   Allen* |   | Chairman and Principal Executive   Officer              |
|-------------------|----------|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|              |     |                |   |                                                    |
|              |     | S. R. Allen         |   |                                                    |
|              |     |                |   |                                                    |
| May 27, 2011 | * * | */s/ J. M.   Field* |   | Senior Vice President and   Principal Financial Officer |
|              | * * | * *            |   |                                                    |
|              |     | J. M. Field         |   |                                                    |

 

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

 

----
#### John C. Hattendorf, appellant, v. Sophus Fred Westphalen, appellee.

Gen. No. 28,515.

Judgment on note for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David M. Brothers, Judge, presiding. *605Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 2, 1923.

Edwin D. Lawlor, for appellant. H. W. Auw and William J. Dillon, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.