alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3346. Compilation and organization of previously declassified records

#### (a), (b) Omitted

#### (c) Compilation and organization of records

The Department of Defense may not be required, when conducting a special search, to compile or organize records that have already been declassified and placed into the public domain.

#### (d) Special searches

For the purpose of this section, the term "special search" means the response of the Department of Defense to any of the following:

(1) A statutory requirement to conduct a declassification review on a specified set of agency records.

(2) An Executive order to conduct a declassification review on a specified set of agency records.

(3) An order from the President or an official with delegated authority from the President to conduct a declassification review on a specified set of agency records.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title X, §1075], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–280.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This section, referred to in subsec. (d), is section 1075 of H.R. 5408 of the 106th Congress, as introduced on Oct. 6, 2000, and as enacted into law by section 1 of Pub. L. 106–398, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654. See Codification note below.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified as a note under section 435 of this title prior to editorial reclassification as this section.

Section is comprised of section 1075 of H.R. 5408 of the 106th Congress, as introduced on Oct. 6, 2000, and as enacted into law by section 1 of Pub. L. 106–398, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654. Subsec. (a) of section 1075 amended former section 230 of Title 10, Armed Forces and subsec. (b) of section 1075 was not classified to the Code.
Map 2-34: Alternative B

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

and Special Interest Areas Related to

Greater Sage Grouse Habitat

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

Boundary

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit

Boundaries

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Core)

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Connectivity)

BLM and USFS Surface

Management

Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern and Special Interest Areas

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Note: Identified designations displayed on this map

are in addition to existing designations already

approved through previous planning efforts.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-31T11:24:23-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 84396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28573]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


International Product Change--International Priority Airmail, 
International Surface Air Lift, Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 
Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class 
Package International Service Agreement: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add an International Priority Airmail, 
International Surface Air Lift, Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 
Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class 
Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated 
Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail 
Classification Schedule.

DATES: Date of notice: December 28, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-
7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 15, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add International Priority Airmail, International 
Surface Air Lift, Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package 
International Service Contract 1 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-47 and CP2021-49.

Ruth Stevenson,
Chief Counsel, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-28573 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### § 901.16 Required regulatory program amendments. [Reserved]
#### Larmicia Wood et al., Appellants, v. United Air Lines, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff wife, and by her husband to recover damages for loss of services and for medical expenses, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 3, 1962, which denied their *660motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, with respect to the third cause of action (in the amended complaint) based on trespass. On December 16, 1960, a jet airplane owned by defendant United Air Lines, Inc., collided in midair with an airplane owned by defendant Trans World Airlines, Inc., and was forced to land on a street in Brooklyn. Plaintiff wife, a tenant in a building adjacent to the place where the jet airplane landed, claims she was injured when an explosion within the building caused the building to collapse. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [32 Misc 2d 955.]
# C_2010221EN.01003301.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission

(Case T-66/01) (1)

1

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for soda ash in the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Commission’s power to impose a fine or sanction - Reasonable time - Essential procedural requirements - Res judicata - Existence of the dominant position - Abuse of the dominant position - Effect on trade between Member States - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances)

2010/C 221/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, formerly Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, D. Anderson QC and S. Lee, Barrister, and by S. Turner, S. Berwick and R. Coles, Solicitors, and then by D. Vaughan QC, S. Berwick, Solicitor, S. Lee and S. Ford, Barristers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and P. Oliver, Agents, and by J. Flynn QC and C. West, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/7/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-D: Soda ash — ICI) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 33) or, in the alternative, for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/7/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-D: Soda ash — ICI) in so far as it states that Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd infringed Article 82 EC in 1983; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/7/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-D: Soda ash — ICI) in so far as it states that Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd infringed Article 82 EC in 1983;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Imperial Chemical Industries in Article 2 of Decision 2003/7 at EUR 8 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Imperial Chemical Industries in Article 2 of Decision 2003/7 at EUR 8 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Imperial Chemical Industries to pay four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Imperial Chemical Industries to pay four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of those incurred by the European Commission;

| 5. | Orders the European Commission to pay one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of those incurred by Imperial Chemical Industries. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Commission to pay one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of those incurred by Imperial Chemical Industries.

---

(1)  OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.

1

---
### §3051. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–259, title III, §347(c), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2698

Section, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title I, §114A, as added Pub. L. 107–306, title VIII, §823(a), Nov. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 2427; amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title IX, §921(g), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1570; Pub. L. 108–458, title I, §1071(a)(4), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3690, related to annual report on improvement of financial statements for auditing purposes.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 404i–1 of this title and repealed prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Correcting Long-Standing Material Weaknesses

Pub. L. 111–259, title III, §368, Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2705, which provided that senior intelligence management officials be designated to correct long-standing, correctable material weaknesses of certain intelligence elements, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LXVII, §6726(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2236.
§ 1701.5 Collection and maintenance of records. ( a ) ODNI will not maintain a record unless: ( 1 ) It is relevant and necessary to accomplish an ODNI function required by statute or Executive Order;
( 2 ) It is acquired to the greatest extent practicable from the subject individual when ODNI may use the record to make any determination about the individual;
( 3 ) The individual providing the record is informed of the authority for providing the record (including whether providing the record is mandatory or voluntary), the principal purpose for maintaining the record, the routine uses for the record, and what effect refusing to provide the record may have;
( 4 ) It is maintained with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness as is reasonably necessary to ensure fairness to the individual in the determination;
( b ) Except as to disclosures made to an agency or made under the FOIA, ODNI will make reasonable efforts prior to disseminating a record about an individual, to ensure that the record is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete;
( c ) ODNI will not maintain or develop a system of records that is not the subject of a current or planned public notice;
( d ) ODNI will not adopt a routine use of information in a system without notice and invitation to comment published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to final adoption of the routine use;
( e ) To the extent ODNI participates with a non-Federal agency in matching activities covered by section (8) of the Act, ODNI will publish notice of the matching program in the Federal Register;
( f ) ODNI will not maintain a record which describes how an individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the subject individual, or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;
( g ) When required by the Act, ODNI will maintain an accounting of all disclosures of records by the ODNI to persons, organizations or agencies;
( h ) Each ODNI component shall implement administrative, physical and technical controls to prevent unauthorized access to its systems of records, to prevent unauthorized disclosure of records, and to prevent physical damage to or destruction of records;
( i ) ODNI will establish rules and instructions for complying with the requirements of the Privacy Act, including notice of the penalties for non-compliance, applicable to all persons involved in the design, development, operation or maintenance of any system of records.
§ 196.500 Employment. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in employment, or recruitment, consideration, or selection therefor, whether full-time or part-time, under any education program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
( 2 ) A recipient shall make all employment decisions in any education program or activity operated by such recipient in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that could adversely affect any applicant's or employee's employment opportunities or status because of sex.
( 3 ) A recipient shall not enter into any contractual or other relationship which directly or indirectly has the effect of subjecting employees or students to discrimination prohibited by §§ 196.500 through 196.550, including relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, and with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient.
( 4 ) A recipient shall not grant preferences to applicants for employment on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preferences has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Application.* The provisions of §§ 196.500 through 196.550 apply to: ( 1 ) Recruitment, advertising, and the process of application for employment;
( 2 ) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, consideration for and award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, application of nepotism policies, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
( 3 ) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation, and changes in compensation;
( 4 ) Job assignments, classifications, and structure, including position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
( 5 ) The terms of any collective bargaining agreement;
( 6 ) Granting and return from leaves of absence, leave for pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, leave for persons of either sex to care for children or dependents, or any other leave;
( 7 ) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
( 8 ) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, selection for tuition assistance, selection for sabbaticals and leaves of absence to pursue training;
( 9 ) Employer-sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
( 10 ) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. NEW AMSTERDAM GAS CO., Appellant, v. PRIEST et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of the New Amsterdam Gas Company, against George E. Priest, J. Edgar Leaycraft, and Lester F. Stearns, composing and constituting the State Board of Tax Commissioners of the State of New York.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed on the facts and reversed on the law, and assessment vacated, upon opinions in People ex rel. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. State Board of Tax Com’rs (decided this term) 80 N. Y. Supp. 85. Form of order, if not agreed upon, to be settled by CHASE, J.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**559 KA 12-01078**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
MICHAEL F.-S., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (VINCENT F. GUGINO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered May 15, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Robert B. Clark, appellant, v. Louis Donovon and R. B. Stallworth. R. B. Stallworth, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,226.

Action to recover for services rendered to the defendants in connection with proposed purchase of real estate. Judgment against plaintiff for costs. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Peter H. Sehwaba, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Marshall E. Gallion, for appellant.

William E. Rafferty, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 1656.8 Employment agreements. ( a ) *Nature of Agreement.* Before any ASW is placed with an employer, Selective Service and the employer shall enter into an employment agreement that specifies their respective duties and responsibilities under the Alternative Service Program.
( b ) *Restrictions on Selective Service.* The Selective Service System shall not act in any controversy involving ASW's wages, hours and working conditions except to the extent any of these subjects is specifically covered in § 1656.7, § 1656.9, or the employment agreement between Selective Service and the employer.
( c ) *Investigating and Negotiating.* Whenever there is evidence that an employer appears to be in violation of § 1656.7, Selective Service will investigate the matter. If the investigation produces substantial evidence of violations of § 1656.7, Selective Service will resolve the matter.
( d ) *Termination of Employment Agreement.* If a resolution of a dispute cannot be reached by negotiation within a reasonable time, the Selective Service System shall terminate the employment agreement and shall reassign the ASW.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Patrick Brandon Jr., Appellant

No. 06-21-00086-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 188th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 47992-

A). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Rambin, Chief Justice Stevens and 

Justice van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgments of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment memorializing 

Brandon’s conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (Count I) and 

the bill of costs associated with it by deleting the $15.00 time payment fee contained in the total 

costs in the judgment. We also modify the judgment memorializing Brandon’s conviction of 

possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver (Count I) to reflect that Brandon 

pled “true” to the State’s enhancement paragraph rather than “not true.” As modified, the 

judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Patrick Brandon, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 4, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                                   0000764586
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                  549578
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  13705687
<DEPRECIATION>                          6285024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8011698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8011698
<SALES>                                 2450664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2468108
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         764902
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     764902
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            764902
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1*





Section
      1350 Certification





I,
      Richard M. Haddock, the chief executive officer of LaserCard Corporation, a
      Delaware corporation (the “Company”), certify pursuant to section 1350 of
      chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my
      knowledge:





(i)  the
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending December
      31, 2006 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and





(ii)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      February 5, 2007




/s/ Richard
              M. HaddockRichard M. Haddock




* The
        material
        contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and is not to
        be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
        Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or
        after
        the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
        in such filing.