alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §314a. FEMA programs

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, as of April 1, 2007, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall be responsible for the radiological emergency preparedness program and the chemical stockpile emergency preparedness program.

(Pub. L. 109–347, title VI, §612, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1943.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, also known as the SAFE Port Act, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Change of Name

References to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency considered to refer and apply to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 612(c) of Pub. L. 109–295, set out as a note under section 313 of this title.
##### 



(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 R.H.
Donnelley, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    Steven M. BlondyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    SVP and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 5, 2005
    
    August 5, 2005
  76
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
§ 281.2 Applicability and scope. This part applies to: ( a ) The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as “the DoD Components”).
( b ) The Coast Guard, when it is not operating as a Service in the Navy under agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, and the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service (PHS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under agreements with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Commerce (hereafter referred to collectively as “the non-DoD Components”).
§ 553.39 Scope and applicability. ( a ) *Scope.* The development, maintenance, administration, and operation of the Army Post Cemeteries are governed by this subpart, Army Regulation 290-5, and Department of the Army Pamphlet 290-5. The development, maintenance, administration, and operation of Army National Military Cemeteries are not covered by this subpart.
( b ) *Applicability.* This subpart is applicable to all persons seeking interment or inurnment in Army Post Cemeteries.
#### § 536.25 Procedures for accepting claims.

All ACOs and CPOs will institute procedures to ensure that potential claimants or attorneys speak to a CJA, claims attorney, investigator, or examiner. On initial contact, claims personnel will render assistance, discuss all aspects of the potential claim, and determine what statutes or procedures apply. Assistance will be furnished to the extent set forth in DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-4. To advise claimants on the correct remedy, claims personnel will familiarize themselves with the remedies listed in DA Pam 27-162, paragraphs 2-15 and 2-17.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00272- CV

Erika S aenz Salm eron, Appellant

v. Tiof ilia L ind a Constancio Gove a, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 15- 0029 70, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Erika Saenz Salmeron appea ls from a judgme nt awa rd i n g p o s s ession in a forc ible detainer suit. Her openingbrief w as orig inally due on August 20, 2015. After Salmeron failed to timely file her brief, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to her—on Septe mber 21, 2015—advising that her brief was overdue and that if she did not file a brief or otherwise respond with a rea sonable explanation by October 1, 2015, her appea l would be subject to dismiss al for want of prosec ution. 1 The October 1 deadline has passed, and to date Salmeron has not filed a brief o r o therwise responde d. Acc ording ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of prose cution. 2

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a) (1) (if appellant fails to timely file a brief, this Court is 1 empower ed to dismiss the appea l f or want of prosec ution unless appellant rea sonably explains t he failure and appe llee is not signific antly injured by

that failure ). See id. R. 42.3(b). 2__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Oc tober 15, 2015

2
#### § 552.71 Associations—general.

The recent growth of quasi-military associations offering various insurance plans to military personnel is recognized. Some associations are not organized within the supervision of insurance laws of either the Federal or State Government. While some are organized for profit, others function as nonprofit associations under Internal Revenue Service regulations. Regardless of how insurance plans are offered to members, the management of the association is responsible for assuring that all aspects of its insurance programs comply fully with the instructions of this regulation.
<PAGE>

                 EXHIBIT 11  Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                                        YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                        -----------------------
                                                         1996     1995    1994
                                                        ------   ------  ------
                                                         (in thousands, except
                                                             per share data)
Primary
Average shares outstanding                               5,931    5,432   5,626
Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
treasury method using average market price                   -    1,270       -
                                                        ------   ------  ------
Total                                                    5,931    6,702   5,626
                                                       -------   ------  ------
                                                       -------   ------  ------
Net income (loss)                                      $(2,468)  $  561  $  (90)
                                                       -------   ------  ------
                                                       -------   ------  ------
Per share amount                                       $ (0.42)  $ 0.08  $(0.02)
                                                       -------   ------  ------
                                                       -------   ------  ------
Fully diluted
Average shares outstanding                               5,931    5,432   5,626
Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
treasury stock method using the year-end market
price, if higher than average market price                   -    1,290       -
                                                       -------   ------  ------
Total                                                    5,931    6,722   5,626
                                                       -------   ------  ------
                                                       -------   ------  ------
Net income (loss)                                      $(2,468)  $  561  $  (90)
                                                       -------   ------  ------
                                                       -------   ------  ------
Per share amount                                       $ (0.42)  $(0.08) $(0.02)
                                                       -------   ------  ------
                                                       -------   ------  ------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barry R. Corwin, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed unless records and briefs are filed and served on or before August 10, 1960. Appeal may be prosecuted upon one copy of transcript, and five typewritten copies of other papers constituting record on appeal and five typewritten briefs.
VIA E-MAIL
Subject: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WAS H INGTO N , D .C. 20460

Mesotrione Data Call-In (DCI) Package for Registration Review Dear Sir or Madam: OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the registration review for mesotrione in June 2014 with the opening of a docket and publication of a preliminary work plan. The final work plan was issued in December 2014. Both of these documents , and supporting materials, may be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0779. The Agency is now issuing a DCI to require submission of data for use in the registration review of mesotrione. You must respond to this DCI within 90 days of receipt. Further instructions are provided in the attached DCI package. When initially scoping the registration review for mesotrione EPA did not identify the need for any additional studies to evaluate potential effects on pollinators. However, since the issuance of the June 2014 Guidance forAssessing Pesticide Risks to Bees\ EPA has begun to require these data where applicable. Therefore, the final work plan for mesotrione contained pollinator studies not listed in the initial work plan, and the DCI now contains the entire suite of pollinator studies listed in the Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risk to Bees. For mesotrione, the additional pollinator study requirements for this DCI are included in Table 1 below

. 

### Table 1. Pollinator Data Requirements for Mesotrione Guideline# Study 850.3040** Field testing for pollinators

on-Guideline"t (OECD 213) Honey bee adult acute oral toxicity Non-Guideline** Residues in pollen and nectar/ field residue analysis Non-Guideline** (OECD 75) Semi-field testing for pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies) *T1er 1 Laboratory-based studies. * *T1er 2 and 3 (Serru-field and full field colony-level studies) The need for a higher tier test for pollinators will be determined based upon lower-tiered tests and/ or other lines of data and the need for a refined pollinator risk assessment.

1 http: //www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 14- 6/documents/pollinator risk assessment guidance 06 19 14.pdfFurther instructions for responding to the DCis are enclosed. If you have any questions about this letter, the mesotrione registration review, or the generic DCis for mesotrione, please contactJolene Trujillo of my staff at (303) 312-6579 or trujillo.jolene@epa.gov. Sincerely,

r-.... -- ---- 

# '- ·----

**------** Linda Arrington, Chief Risk Mitigation and Implementation Branch V Pesticide Re-evaluation Division

cc: Heather Garvie Product Manager, Registration Division
#### § 61.1 Purpose.

This part is composed of several subparts, each containing its own purpose. This subpart establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for addressing child abuse and domestic abuse through the FAP.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 115 

Establishing a Women’s Bill of Rights to reaffirm legal protections afforded 

to women under Federal law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Mrs. LESKO (for herself, Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. 

HERN, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. 

WEBER of Texas, Mr. GUEST, Mr. SANTOS, Mr. OGLES, Ms. FOXX, Mr. 

NORMAN, Mr. OWENS, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Ms. HAGEMAN, and Mr. 

DUNCAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Establishing a Women’s Bill of Rights to reaffirm legal 

protections afforded to women under Federal law. 

Whereas males and females possess unique and immutable biological differences that manifest prior to birth and increase as they age and experience puberty; 

Whereas biological differences between the sexes mean that 

only females may get pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed 

children; 

Whereas biological differences between the sexes mean that 

males are, on average, larger in size and possess greater 

body strength than females; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 115 IH 

Whereas biological differences between the sexes can expose 

females to more harm than males from specific forms of 

violence, including sexual violence; 

Whereas women have achieved inspirational and significant 

accomplishments in education, athletics, and employment; 

and 

Whereas recent misguided court rulings related to the definition of ‘‘sex’’ have led to endangerment of spaces and resources dedicated to women, thereby necessitating clarification of certain terms: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives reaf2 firms that— 

3 (1) for purposes of Federal law, a person’s 

4 ‘‘sex’’ means his or her biological sex (either male or 

5 female) at birth; 

6 (2) for purposes of Federal law addressing sex, 

7 the terms ‘‘woman’’ and ‘‘girl’’ refer to human fe8 males, and the terms ‘‘man’’ and ‘‘boy’’ refer to 

9 human males; 

10 (3) for purposes of Federal law, the word 

11 ‘‘mother’’ means a parent of the female sex and ‘‘fa12 ther’’ is defined as a parent of the male sex; 

13 (4) there are important reasons to distinguish 

14 between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons, 

15 domestic violence shelters, restrooms, and other 

16 areas, particularly where biology, safety, and privacy 

17 are implicated; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 115 IH 

1 (5) policies and laws that distinguish between 

2 the sexes are subject to intermediate constitutional 

3 scrutiny and permitted when they serve an impor4 tant governmental objective and are substantially re5 lated to achieving that objective; and 

6 (6) for purposes of complying with Federal laws 

7 that require State and local government agencies to 

8 collect or report data disaggregated by sex, such as 

9 Federal antidiscrimination laws, agencies are re10 quired to base such data on the biological sex of in11 dividuals at birth. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
### §1172. Railroad security enhancements; Model State legislation

Not later than November 2, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation shall develop and make available to States model legislation to address the problem of entities that claim to be railroad carriers in order to establish and run a police force when the entities do not in fact provide railroad transportation. In developing the model State legislation the Secretary shall solicit the input of the States, railroads carriers, and railroad carrier employees. The Secretary shall review and, if necessary, revise such model State legislation periodically.

(Pub. L. 110–53, title XV, §1526(b), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 452.)
##### 



(1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarterly period March 31,
2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Jeffrey A. LudrofJeffrey A. LudrofPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Philip A. GarciaPhilip A. GarciaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
   32
[ARTICLE] 5
[CIK] 0000030831
[NAME] DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-2000
[CASH]                                         133,027
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                  518,393
[ALLOWANCES]                                     6,000
[INVENTORY]                                    967,448
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                             1,660,660
[PP&E]                                       5,635,860
[DEPRECIATION]                               3,735,818
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                               3,582,088
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          374,074
[BONDS]                                      1,651,212
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                         1,498
[OTHER-SE]                                   1,555,304
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                 3,582,088
[SALES]                                      2,653,350
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                             2,653,350
[CGS]                                        1,914,238
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                2,432,057
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             141,912
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 79,381
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             79,381
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    79,381
[EPS-BASIC]                                          0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York v. Walter Creasey.

Order of this court entered on February 2, 1961 assigning Anthony F. Marra, Esq., as counsel for the defendant-appellant, is vacated, and John C. Fontaine, Esq., of 1 Wall St., New York, N. Y., is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant in the place and stead of Anthony F. Marra, Esq. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




The Board of Directors


Given Imaging Ltd:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File No. 333-111310 and 333-152335) on Form S-8 of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. of our report dated March 9, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Given Imaging Ltd. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd.





Our report refers to the adoption by Given Imaging Ltd. of FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, included in ASC Subtopic 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures-Overall and the revised FASB Statement No. 141 included in ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations, effective January 1, 2009.




Somekh Chaikin


Certified Public Accountants (Israel)


Member firm of KPMG International




Haifa, Israel


March 9, 2011
#### In the Matter of Henry Payson, Appellant, v. Joseph J. Caputa, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent, and Meyer M. Stollmack, Intervenor-Respondent.

Order, entered January 19, 1960, dismissing landlord’s petition in an article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. The court has carefully examined the minutes in the two hearings before the State Rent Administrator and finds that the hearing examiner in neither instance was guilty of any unfairness or inadequacy in the conduct of the proceeding. Indeed, any difficulties during the proceedings were caused by undue bickering between the lawyers for the landlord and the tenant. In consequence, the hearing examiner, particularly in the second and later proceedings, conducted not only a very fair hearing, but, considering the circumstances, exhibited a great deal of patience. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
#### Frank A. Hecht *v.*Newman G. Hall *et al.*

*Filed at Ottawa November 9, 1896.*

Appeals and *errors—when Supreme Court cannot review questions of fact.*An affirmance by the Appellate Court of the judgment of the trial court upon questions of fact is conclusive upon those points in a suit at law.

*Hecht*v. *Hall,*62 Ill. App. 100, affirmed.

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.

Remy & Mann, for appellant.

Smith, Helmer, Moulton & Price, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Appellees sued in assumpsit in the circuit court to recover commissions alleged to be due them on a sale of real estate. A jury was waived and a trial had before the court. Judgment was rendered against appellant for §2500. On appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District the judgment was affirmed, whereupon this appeal was prosecuted to this court.

There are no questions presented on this record which can be considered in this court. No propositions of law were presented, and consequently none given or refused.

One of the assignments of error in this court is on-the admission of improper evidence and refusal to admit proper evidence by the trial court, but as the matter is not argued in this court we necessarily conclude it has been abandoned. In fact, an examination of the record *417shows there was no such error. There are, then, no questions of law to be considered. The only questions remaining are those of fact, which are settled by the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*