alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### [§5380. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–378, §8(a), Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1359]

Section, added Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XII, §1206(i)(1), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1662, related to pay authority for critical positions. See section 5377 of this title. Pub. L. 102–378, §8(a), repealed Pub. L. 101–510, §1206(i)(1), and provided that this title shall read as if section 1206(i)(1) had not been enacted.

Pub. L. 101–510, §1206(i)(3), provided that (A) unless section 5380 of this title did not take effect as provided in subpar. (B), such section would cease to be in effect on the earlier of Oct. 1, 1992, or the date of the enactment of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 [Nov. 5, 1990], and (B) section 5380 of this title would not take effect if the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 [Pub. L. 101–509] was enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 5, 1990]. Pub. L. 102–378, §8(a), repealed Pub. L. 101–510, §1206(i)(3), and provided that this title shall read as if section 1206(i)(3) had not been enacted.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Nov. 5, 1990, see section 9(b)(6) of Pub. L. 102–378, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 6303 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 3—SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT**

Sec.
901.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—SECURITY OF UNITED STATES SEAPORTS

#### Part A—Port Security Grants; Training and Exercise Programs

911.
Repealed.
912.
Port Security Exercise Program.
913.
Facility exercise requirements.

#### Part B—Port Operations

921.
Domestic radiation detection and imaging.
921a.
Integration of detection equipment and technologies.
922.
Repealed.
923.
Random searches of containers.
924.
Threat assessment screening of port truck drivers.
925.
Border Patrol unit for United States Virgin Islands.
926.
Center of Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN

#### Part A—General Provisions

941.
Strategic plan to enhance the security of the international supply chain.
942.
Post-incident resumption of trade.
943.
Automated Targeting System.
944.
Container security standards and procedures.
945.
Container Security Initiative.

#### Part B—Customs–Trade Partnership Against Terrorism

961.
Establishment.
962.
Eligible entities.
963.
Minimum requirements.
964.
Tier 1 participants in C–TPAT.
965.
Tier 2 participants in C–TPAT.
966.
Tier 3 participants in C–TPAT.
967.
Consequences for lack of compliance.
968.
Third party validations.
969.
Revalidation.
970.
Noncontainerized cargo.
971.
C–TPAT program management.
972.
Additional personnel.
973.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### Part C—Miscellaneous Provisions

981.
Pilot integrated scanning system.
981a.
Pilot integrated scanning system.
982.
Screening and scanning of cargo containers.
983.
Inspection technology and training.
984.
Repealed.
985.
Information sharing relating to supply chain security cooperation.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—ADMINISTRATION

1001.
Designation of liaison office of Department of State.
1002.
Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee.
1003.
Research, development, test, and evaluation efforts in furtherance of maritime and cargo security.
### §124c. Coordination with information sharing environment

#### (a) Guidance

All activities to comply with sections 124, 124a, and 124b of this title shall be—

(1) consistent with any policies, guidelines, procedures, instructions, or standards established under section 485 of this title;

(2) implemented in coordination with, as appropriate, the program manager for the information sharing environment established under that section;

(3) consistent with any applicable guidance issued by the Director of National Intelligence; and

(4) consistent with any applicable guidance issued by the Secretary relating to the protection of law enforcement information or proprietary information.

#### (b) Consultation

In carrying out the duties and responsibilities under this part, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis shall take into account the views of the heads of the intelligence components of the Department.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title II, §206, as added Pub. L. 110–53, title V, §501(a)(1), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 309.)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9629 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9629

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the exception to the 
 licensure requirement for certain health care professionals providing 
       certain examinations to members of the reserve components.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2024

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the exception to the 
 licensure requirement for certain health care professionals providing 
       certain examinations to members of the reserve components.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reserve Health Readiness and Access 
Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. LICENSURE REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS 
              PROVIDING CERTAIN EXAMINATIONS TO MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE 
              COMPONENTS.

    Section 1094(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``an examination or assessment under section 10206 of this 
title or'' after ``not covered under section 1091 of this title who is 
providing''.
                                 <all>
```
# EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Annual
Report of CyberOptics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Kathleen P. Iverson,
Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey A. Bertelsen, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/   Kathleen P. Iverson                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Kathleen P. IversonChief Executive OfficerMarch 6, 2006

| | /s/   Jeffrey A. Bertelsen                              
| | --------------------------------------------------------
| | Jeffrey A. BertelsenChief Financial OfficerMarch 6, 2006

58

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000


       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAY-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                        MAY-31-1995
<CASH>                                   12,659
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           595,301
<ALLOWANCES>                             60,002
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                2,743,561
<DEPRECIATION>                        1,735,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,811,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 1,786,250
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                608,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   200,000
<PREFERRED>                             176,958
<OTHER-SE>                           (1,357,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,811,479
<SALES>                               4,471,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                 4,471,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         3,238,638
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        199,667
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      177,674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (339,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (339,725)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (339,725)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
        

</TABLE>
Protective Mission

Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056, 

describes the agency’s authority as provided by 

law. Since the U.S. Secret Service’s protective 

mission began in 1901, the agency’s jurisdiction has 

expanded to meet the needs of an evolving security 

environment. The U.S. Secret Service is authorized 

by law to protect: 

• The President of the United States 

 • The Vice President of the United States

• The President’s and Vice President’s immediate 

families

• Former Presidents, their spouses and their minor 

children under the age of 16. In 1997, Congress 

authorized legislation limiting protection of former 

presidents to 10 years after leaving office, making 

President Clinton the last President who will 

receive lifetime Secret Service protection. 

• Foreign heads of state and their spouses visiting the 

United States 

• Major presidential and vice presidential candidates 

and their spouses

• Events designated as National Special Security 

Events by the Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

Investigative Mission

Since its inception in 1865, the U.S. Secret Service’s 

investigative responsibilities have greatly expanded. 

In addition to the Secret Service’s jurisdiction in 

investigating counterfeit currency, its investigative 

authority includes financial institution fraud, access 

device fraud, computer crimes, credit card fraud, 

fraudulent government and commercial securities, 

fictitious financial instruments, telecommunications 

fraud, false identification and identity theft. The 

Secret Service is authorized to seize and forfeit assets 

identified as the proceeds of these financial crimes 

and associated money laundering activities.

The U.S. Secret Service has a pivotal role in securing 

the nation’s critical infrastructures, specifically 

in the areas of telecommunications, banking and 

finance. Other directives address the need to combat 

international organized crime that targets the citizens 

and financial institutions of the United States.

In response to the globalization of technology-based 

threats, the U.S. Secret Service’s investigative mission 

abroad is growing as well, creating the need for a 

heightened overseas liaison presence and employees 

with foreign language skills.
ification and identity theft. The 

authorized to seize and forfeit assets 

identified as the proceeds of these financial crimes 

titutions of the United States.

e globalization of technology-based 

Secret Service’s investigative mission 

g as well, creating the need for a 

eas liaison presence and employees 

guage skills.
For further information about career opportunities 

with the U.S. Secret Service, please call the 

U.S. Secret Service Employment Line at 

1-888-813-USSS (8777) or TTY 202-406-5390 or 

visit www.secretservice.gov/join.

The U.S. Secret Service is an

Equal Opportunity Employer.

Revised, August 2007
James J. ODoherty

602 22nd Street

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

(714) 388-5056

jimodoherty@aol.com

I, James J ODoherty, hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB.14, 2012, Section 333.

I request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quadcopter Aircraft, in order to provide services for profit to include aerial 

photography, aerial cinematography, aerial filming and photography for real estate, construction firms, agricultural modeling, crop monitoring operations, aerial 

mapping, special events to include but not limited to weddings, private or public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events, geological surveying, and 

environmental studies.

The ability to provide these services to other local businesses and individuals in my community will benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have 

before. Traditional methods of aerial photography/videography are simply not viable options for the average consumer as they are costly and involve greater risks to 

everyone involved; i.e. the use of larger aircraft carrying humans and flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be achieved with much safer 

conditions.

Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UAS, I will conduct a Pre-Flight Safety Inspection.

Any and all repairs will be performed only by the manufacturers authorized repair facilities/ providers. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or 

private property without the owners permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within visual line of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 400 feet. The 

FAA can be confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve at least the equivalent or greater level of safety.

The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking exemption are as follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5);

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a);

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c);

14 C.F.R 91.7(a)

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2);

14C.F.R. 91.109(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.119;

14 C.F.R. 91.121;

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1);

14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2};

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b).

Please find the included User Manual, Quick Start Guide, Safety Guide, and Intelligent Flight Battery Safety Guide at the following link.
http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3/download

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

James J. ODoherty
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2008 – KONGRA‐GEL and Others v Council**

**(Case T-253/04)**

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Statement of reasons

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution
– Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 48)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision to freeze
funds directed against certain persons and entities suspected of terrorist activities (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249
EC; Council Regulation No 2580/2001; Council Decision 2004/306) (see paras 76-78)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against an implemented or interrupted measure (Art.
233 EC) (see paras 82-85)*

4.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to freeze funds directed against certain persons
and entities suspected of terrorist activities – Minimum requirements (Art. 253 EC; Council Common Position 2001/931, Art.
1(4) and (6); Council Regulation No 2580/2001) (see paras 95-98)*

5.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings
before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 99-101)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for, first, the partial annulment of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28), and of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70), and, secondly, damages. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC in so far as it concerns KONGRA-GEL; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by the applicants; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay its own costs. |
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Anthony L. Scire, Respondent, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

— Order, entered on May 14, 1963, vacating stay of arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. (See *Matter of Motor Vehicle Ace. Ind. Corp. [Malone],*19 A D 2d 542.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 2103.12 Level of original classification.

Unnecessary classification, and classification at a level higher than is necessary, shall be avoided. If there is reasonable doubt as to which designation in section 1-1 of Executive Order 12065 is appropriate, or whether information should be classified at all, the less restrictive designation should be used, or the information should not be classified.
Map 2-35: Alternative C

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.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 06-0178

FOREST OIL CORPORATION AND DANIEL B. WORDEN, PETITIONERS,

v.

JAMES ARGYLE MCALLEN, EL RUCIO LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, INC., SAN JUANITO LAND PARTNERSHIP, AND MCALLEN TRUST PARTNERSHIP, RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator Forest Oil’s petition for writ of prohibition, filed in 07-0688, is consolidated with the instant proceeding, cause number 06-0178. 

2.The Court, on consideration of the arguments made by the parties in the petition and response filed in 07-0688, and treating the request therein as in substance a motion for a temporary relief in cause number 06-0178, stays all trial court proceedings in Cause No. C-203-05-D, styled *Juan Luis Longoria, Melecio Longoria, Juan Luis Longoria, Jr., Alejandro DeLeon-Casillas, James Argyle McAllen, James Argyle McAllen, Jr., El Rucio Land and Cattle Company, Inc., San Juanito Land Partnership, Ltd., McAllen Trust Partnership, and John R. Willis Management, Ltd. v. Forest Oil Corporation, Daniel B. Worden, and ConocoPhillips Company* in the 206th  District Court in Hidalgo County, pending further order of this Court.  See Tex. R. App. Proc. 29.3 and 29.4. 

2.The petition for writ of prohibition in Cause No. 07-0688 is otherwise dismissed as moot. 

3.The cause on petition for review in Cause No. 06-0178 remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this November 02, 2007.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
# C_2010051EN.01003001.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2010 — Co-Frutta v Commission

(Joined Cases T-355/04 and T-446/04) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the Community market for imports of bananas - Implied refusal of access followed by express refusal - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of third parties - Compliance with time-limits - Prior consent of the Member State - Obligation to state reasons)

2010/C 51/57

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. (Padua, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Visaggio and P. Aalto, initially, and P. Aalto and L. Prete, subsequently, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action in Case T-355/04 for annulment of (i) the decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 rejecting an initial application for access to information concerning operators registered in the Community as importers of bananas and (ii) the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the confirmatory access application and action in Case T-446/04 for annulment of the express decision of the Commission of 10 August 2004 refusing access to the information

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-355/04; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-355/04;

| 2. | Dismisses the action in Case T-446/04; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action in Case T-446/04;

| 3. | Orders Co-Frutta Soc. coop. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Co-Frutta Soc. coop. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---