alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9609 

To amend the Small Business Act to modify application deadlines and communication requirements for certain disaster assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to modify application 

deadlines and communication requirements for certain 

disaster assistance, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION DEADLINES 

4 AND COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

5 CERTAIN DISASTER ASSISTANCE. 

6 Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

7 636(b)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (4)— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9609 IH

1 (A) by adding at the end the following new 

2 subparagraphs: 

3 ‘‘(C) EXTENSION.—With respect to a 

4 deadline established in subparagraph (A) for a 

5 major disaster, the Administrator shall extend 

6 such deadline for a period of 60 days. 

7 ‘‘(D) ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS.— 

8 The Administrator may accept an application 

9 for disaster relief relating to a major disaster 

10 under this paragraph at any time if the appli11 cant demonstrates good cause for the late sub12 mission. 

13 ‘‘(E) PUBLIC AWARENESS.—The Adminis14 trator make efforts in addition to those efforts 

15 required under paragraph (5) to communicate 

16 to the public and to each office of a Member of 

17 Congress that represents a district in which a 

18 major disaster has occurred the requirements 

19 relating to deadlines under subparagraphs (C) 

20 and (D).’’; and 

21 (B) in subparagraph (B), in the matter 

22 preceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘and the Com23 mittee on Small Business of the House of Rep24 resentatives’’ and inserting ‘‘, the Committee on 

25 Small Business of the House of RepresentaVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:47 Sep 24, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H9609.IH H9609

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 9609 IH

1 tives, and each office of a Member of Congress 

2 that represents a district in which a major dis3 aster has occurred’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (5), in the matter preceding 

5 subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and to commu6 nicate to each office of a Member of Congress that 

7 represents a district in which a major disaster has 

8 occurred,’’ after ‘‘web-based outlets,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### §2118. Establishment of equipment standards

(a) In establishing standards for approved equipment required on vessels subject to part B of this subtitle, the Secretary shall establish standards that are—

(1) based on performance using the best available technology that is economically achievable; and

(2) operationally practical.

(b) Using the standards established under subsection (a), the Secretary may also certify lifesaving equipment that is not required to be carried on vessels subject to part B of this subtitle to ensure that such equipment is suitable for its intended purpose.

(c) At least once every 10 years the Secretary shall review and revise the standards established under subsection (a) to ensure that the standards meet the requirements of this section.

(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title VI, §608(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2968; amended Pub. L. 114–120, title III, §306(a)(2), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 54.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–120, §306(a)(2)(A), substituted "subtitle," for "title,".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–120, §306(a)(2)(B), substituted "subtitle" for "title".
### §2446. Treatment of contractors who engage in improper program management

#### (a) In general

Except as provided by subsection (b), if the Secretary of Energy or the Administrator determines that a covered contractor engaged in improper program management that resulted in a notification under section 2753 of this title or significantly and detrimentally affected the cost, scope, or schedule associated with the approval of critical decision 3 in the acquisition process for a project (as defined in Department of Energy Order 413.3B (relating to program management and project management for the acquisition of capital assets)), the Secretary or the Administrator, as the case may be, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees—

(1) an explanation as to whether termination of the contract is an appropriate remedy;

(2) a description of the terms of the contract regarding award fees and performance; and

(3) a description of how the Secretary or the Administrator, as the case may be, plans to exercise options under the contract.

#### (b) Exception

If the Secretary or the Administrator, as the case may be, is not able to submit the information described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a) by reason of a contract enforcement action, the Secretary or the Administrator, as the case may be, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a notification of such contract enforcement action and the date on which the Secretary or the Administrator, as the case may be, plans to submit the information described in such paragraphs.

#### (c) Definitions

In this section:

(1) The term "appropriate congressional committees" means—

(A) the congressional defense committees; and

(B) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

(2) The term "covered contractor" means—

(A) a contractor of the Administration; or

(B) a contractor of an element of the Department of Energy (other than the Administration) involved in nuclear security.

(Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXII, §3247, as added Pub. L. 114–92, div. C, title XXXI, §3111(c)(1), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 1188.)
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01219**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 01219\01219_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01219\01219_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01219\01219_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 01219\01219_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01219\01219_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01219\01219_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01219\01219_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01219\01219_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\01219 follow up questions.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\D-1 WWT-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01219\Supporting Documents\Map 1_Willow station aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\Map 2_Willow disposal site aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\Map 3_ Willow station topo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\Map 4_Willow disposal site topo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\Map 5_Willow outfalls.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\WB-1_Willow water flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01219\Supporting Documents\Willow #01219 ELG Follow-up Response.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01219\01219_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

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

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Emanuel Butts, Appellant.

Motion granted to appeal on judgment roll, five typed briefs, and Eordyee J. Hartman, Esq., of Buffalo, assigned as counsel to conduct appeal. Time for argument of appeal enlarged to include November 1960 Term.
§ 7.47 Deflection temperature test. ( a ) *Test procedures.* ( 1 ) Prepare two samples for testing that measure 5 inches by 1 ⁄ 2 inch, by the thickness of the material as it will be used. Prior to testing, condition the samples at 73.4 ±3.6 °F (23 ±2 °C) and 50 ±5% relative humidity for at least 40 hours.
( 2 ) Place a sample on supports which are 4 inches apart and immersed in a heat transfer medium at a test temperature range of 65 °F−80 °F (18.3 °C−26.7 °C). The heat transfer medium must be a liquid which will not chemically affect the sample. The testing apparatus must be constructed so that expansion of any components during heating of the medium does not result in deflection of the sample.
( 3 ) Place a temperature measuring device with an accuracy of 1% into the heat transfer medium within 1 ⁄ 8 inch of, but not touching, the sample.
( 4 ) Apply a total load, in pounds, numerically equivalent to 11 times the thickness of the sample, in inches, to the sample midway between the supports using a 1 ⁄ 8 inch radius, rounded contact. The total load includes that weight used to apply the load and any force exerted by the deflection measurement device.
( 5 ) Use a deflection measuring device with an accuracy of ±.001 inches to measure the deflection of the sample at the point of loading as the temperature of the medium is increased at a uniform rate of 3.6 ±.36 °F/min. (2 ±0.2 °C/min.). Apply the load to the sample for 5 minutes prior to heating, to allow compensation for creep in the sample due to the loading.
( 6 ) Record the deflection of the sample due to heating at 180 °F (82 °C).
( 7 ) Repeat steps 2 through 6 for the other sample.
( b ) *Acceptable performance.* Neither sample shall have a deflection greater than .010 inch at 180 °F (82 °C).
[53 FR 23500, June 22, 1988; 53 FR 25569, July 7, 1988; 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995]
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
### **CHAPTER 229—RAIL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS**

Sec.
22901.
Definitions.
22902.
Capital investment grants to support intercity passenger rail services. 1

22903.
Project management oversight.
22904.
Use of capital grants to finance first-dollar liability of grant project.
22905.
Grant conditions.
22906.
Authorization of appropriations.
22907.
Consolidated rail infrastructure and safety improvements.
22908.
Restoration and enhancement grants.
22909.
Railroad Crossing Elimination Program.
22910.
Interstate Rail Compacts Grant Program.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 117–58, div. B, title II, §§22305(b), 22306(b), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 723, 724, added items 22909 and 22910.

**2019**—Pub. L. 115–420, §7(a)(2), (3), (5), Jan. 3, 2019, 132 Stat. 5445, 5446, renumbered chapter 244 of this title as this chapter and amended analysis generally, substituting items 22901 to 22908 for former items 24401 to 24408, respectively.

1  So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.
### §2036. Survivor annuities for previous spouses

The Director shall prescribe regulations under which a previous spouse who is divorced after September 29, 1988, from a participant, former participant, or retired participant shall be eligible for a survivor annuity to the same extent and, to the greatest extent practicable, under the same conditions (including reductions to be made in the annuity of the participant) applicable to former spouses (as defined in section 8331(23) of title 5) of participants in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability System (CSRS) as prescribed by the Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984.

(Pub. L. 88–643, title II, §226, as added Pub. L. 102–496, title VIII, §802, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3220.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 98–615, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3195. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1984 Amendment note set out under section 8331 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 226 of Pub. L. 88–643, as added Pub. L. 100–453, title III, §302(a), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 1906; amended Pub. L. 102–88, title III, §304(b), (c), Aug. 14, 1991, 105 Stat. 431, 432; Pub. L. 102–183, title III, §306(a), (b), Dec. 4, 1991, 105 Stat. 1265, related to survivor annuities for previous spouses and second chance to elect survivor annuity for certain spouses and was set out as a note under section 403 of this title prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 88–643 by section 802 of Pub. L. 102–496.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on first day of fourth month beginning after Oct. 24, 1992, see section 805 of Pub. L. 102–496, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6038

BEAUTANOUS COOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT A. STOCKS, Lieutenant of the Goldsboro

Police Department; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT

OF REVENUE; STATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATORS;

WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; RICHARD W.

RIDDLE, Director of Controlled Substances Tax

Division, North Carolina Department of

Revenue; JANICE H. FAULKNER, Secretary of the

North Carolina Department of Revenue; E. B.

PARKER, Wayne County Attorney; CHRISTOPHER E.

ALLEN, Assistant Attorney General, Revenue

Section, North Carolina; G. K. BUTTERFIELD,

JR., Judge of General Court of Justice, Superior Court 8B, Wayne County North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District

Judge. (CA-97-396-5-F)

Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beautanous Coor, Appellant Pro Se. William Harrell Everett, Jr.,

EVERETT, WOMBLE & FINAN, Goldsboro, North Carolina; Christopher

Edward Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North

Carolina; Philip A. Baddour, Jr., BADDOUR, PARKER, HINE & WELLONS,

Goldsboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Beautanous Coor appeals from the district court’s order and

order on reconsideration dismissing his civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from a tax assessment imposed by

the North Carolina Department of Revenue. Because Coor’s challenges

to the assessment have already been rejected by the Wayne County

Superior Court in Coor v. Wayne County Sheriff, No. 94-CVS-596 (May

24, 1994), his federal action is barred under the full faith and

credit doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1994); Migra v. Warren City

Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). Moreover, we

previously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an earlier

federal action in which Coor challenged the same assessment in

Coor v. Smith, No. 95-2733 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 1996) (unpublished).

This action is therefore also barred under the doctrine of res

judicata. See Migra, 465 U.S. at 77 n.1.

Accordingly, the district court’s orders dismissing this

action are affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B ALWANT SINGH, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, Re sponde nt. No. 09-73423 A-099-361-176 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Nove m

be r 7, 2013** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc u it Judge s, a

nd PR O, Se n ior Distric t Judge . *** Pe titione r B a lwa

nt Singh (“ Singh” ) pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm i ng the Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” ). 

# FIL ED NOV 14 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

b l e Philip M . Pro, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ne va d a , sitting by de signa tion.Singh c onte nds the B IA and IJ e rre d in de ny ing his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e re vie w the B IA’ s a

nd IJ’ s de c i sions for substa ntia l e vide n c e . K

u mar v . Gonzale s , 444 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th C ir. 2004). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding wa s supporte d by m ultiple , spe c ific re fe re n c e s to the re c ord whe re Singh’ s te stim ony c ontra dic te d othe r re c ord e vide nc e or wa s e va sive and nonre sponsive . For e xam ple , Singh c l a im e d to ha

ve be e n be at e n

by the polic e and re le a se d

a fte r his fa

the r and ne i ghbors pa id a bribe . Howe ve r, the a ffidavits from those who he lpe d se c ure Singh’ s re le a se m ake no m e ntion of e i the r Singh’ s injurie s or the bribe . The IJ re a sona

bly de nie d Singh’ s a sy lum

a pplic ation a fte r finding Singh fa ile d to submit suffic ie nt e v ide nc e to show pa st pe rse c ution on a prote c t e d ground or a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. TheIJ a lso re a sona bly found tha

t Singh’ s a rre st wa s pa

rt of a le gitim ate polic e inve stiga tion, not on politic a l grounds. Additiona

lly , the re c o rd e vide nc e wa s too spe c ulative and ge ne ra liz e d to indic ate an individual iz e d risk of futurepe rse c ution. B e c a use Singh did not e sta blish e l igibility

for a s y lum , he c annot m e e t the highe r burde n for withholding of re m ova l. Dinu v . Ashc roft , 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th C ir. 2004).

2Fina lly , the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to show tha t Singh m o re like l y

tha n not would be

torture d if he is re m ove d. Substa ntia l e vide nc e the re fore supports the IJ’ s de nia l of re lie f unde r C A T. PETITION DENIED.

3
### §167g. Promulgation of rules and regulations

The Secretary is authorized to establish and promulgate such rules and regulations, as are consistent with the directions of this chapter and are necessary to carry out the provisions hereof.

(Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 426, §9, as added Pub. L. 86–777, §2, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 922.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7493

KENNY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE; L. M. SAUNDERS; F. S. TAYLOR, III; J. LEE; D. SWISHER; SERGEANT DAWSON;

MS. WEST; C/O W. SCOTT; C/O MINTER, a/k/a

C/O Fix; C/O L. M. KIER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-401-R)

Submitted: August 19, 1997 Decided: February 24, 1998

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenny Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenny Williams appeals the order of the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Having carefully

considered Appellant's arguments, we find that this appeal is

without merit and affirm the judgment of the district court. We

deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9395 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9395

To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide to Congress a briefing on 
 any instance of an attempted breach of certain military installations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 23, 2024

Mr. Arrington introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide to Congress a briefing on 
 any instance of an attempted breach of certain military installations.

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

SECTION 1. BRIEFING ON INSTANCES OF ATTEMPTED BREACHES OF DEPARTMENT OF 
              DEFENSE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS REQUIRED.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide to Congress 
a briefing on any instance of an attempted breach of a military 
installation under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense during 
the period beginning on January 1, 2021, and ending on the date of the 
provision of such briefing.
    (b) Elements.--Each briefing under subsection shall include, with 
respect to each perpetrator of an attempted breach described in such 
subsection, a statement of the applicable immigration status and 
citizenship status.
                                 <all>
```
### §16105. General criminal penalty when specific penalty not provided

When another criminal penalty is not provided under this chapter, a pipeline carrier providing transportation subject to this part, and when that carrier is a corporation, a director or officer of the corporation, or a receiver, trustee, lessee, or person acting for or employed by the corporation that, alone or with another person, willfully violates this part or an order prescribed under this part, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. A separate violation occurs each day a violation of this part continues.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §106(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 931.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11914 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.