alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1526. Effective use of resources for nonproliferation programs

#### (a) Prohibition

Except as provided in subsection (b), no assistance may be provided by the United States Government to any person who is involved in the research, development, design, testing, or evaluation of chemical or biological weapons for offensive purposes.

#### (b) Exception

The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not apply to any activity conducted pursuant to title V of the National Security Act of 1947 [50 U.S.C. 3091 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(7) [div. B, title XI, §1132], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–493).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Security Act of 1947, referred to in subsec. (b), is act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, 61 Stat. 495, which was formerly classified principally to chapter 15 (§401 et seq.) of this title, prior to editorial reclassification in chapter 44 (§3001 et seq.) of this title. Title V of the Act is now classified generally to subchapter III (§3091 et seq.) of chapter 44 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Act of 1999, and also as part of the Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Security Assistance Act of 1999, and the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years, 2000 and 2001, and not as part of Pub. L. 91–121, title IV, §409, Nov. 19, 1969, 83 Stat. 209, which comprises this chapter.
§ 56.4600 Extinguishing equipment. ( a ) When welding, cutting, soldering, thawing, or bending— ( 1 ) With an electric arc or with an open flame where an electrically conductive extinguishing agent could create an electrical hazard, a multipurpose dry-chemical fire extinguisher or other extinguisher with at least a 2-A:10-B:C rating shall be at the worksite.
( 2 ) With an open flame in an area where no electrical hazard exists, a multipurpose dry-chemical fire extinguisher or equivalent fire extinguishing equipment for the class of fire hazard present shall be at the worksite.
( b ) Use of halogenated fire extinguishing agents to meet the requirements of this standard shall be limited to Halon 1211 (CBrClF2) and Halon 1301 (CBrF3). When these agents are used in confined or unventilated areas, precautions based on the manufacturer's use instructions shall be taken so that the gases produced by thermal decompostion of the agents are not inhaled.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.525 When am I required to take action from my casing diagnostic test? You must take action if you have any of the following conditions: ( a ) Any fixed platform well with a casing pressure exceeding its maximum allowable wellhead operating pressure (MAWOP);
( b ) Any fixed platform well with a casing pressure that is greater than 100 psig and that cannot bleed to 0 psig through a 1 ⁄ 2-inch needle valve within 24 hours, or is not bled to 0 psig during a casing diagnostic test;
( c ) Any well that has demonstrated tubing/casing, tubing/riser, casing/casing, riser/casing, or riser/riser communication;
( d ) Any well that has sustained casing pressure (SCP) and is bled down to prevent it from exceeding its MAWOP, except during initial startup operations described in § 250.522;
( e ) Any hybrid well with casing or riser pressure exceeding 100 psig; or
( f ) Any subsea well with a casing pressure 100 psig greater than the external hydrostatic pressure at the subsea wellhead.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011. Redesignated at 77 FR 50894, Aug. 22, 2012; 84 FR 21976, May 15, 2019]
### [§31107. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title V, §5101(e)(3), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1525]

Section, added Pub. L. 109–59, title IV, §4110(a)(2), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1721; amended Pub. L. 112–141, div. C, title II, §32603(h), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 808, related to border enforcement grants.

A prior section 31107, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 992; Pub. L. 105–178, title IV, §4004(b), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 400; Pub. L. 106–159, title I, §103(d), Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1754; Pub. L. 108–88, §7(c)(1), Sept. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 1120; Pub. L. 108–202, §11(c)(1), Feb. 29, 2004, 118 Stat. 490; Pub. L. 108–224, §9(c)(1), Apr. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 638; Pub. L. 108–263, §9(c)(1), June 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 709; Pub. L. 108–280, §9(c)(1), July 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 886; Pub. L. 108–310, §7(c)(1), Sept. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 1153; Pub. L. 109–14, §6(c)(1), May 31, 2005, 119 Stat. 330; Pub. L. 109–20, §6(c)(1), July 1, 2005, 119 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 109–35, §6(c)(1), July 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 385; Pub. L. 109–37, §6(c)(1), July 22, 2005, 119 Stat. 400; Pub. L. 109–40, §6(c)(1), July 28, 2005, 119 Stat. 417, related to contract authority funding for information systems, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–59, title IV, §4110(a)(2), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1721.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 2016, subject to a transition provision, see section 5101(f), (g) of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as Effective Date of 2015 Amendment and Transition notes under section 31102 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Charles Clinton.

Motion for an order directing the production of Ronnie Chapman and Charles Clinton as witnesses for the defendant granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), as filed by Novatel Wireless, Inc. (the Company) with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as
of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                    |  |  |  |                       |  |                                                                                                              
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: July 31, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    PETER LEPARULO
|                    |  |  |  |                       |  | Peter Leparulo Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)                            
|                    |  |  | 
|                    |  |  |  |                       |  | /S/    KENNETH
LEDDON                                                                                        
|                    |  |  |  |                       |  | Kenneth Leddon Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### [§5328. Repealed. Pub. L. 112–141, div. B, §20002(a), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 622]

Section, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 828; Pub. L. 104–205, title III, §336, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 2974; Pub. L. 104–287, §5(9), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3389; Pub. L. 105–178, title III, §3009(h)(2), (3)(B), (C), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 356; Pub. L. 105–206, title IX, §9009(h)(2), (3), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 856; Pub. L. 109–59, title III, §3027, Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1623, related to project review and advancement by the Secretary.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00643 -CR

Ir a J oe M it c he ll , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 09-6 89- K2 77 , HO NORAB LE KEN ANDERSO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d att or

ne y fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ingthat th e a pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. The brief mee ts the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1 9 6 7 ) , b y p r e s e n ti n g a p r o f e s s io n a l e v a lu a ti o n o f th e r e c o r d d e mo n s tr a ti n g w h y th ere are no
ar guable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); H i g h v . Stat e , 57 3 S. W.2 d 8 07 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 485 S.W. 2d 55 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 69 ). Ap pe lla nt rec e ive d a

c op y of c ouns e l’ s b ri e f a

nd wa s a dv ise d o f h is r ig ht t o examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se br ief. No pr o se brief has bee n filed. We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the a

p p e a l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that mig ht arguably support the appe al. See2

Bl e ds oe v . S

tate , 178 S.W. 3d

82 4, 82 6- 27 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). Couns e l’ s mo tio n to wi thd ra w i s g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Jul y

14, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
### §5504. Model intermodal transportation plans

(a) Grants.—The Secretary of Transportation shall make grants to States to develop model State intermodal transportation plans that are consistent with the policy set forth in section 302(e) of this title. The model plans shall include systems for collecting data related to intermodal transportation.

(b) Distribution.—The Secretary shall award grants to States under this section that represent a variety of geographic regions and transportation needs, patterns, and modes.

(c) Plan Submission.—As a condition to a State receiving a grant under this section, the Secretary shall require that the State provide assurances that the State will submit to the Secretary a State intermodal transportation plan not later than 18 months after the date of receipt of the grant.

(d) Grant Amounts.—The Secretary shall reserve, from amounts deducted under section 104(a) of title 23, $3,000,000 to make grants under this section. The total amount that a State may receive in grants under this section may not be more than $500,000.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 850.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5504 | 49:301 (note). | Dec. 18, 1991, Pub. L. 102–240, §5003, 105 Stat. 2159. |

Section
Exhibit 31.3
 CERTIFICATION
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this amendment no. 1 to annual
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this amendment no. 1 to annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this amendment no. 1 to annual report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 5, 2009
    /s/ Roger L. Werner, Jr.Roger L. Werner, Jr.,Chief Executive Officer
#### § 203.66 What happens if BSEE does not act in the time allowed?

If we do not act within the timeframes established under § 203.65, you get royalty relief according to the following table.

| If you apply for royalty relief for | And we do not decide within the time specified, | As long as you |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (a) An authorized field, | You get the minimum suspension volumes specified in § 203.69, | Abide by §§ 203.70 and 203.76. |
| (b) An expansion project, | You get a royalty suspension for the first year of production, | Abide by §§ 203.70 and 203.76. |
| (c) A development project, | You get a royalty suspension for initial production for the number of months that a decision is delayed beyond the stipulated timeframes set by § 203.65, plus all the royalty suspension volume for which you qualify, | Abide by §§ 203.70 and 203.76. |
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20194 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. BONIFACIO HERNANDEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-89-1 Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bonifacio Hernandez appeals the sentences imposed following his guiltyplea convictionsfor conspiracy topossesswith intent todistributefivekilograms or more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that the district court clearly erred in calculating the amount of drugs attributable to him as relevant c onduct under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.3 and that the district court erred in failing to United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 7, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20194

2 make the necessary finding of the scope of his agreement with his coconspirators. We review the district court’s drug quantity calculation for clear error. United States v. Schorovsky, 202 F.3d 727, 729 (5th Cir. 2000). Hernandez claims that, in connection with the drug conspiracy, he was involved only with 9.9 kilogramsofcocaine seized from a van occupied by his coconspirators and that he had no knowledge ofthe 29.4 kilogramsofcocaine that w ere seized by law enforcement officers from a residence at 8915 Alejo in Houston, Texas. The facts admitted by Hernandez during his rearraignment and contained in the presentence report established, however, that Hernandez met with his co-conspirators at a restaurant to discuss a cocaine deal, that he w as present at the Alejo residence when 34.8 kilograms of cocaine were packaged for distribution, and that he stayed in the residence after the 9.9 kilograms were taken from the residence by others in the van. Hernandez’s assertion that he was involved only with the 9.9 kilograms in the van is belied by the fact that he was not in the van when it was stopped and the fact that he stayed behind at the Alejo residence with a much larger amount of cocaine. Given the undisputed facts before the district court, it was plausible from the record as a wholefor the district court tofind that Hernandez should be held accountable for the 24.9 kilograms of cocaine found in the Alejo residence. See § 1B1.3(a)(1) , comment. (n.2); Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 500 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Duncan, 191 F.3d 569, 577 (5th Cir. 1999). As it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that the cocaine found in the Alejo residence was within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity by Hernandez and his co-conspirators, his sentences are AFFIRMED.
In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Eleventh Circuit 

____________________ 

No. 23-12627 

____________________ 

TINA GEE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

JADA MITCHELL, 

JONES, 

Captain, 

SPENCER, 

Lt, 

CHRISTIAN, 

STANTON, 

Officers, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

USCA11 Case: 23-12627 Document: 36-2 Date Filed: 10/24/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Order of the Court 23-12627 

THE CITY OF TUSCALOOSA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Alabama 

D.C. Docket No. 7:23-cv-00388-LSC 

____________________ 

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. 

BY THE COURT: 

The motions to dismiss filed by appellees are DENIED. Tina 

Gee appeals from the district court’s July 10, 2023 final order dismissing her case with prejudice. The appellees argue that the appeal is untimely because Gee filed her notice of appeal on August 

10, 2023, 31 days after the final order was entered. However, the 

district court never entered judgment in a separate document, so 

Gee was entitled to an additional 150 days in which to appeal beyond the normal 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 

4(a)(7)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), (c). Thus, Gee’s notice of appeal is 

timely. 

USCA11 Case: 23-12627 Document: 36-2 Date Filed: 10/24/2023 Page: 2 of 2
### §10. Equal facilities to connecting lines; discrimination in rates

Whenever any telegraph company which shall have accepted the provisions of sections 1 to 6 and 8 1 of this title, prior to the effective date of the repeal of such sections, shall extend its line to any station or office of a telegraph line belonging to any one of said railroad or telegraph companies, referred to in section 9 of this title, said telegraph company so extending its line shall have the right and said railroad or telegraph company shall allow the line of said telegraph company so extending its line to connect with the telegraph line of said railroad or telegraph company to which it is extended at the place where their lines may meet, for the prompt and convenient interchange of telegraph business between said companies; and such railroad and telegraph companies, referred to in section 9 of this title, shall so operate their respective telegraph lines as to afford equal facilities to all, without discrimination in favor of or against any person, company, or corporation whatever, and shall receive, deliver, and exchange business with connecting telegraph lines on equal terms, and affording equal facilities, and without discrimination for or against any one of such connecting lines; and such exchange of business shall be on terms just and equitable.

(Aug. 7, 1888, ch. 772, §2, 25 Stat. 383; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, §48, 68 Stat. 1243.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 1 to 6 and 8 of this title, referred to in text, were repealed by act July 16, 1947, ch. 256, §1, 61 Stat. 327.

#### Amendments

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, amended section to make it clear that the rights and obligations of companies which accepted benefits under former sections 1 to 6 and 8 of this title, which have been repealed, continue irrespective of the repeal.

1 See References in Text note below.
### SUBCHAPTER IX—ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
### [§41911. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–405, §2(b)(7)(A), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4289]

Section, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1157, related to evidence of providing mail service.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 2008, see section 2(c) of Pub. L. 110–405, set out as an Effective Date of 2008 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 39, Postal Service.
§ 550.252 What environmental monitoring information must accompany the DPP or DOCD? The following environmental monitoring information, as applicable, must accompany your DPP or DOCD: ( a ) *Monitoring systems.* A description of any existing and planned monitoring systems that are measuring, or will measure, environmental conditions or will provide project-specific data or information on the impacts of your development and production activities.
( b ) *Incidental takes.* If there is reason to believe that protected species may be incidentally taken by planned development and production activities, you must describe how you will monitor for incidental take of: ( 1 ) Threatened and endangered species listed under the ESA; and
( 2 ) Marine mammals, as appropriate, if you have not already received authorization for incidental take of marine mammals as may be necessary under the MMPA.
( c ) *Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS).* If you propose to conduct development and production activities within the protective zones of the FGBNMS, a description of your provisions for monitoring the impacts of oil spill on the environmentally sensitive resources of the FGBNMS.
#### § 27.12 Withdrawal of certification.

MSHA reserves the right to rescind for cause any certification issued under this part.
§ 50.10 Immediate notification. The operator shall immediately contact MSHA at once without delay and within 15 minutes at the toll-free number, 1-800-746-1553, once the operator knows or should know that an accident has occurred involving: ( a ) A death of an individual at the mine;
( b ) An injury of an individual at the mine which has a reasonable potential to cause death;
( c ) An entrapment of an individual at the mine which has a reasonable potential to cause death; or
( d ) Any other accident.
[74 FR 68919, Dec. 29, 2009]