alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023227EN.01000301.xml

| 29.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11102 – SILVER FAWN / MHI / AYOSA HOTELES / EVERTMEL / JAMAICA DEVCO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 227/03)

On 14 June 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11102. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11102. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BREANA CASTLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 451 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of September, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED . Further, the Application for Leave to file Amicus Brief is DENIED as moot.
### Monazite in the granitic rocks of the southeastern Atlantic States: An example of the use of heavy minerals in geologic exploration

By: John Beaver Mertie Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1094

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

The principal part of this report is a discussion of the three monazite belts and the descriptions of the panned concentrates that justify their delineation, details that constitute an example of the use of heavy minerals in regional geologic exploration. The tenors of accessory minerals in rocks from the monazite belts in Viginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama are listed, and where possible these mineralogical data are translated into genetic interpretations. The origin of the monazite belts is discussed in the light of the mineralogical data, from which it is concluded that the beltlike distribution of monazite is analogous to a petrographic province. 

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
M. P. No. 77-135.

#### State *v.*Charles K. DiPanni.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent.

*Charles K. DiPanni,*pro se, defendant-petitioner.

The state is directed to file its answer to the petition for habeas corpus and therein to show cause, if any it has, why the writ should not issue as prayed, said answer to be made in compliance with the provisions of Rule 14, to which reference is made herein.
### §100734. Report on finding or notification of potential damage to natural and historical landmarks

When the Secretary finds on the Secretary's own motion or on being notified in writing by an appropriate scientific, historical, or archeological authority that a district, site, building, structure, or object that has been found to be nationally significant in illustrating natural history or the history of the United States and that has been designated as a natural or historic landmark may be irreparably lost or destroyed in whole or in part by any surface mining activity, including exploration for or removal or production of minerals or materials, the Secretary shall notify the person conducting the activity and submit a report on the findings or notification, including the basis for the Secretary's finding that the activity may cause irreparable loss or destruction of a national landmark, to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, with a request for advice of the Council as to alternative measures that may be taken by the United States to mitigate or abate the activity.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3109.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100734 | 16 U.S.C. 1908(a). | Pub. L. 94–429, §9(a), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1343. |

Section
#### § 159.1 Purpose.

This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities and provides procedures for the regulation of the selection, accountability, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions under a covered contract. It also assigns responsibilities and establishes procedures for incident reporting, use of and accountability for equipment, rules for the use of force, and a process for administrative action or the removal, as appropriate, of PSCs and PSC personnel.
#### § 942.823 Special performance standards—Operations on prime farmland.

Part 823 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Operations on Prime Farmland,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining operations on prime farmland.
§ 56.6800 Storage facilities. When repair work which could produce a spark or flame is to be performed on a storage facility— ( a ) The explosive material shall be moved to another facility, or moved at least 50 feet from the repair activity and monitored; and
( b ) The facility shall be cleaned to prevent accidental detonation.
#### § 922.783 Underground mining permit applications—minimum requirements for information on environmental resources.

Part 783 of this chapter, *Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources,* shall apply to any person who submits an application to conduct underground mining operations.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, Chief Judge of the United **

States District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ARMANDO PORRAS-CORDERO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10445

D.C. No. 4:11-cr-01102-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Nancy D. Freudenthal, Chief Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted September 10, 2012*** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Armando Porras-Cordero appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 

64-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

FILED

SEP 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10445

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Porras-Cordero’s counsel

has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Porras-Cordero the opportunity

to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief

has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
#### Edward Koehl, Appellant, v S. Mirza et al., Respondents.

[832 NYS2d 829]-

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McGill, J.), entered February 28, 2006 in Clinton County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed the instant action in Supreme Court against defendants, all employees of the Department of Correctional Services, claiming that various decisions made by them in the context of their official duties were either negligent, in violation of his constitutional rights and/or in violation of 42 USC § 1983. Among the more serious allegations is the claim that certain defendants, in their capacities as prison dentists, failed to provide him with adequate dental care. At issue is plaintiff’s appeal from an order of Supreme Court granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

Correction Law § 24 provides that an action against a Department of Correctional Services employee for “any act done or the failure to perform any act within the scope of the employment” (Correction Law § 24 [1]) must be commenced in the Court of Claims as a claim against the state *(see*Correction Law § 24 *1093[2]). Thus, here, Supreme Court correctly ruled that there was no subject matter jurisdiction. While plaintiff argues that Correction Law § 24 violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, this Court has explicitly rejected this precise argument *(see Murray v Reif,*36 AD3d 1167 [2007]; *Woodward v State of New York,*23 AD3d 852 [2005], *lv dismissed*6 NY3d 807 [2006]; *see also Haywood v Drown,*35 AD3d 1290 [2006]). We see no reason to deviate from these holdings. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are either academic or without merit, including the argument that defendants’ motion was untimely.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Crew III and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond Waterman, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and matter remitted to the Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: The defendant was sentenced as a third felony offender in 1941 and was sentenced as a fourth felony offender in 1957. Thereafter in *coram nobis*one of the two convictions relied upon as a basis for his third and fourth offender sentences was vacated. He was thereupon resentenced on the 1957 conviction as a third felony offender, but he was not resentenced on the 1941 conviction. This application to be resentenced *623as a second, instead of as a third, felony offender on that conviction was then made to the court. The court denied it, on the ground that the sentence imposed by the court was not in excess of what could have been given him as a second felony offender. From the order denying the applieaton this appeal is taken. For purposes of appeal we treat the order as one denying an application for a writ of error *comm nobis*from which an appeal lies. (Code Crim. Pro., § 517.) We consider *People*v. *Sidoti*(1 A D 2d 232) to have been overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. The courts have expanded the scope of the writ of error *coram nobis*beyond its original purpose to include eases in which a second or fourth felony offender asserts the invalidity of a prior conviction even though such invalidity is not ascribable to an error of fact not apparent on the record. *(People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196, 199; *People*v. *Shaw,*1 N Y 2d 30; *People v. Kronick,*308 N Y 866.) Defendant alleges that he is still serving the sentence imposed on his 1941 conviction. The trial court should determine whether or not he is now serving that sentence. If he has completed serving his sentence imposed under the 1941 conviction, his motion would necessarily be denied, because he could receive no credit for time served under that conviction to apply on the sentence imposed under the 1957 conviction *(People*v. *Kowalsky,*2 A D 2d 938, affd. 2 N Y 2d 949) and the question would be academic. *(People ex rel. Walker*v. *People,*3 A D 2d 623.) If, however, he is still serving his sentence as a third felony offender, Under the 1941 conviction, the County Court should resentence him thereunder as a second felony offender. Despite the fact that the same punishment could be imposed for a second offense as for a third offense, the defendant would, nevertheless, be entitled to be sentenced as a second offender rather than as a third offender. *(People*v. *Shaw,*1 N Y 2d 30; *People*v. *Begue,*1 A D 2d 289; *People*v. *Gifford,*2 A D 2d 642; *People*v. *French,*5 A D 2d 852.) (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court denying defendant’s application to vacate his sentence as a third felony offender and for a resentence.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
#### § 912.823 Special performance standards—operations on prime farmland.

Part 823 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Operations on Prime Farmland,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations on prime farmlands.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships in Digestive Diseases and Nutrition.                    

*Date:*                         February 11-12, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 7011, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jian Yang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7111, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7799,                         *yangj@extra.niddk.nih.go.v*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 18, 2020.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2020-28350 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### §103104. Recovery of costs associated with special use permits

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Service may recover all costs of providing necessary services associated with special use permits. The reimbursements shall be credited to the appropriation current at that time.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3165.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 103104 | 16 U.S.C. 3a. | Pub. L. 103–138, title I (2d proviso in paragraph under heading "administrative provisions" under heading "National Park Service"), Nov. 11, 1993, 107 Stat. 1387. |

Section

The words "on and after November 11, 1993" are omitted as obsolete.
# C_2008327EN.01004101.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/41

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2008 — Casinò municipale di Venezia v Commission

(Case T-221/00) (1)

1

(2008/C 327/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.

1

---
§ 876.12 Eligibility. ( a ) Beginning December 20, 2006, any uncertified State or Indian tribe having an approved reclamation program may receive and retain, without regard to the limitation in section 402(g)(1)(D) of SMCRA, up to 30 percent of the total of the funds distributed annually to that State or Indian tribe under section 402(g)(1) of SMCRA (State or Tribal share) and section 402(g)(5) of SMCRA (historic coal funds). For funds awarded before December 20, 2006, any uncertified State or Indian tribe may retain up to 10 percent of the funds distributed to it for an acid mine drainage fund. All amounts set aside under this section must be deposited into an acid mine drainage abatement and treatment fund established under State or Indian tribal law.
( b ) Before depositing funds under this part, an uncertified State or Indian tribe must: ( 1 ) Establish a special fund account providing for the earning of interest on fund balances; and
( 2 ) Specify that moneys in the account may only be used for the abatement of the causes and treatment of the effects of acid mine drainage in a comprehensive manner within qualified hydrologic units (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section) affected by coal mining practices.
( c ) As used in paragraph (b) of this section, “qualified hydrologic unit” means a hydrologic unit: ( 1 ) In which the water quality has been significantly affected by acid mine drainage from coal mining practices in a manner that adversely impacts biological resources; and
( 2 ) That contains lands and waters that are: ( i ) Eligible under section 404 of SMCRA and include any of the priorities described in section 403(a) of SMCRA; and
( ii ) The subject of the expenditure from the forfeiture of a bond required under section 509 of SMCRA or from other State sources to abate and treat acid mine drainage.
( d ) After the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are met, OSM may approve a grant and the State or Indian tribe may deposit moneys into the special fund account. The moneys so deposited, together with any interest earned, must be considered State or Indian tribal moneys.
[73 FR 67641, Nov. 14, 2008]
Searched for **https://edsitement.neh.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://edsitement.neh.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9904 

To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from the 

Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2024 

Mr. MILLS (for himself, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. 

STEUBE, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, and Mr. DESJARLAIS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from the Small Business Administration, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing SBA As5 sistance from Going to China Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9904 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE PEOPLE’S 

2 REPUBLIC OF CHINA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(a) of the Small Busi4 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘(10) PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE

7 PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.—For purposes of 

8 this Act, a small business concern may not— 

9 ‘‘(A) be headquartered in the People’s Re10 public of China; or 

11 ‘‘(B) have more than 25 percent of the vot12 ing stock of the small business concern owned 

13 by affiliates that are citizens of the People’s Re14 public of China.’’. 

15 (b) REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.—The Adminis16 trator of the Small Business Administration shall amend 

17 the regulations and guidance of the Administration, in18 cluding sections 120.100, 120.110, and 121.105 of title 

19 13, Code of Federal Regulations, to carry out the amend20 ment made by this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### §4142. Notification to claimants

Each award or denial of a claim by the Commission, whether rendered before or after a hearing, shall include a specific statement of the facts and of the reasoning of the Commission in support of its conclusion.

(July 3, 1948, ch. 826, title II, §212, as added Pub. L. 87–846, title I, §103, Oct. 22, 1962, 76 Stat. 1111.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 2017k of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.