alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §221. Closing ports of entry; forfeiture of vessels seeking to enter closed port

Whenever, in any collection district, the duties on imports can not, in the judgment of the President, be collected in the ordinary way, nor in the manner provided by sections 218 1 to 220 of this title, by reason of the cause mentioned in section 218 of this title, the President may close the port of entry in that district; and shall in such case give notice thereof by proclamation. And thereupon all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges incident to ports of entry shall cease and be discontinued at such port so closed until it is opened by the order of the President on the cessation of such obstructions. Every vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any merchandise liable to duty, which attempts to enter any port which has been closed under this section, shall, with her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, be forfeited.

(R.S. §5317.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 218 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 632.

#### Codification

R.S. §5317 derived from act July 12, 1861, ch. 3, §4, 12 Stat. 256.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

All offices of collector of customs, comptroller of customs, surveyor of customs, and appraiser of merchandise of Bureau of Customs of Department of the Treasury to which appointments were required to be made by President with advice and consent of Senate ordered abolished, with such offices to be terminated not later than Dec. 31, 1966, by Reorg. Plan No. 1, of 1965, eff. May 25, 1965, 30 F.R. 7035, 79 Stat. 1317, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. All functions of offices eliminated were already vested in Secretary of the Treasury by Reorg. Plan No. 26 of 1950, eff. July 31, 1950, 15 F.R. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280, set out in the Appendix to Title 5.

1 See References in Text note below.
----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 03:15 PM

-----

From: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

 Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/28/2011 02:21 PM

Subject: Fw: Boiler benefits briefing materials

Cortney,

For our Monday morning discussion, attached is a 1 pager that explains

some of the benefits changes. Talk to you then...

Thanks!

Brian

----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/28/2011 02:19 PM

-----

From: Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian

 Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/28/2011 01:06 PM

Subject: Boiler benefits briefing materials

Jim or Brian,

Would one of you please forward this to Cortney at OMB for the boiler

RIA discussion on Monday? I think this 1-pager will help explain some

of the differences between the benefits of the proposal and the final

rules.

(See attached file: Boilers benefits.pdf)

Thank you!

Amy Lamson

Risk and Benefits Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

US Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Dr. (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-4383
# C_2009153EN.01003301.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — KME Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-127/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the market concerned - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation)

2009/C 153/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG (Osnabruck, Germany); KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA (Courbevoie, France); and KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G.C. Rizza, T. Graf and M. Piergiovanni, Lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, Agent, assisted by C. Thomas, Solicitor)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

| (1) | Application for annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by Article 2(c)(d) and (e) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 Industrial tubes); and (2) Counterclaim by the Commission that the amount of those fines be increased |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Application for annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by Article 2(c)(d) and (e) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 Industrial tubes); and (2) Counterclaim by the Commission that the amount of those fines be increased

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 29.5.2004.

1

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9883 

To prohibit the implementation of the Proposed Resource Management Plan 

Amendment and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Miles City Field Office, Montana. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of the Proposed Resource 

Management Plan Amendment and Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Miles City 

Field Office, Montana. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9883 IH

1 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON PROPOSED RESOURCE MAN2 AGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINAL 

3 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

4 STATEMENT FOR THE MILES CITY FIELD OF5 FICE, MONTANA. 

6 The Secretary of the Interior may not finalize, imple7 ment, administer, or enforce the Proposed Resource Man8 agement Plan Amendment and Final Supplemental Envi9 ronmental Impact Statement for the Miles City Field Of10 fice, Montana, referred to in the notice of availability pub11 lished by the Bureau of Land Management titled ‘‘Pro12 posed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final 

13 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 

14 Miles City Field Office, Montana’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 43432; 

15 published May 17, 2024). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 71.300T Respirable dust control plan; filing requirements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 28478 , Apr. 18, 2024.
As of April 14, 2025: ( a ) Within 15 calendar days after the termination date of a citation for violation of the standard, the operator shall submit to the District Manager for approval a written respirable dust control plan applicable to the DWP identified in the citation. The respirable dust control plan and revisions thereof shall be suitable to the conditions and the mining system of the coal mine and shall be adequate to continuously maintain respirable dust to at or below the standard at the DWP identified in the citation. ( 1 ) The mine operator shall notify the representative of miners at least 5 days prior to submission of a respirable dust control plan and any revision to a dust control plan. If requested, the mine operator shall provide a copy to the representative of miners at the time of notification;
( 2 ) A copy of the proposed respirable dust control plan, and a copy of any proposed revision, submitted for approval shall be made available for inspection by the representative of miners; and
( 3 ) A copy of the proposed respirable dust control plan, and a copy of any proposed revision, submitted for approval shall be posted on the mine bulletin board at the time of submittal. The proposed plan or proposed revision shall remain posted until it is approved, withdrawn, or denied.
( 4 ) Following receipt of the proposed plan or proposed revision, the representative of miners may submit timely comments to the District Manager, in writing, for consideration during the review process. Upon request, a copy of these comments shall be provided to the operator by the District Manager.
( b ) Each respirable dust control plan shall include at least the following: ( 1 ) The mine identification number and DWP number assigned by MSHA, the operator's name, mine name, mine address, and mine telephone number and the name, address, and telephone number of the principal officer in charge of health and safety at the mine;
( 2 ) The specific DWP at the mine to which the plan applies;
( 3 ) A detailed description of the specific respirable dust control measures used to abate the violation of the respirable dust standard; and
( 4 ) A detailed description of how each of the respirable dust control measures described in response to paragraph (b)(3) of this section will continue to be used by the operator, including at least the specific time, place and manner the control measures will be used.
[89 FR 28478, Apr. 18, 2024]
§ 77.217 Definitions. For the purpose of §§ 77.214 through 77.216-5, the term: ( a ) *Abandoned* as applied to any refuse pile or impoundment and impounding structure means that work on such pile or structure has been completed in accordance with a plan for abandonment approved by the District Manager.
( b ) *Area-capacity curves* means graphic curves which readily show the reservoir water surface area, in acres, at different elevations from the bottom of the reservoir to the maximum water surface, and the capacity or volume, in acre-feet, of the water contained in the reservoir at various elevations.
( c ) *Impounding structure* means a structure which is used to impound water, sediment, or slurry, or any combination of such materials.
( d ) *Probable maximum precipitation* means the value for a particular area which represents an envelopment of depth-duration-area rainfall relations for all storm types affecting that area adjusted meteorologically to maximum conditions.
( e ) *Refuse pile* means a deposit of coal mine waste which may contain a mixture of coal, shale, claystone, siltstone, sandstone, limestone, and related materials that are excavated during mining operations or separated from mined coal and disposed of on the surface as waste byproducts of either coal mining or preparation operations. *Refuse pile* does not mean temporary spoil piles of removed overburden material associated with surface mining operations.
( f ) *Safety factor* means the ratio of the forces tending to resist the failure of a structure to the forces tending to cause such failure as determined by accepted engineering practice.
(Secs. 101, 508, Pub. L. 91-173, 83 Stat. 745, 803 (30 U.S.C. 811, 957))
[40 FR 41778, Sept. 9, 1975]
§ 942.774 Revision; renewal; and transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights. ( a ) Part 774 of this chapter, *Revision; Renewal; and Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Permit Rights,* shall apply to any such actions involving surface coal mining and reclamation operations permits.
( b ) Any revision to the approved mining or reclamation plan will be subject to review and approval by the Office.
( c ) A significant revision to the mining or reclamation plan will be subject to the permit application information requirements and procedures of Subchapter G, including notice, public participation, and notice of decision requirements of § 773.6, 773.19(b)(1) and (3), and 778.21, prior to approval and implementation. The Office will consider any proposed revision to be significant if it: ( 1 ) Will result in adverse impacts beyond those previously considered, affecting cultural resources listed on, or eligible to be listed on, the National Register of Historic Places;
( 2 ) Involves changes to the blasting plan that will be likely to cause adverse impacts beyond those previously considered, to persons or property outside of the permit area;
( 3 ) Will result in adverse impacts beyond those previously considered, affecting a water supply to which the requirements of 30 CFR 816.41(h) apply;
( 4 ) Will cause a new or updated probable hydrologic consequences determination or cumulative hydrologic impact analysis to be required under 30 CFR 780.21(f)(4) or 780.21(g)(2) as a result of an increase in impacts;
( 5 ) Requires a change in the identification, disturbance, or handling of toxic- or acid-forming materials different from those previously considered, where the changes have the potential for causing additional impacts not previously considered;
( 6 ) Will result in adverse impacts on fish, wildlife and related environmental values beyond those previously considered;
( 7 ) Includes the proposed addition of a coal processing facility, or any permanent support facility, where the addition of the facility will cause impacts not previously considered, except that the addition of a temporary coal processing facility used exclusively for crushing and screening need not be considered a significant revision; or
( 8 ) Involves a change in the postmining land use to a residential, industrial/commercial, recreation or developed water resources land use, as defined in 30 CFR 701.5; except that a change to a developed water resource not meeting the size criteria of § 77.216(a) of this title need not be considered a significant revision.
( d ) In addition to the requirements of part 774 of this chapter, any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by a decision on the transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights, including an official of any Federal, State, or local government agency, may submit written comments on the application to the Office within thirty days of either the publication of the newspaper advertisement required by § 774.17(b)(2) of this chapter or receipt of an administratively complete application, whichever is later.
[49 FR 38892, Oct. 1, 1984, as amended at 53 FR 49106, Dec. 5, 1988; 65 FR 79672, Dec. 19, 2000]
# C_2008107EN.01002201.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission

(Case T-43/03) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - ‘Info point Europe’ label - Statements made by an agent of the Commission about the applicant)

(2008/C 107/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée (Avignon, France) (represented by: F. Martineau and N. Benoît, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for damages for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the statements made by the Commission's agent in Marseille at the meeting on 23 January 2003.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         DIAPULSE CORPORATION OF AMERICA
                                   FORM 10-QSB
                 FOR THE QUARTER PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

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


Item 7.  Certifications

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 C.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diapulse, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 C.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the SARBANES-OXLEY Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.


         By:       /s/ Jesse Ross                       November 2, 2004
                 ----------------------------
                  Jesse Ross
                  Chief Executive Officer
#### § 937.845 Civil penalties.

Part 845 of this chapter, *Civil Penalties,* shall apply when civil penalties are assessed for violations on surface mining and reclamation operations.
#### SCHATZBERG v. GROSWIRTH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Brokers—Commissions—Contract—Performance—Evidence—Burden of Proof.

Where, in an action to recover a commission, plaintiff relied on an express promise of defendant to pay a commission if "plaintiff procured certain premises for him at a price not exceeding a specified sum, and it was shown that plaintiff, as well as other brokers, had been employed by the owner of the property to sell it, and defendant claimed that he acquired the property through the efforts of another broker to whom the owner paid a commission, plaintiff had the burden of establishing by a clear preponderance of the evidence not only 'the express .contract sued on, but also that he procured by his own efforts the premises for defendant.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Isidore Schatzberg against Ludwig Groswirth. From a judgment of the City Court in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ. .

Louis Steckler and J. Brownson Ker, for appellant.

Max D. Steuer and Wales F. Severance, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J.

The action was brought by the plaintiff, a real estate broker, to recover for services performed by him at defend*260ant’s request in and about the purchase by defendant of certain premises of one Englander. The plaintiff, in his complaint and testimony, relied upon an express promise of the defendant to pay the plaintiff a commission of i per cent, upon the amount of the purchase price in case the plaintiff should procure- the premises for the defendant at a price not exceeding $73,000. The plaintiff, as well as other brokers, had been employed- by Englander to sell the the property. The defendant did acquire the property, but, as he claimed, through the efforts of another broker, one Jacobowitz, to whom Englander paid a commission. The burden was therefore upon the plaintiff to establish by a clear preponderance of evidence not only the express contract sued upon, but also that he procured by his own efforts the premises for the defendant. Upon the latter proposition the evidence appears to preponderate in favor of the defendant, and in the interests of justice there should be a retrial of the issues.

Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to- appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### § 910.777 General content requirements for permit applications.

Part 777 of this chapter, *General Content Requirements for Permit applications,* shall apply to any person who applies for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

[52 FR 13807, Apr. 24, 1987]
#### § 1699.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency.
Motion s Granted and Order filed October 18 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00 904

- CV

____________ IN RE VENUS FORD OF CUDAHY, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

and FORD INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LLC f/k/a FORD INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES CORP. , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008

- 71227



### O R D E R

On October 14
, 2011 , relator s , Venus Ford of Cudahy, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and Ford International Capital LLC f/k/a Ford Investment Enterprises Corp.
, filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov't Cod e § 22.221. Relator s ask this c ourt to ord er t he Honorable Steven E. Kirkland , Judge of the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, to set aside his October 5, 2011, discovery order , entered in t rial court
cause number 2008

- 71227 , styled Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Ford Investment Enterprise Corporation a/k/a FIECO . Relator s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring privileged documents to be produced

.2

Relators have also filed a motion for a temporary stay of the trial court’s discovery
order. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. It appears from the facts stat ed in the petition
that relators ’ request for relief requires further consideration and that relator s will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted.

We therefore GRANT relators’ motion and ORDER the trial court’s October 5,
2011 , disco very order in trial court cause number 2008

- 71227, styled Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Ford Investment Enterprise Corporation a/k/a
FIECO
, STAYED until a final decision by this court on relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this c ourt. Relators’ motion for leave to file the
documents that are claimed to be privileged for in cameral inspection is also GRANTED.
In addition, the court requests the real party in interest , Dealer Computer Services, Inc., to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before November 2,
2011.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.