alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3108. Employment of detective agencies; restrictions

An individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.

(Pub. L. 89– 554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 416.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 53. | Mar. 3, 1893, ch. 208 (5th par. under "Public Buildings"), 27 Stat. 591. |

Statutes at Large

The prohibition is restated in positive form.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28611]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 20-19]


Astra Supply Chain, LLC and TDS Management, LLC, Complainants v. 
Orient Star Transport Int'l LTD., Respondent; Notice of Filing of 
Complaint and Assignment

Served: December 14, 2020.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (Commission) by Astra Supply Chain, LLC., and TDS 
Management, LLC, hereinafter ``Complainants'', against Orient Star 
Transport Int'l. Ltd., hereinafter ``Respondent''.
    Complainant alleges that Respondent violated sections 10(b)(11) and 
10(b)(12) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), and 46 CFR 
515.32(c) with regard to a failure to release containers. The full text 
of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading 
Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/20-19/.
    This proceeding has been assigned to Office of Administrative Law 
Judges. The initial decision of the presiding office in this proceeding 
shall be issued by December 16, 2021, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by June 16, 2022.

Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28611 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GREATE BAY CASINO CORPORATION (FORMERLY
PRATT HOTEL CORPORATION) AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          23,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,948
<INVENTORY>                                      4,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,034
<PP&E>                                         319,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 241,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,793
<BONDS>                                        330,176
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           519
<OTHER-SE>                                   (148,730)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,764
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,558
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   567
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (831)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1470 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1470

     Expanding the jurisdiction of the Task Force on the Attempted 
                   Assassination of Donald J. Trump.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 2024

 Mr. Burgess submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expanding the jurisdiction of the Task Force on the Attempted 
                   Assassination of Donald J. Trump.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF JURISDICTION OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE ATTEMPTED 
              ASSASSINATION OF DONALD J. TRUMP.

    Section 2(a)(1) of House Resolution 1367, One Hundred Eighteenth 
Congress, is amended by inserting ``and on September 15, 2024, in West 
Palm Beach, Florida'' after ``Pennsylvania''.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-5157 ROBERT L. GILBERTSON, and JOAN R. GILBERTSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 05-CV-934, Judge Lawrence J. Block. ON MOTION 

### ORDER The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April 21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 7, 2008 order. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT


### APR 17 

## 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk uAt 

# niridinve N

cc: Sallie W. Gladney, Esq. Deborah K. Snyder, Esq. s20 APR 17 2009
JAPI tiükb, CLERK
### Part B—Mission of the Office
#### § 2400.39 Responsibility and objectives.

The OSTP Security Officer shall establish a security education program for OSTP personnel. The program shall be sufficient to familiarize all OSTP personnel with the provisions of Executive Order 12356 and Directive No. 1, and this regulation. It shall be designed to provide initial, refresher, and termination briefings to impress upon them their individual security responsibilities.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-11216

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BALDEMAR SOLIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-88-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Baldemar Solis presents

arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d

1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States v.

Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court

may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-11216

2

sentence. The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1








The following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 and is not filed as provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes—Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dynamics Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:




(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and




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





Date:  April 29, 2011
/s/ James P. ReganChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 37.1015 How do I decide who must sign the TIA if the recipient is an unincorporated consortium? ( a ) If the recipient is a consortium that is not formally incorporated and the consortium members prefer to have the agreement signed by all of them individually, you may execute the agreement in that manner.
( b ) If they wish to designate one consortium member to sign the agreement on behalf of the consortium as a whole, you should not decide whether to execute the agreement in that way until you review the consortium's articles of collaboration with legal counsel. ( 1 ) The purposes of the review are to: ( i ) Determine whether the articles properly authorize one participant to sign on behalf of the other participants and are binding on all consortium members with respect to the research project; and
( ii ) Assess the risk that otherwise could exist when entering into an agreement signed by a single member on behalf of a consortium that is not a legal entity. For example, you should assess whether the articles of collaboration adequately address consortium members' future liabilities related to the research project (*i.e.,* whether they will have joint and severable liability).
( 2 ) After the review, in consultation with legal counsel, you should determine whether it is better to have all of the consortium members sign the agreement individually or to allow them to designate one member to sign on all members' behalf.
#### Peter J. Ferris, as Trustee, etc., Respondent, *v.*Samuel B. Hard et al., Appellants.

(Argued February 28, 1882;

decided March 7, 1882.)

*Robert F. Little*for appellants.

*Edward G. Hawks*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent.

Appeal dismissed.
### §1375. Regulations

(a) The Secretary shall provide by regulations for the identification, wherever necessary, of corn, wheat, cotton, rice, or peanuts so as to afford aid in discovering and identifying such amounts of the commodities as are subject to and such amounts thereof as are not subject to marketing restrictions in effect under this subchapter.

(b) The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary for the enforcement of this subchapter.

(Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §375, 52 Stat. 66; Apr. 3, 1941, ch. 39, §9, 55 Stat. 92; Pub. L. 108–357, title VI, §611(k), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1523.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–357, §611(k)(1), substituted "or peanuts" for "peanuts, or tobacco".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 108–357, §611(k)(2), which directed amendment of this section by striking out subsec. (c), could not be executed because this section does not contain a subsec. (c).

1941—Subsec. (a). Act Apr. 3, 1941, inserted "peanuts," after "rice,".

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

#### Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–357 applicable to the 2005 and subsequent crops of tobacco, see section 643 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as an Effective Date note under section 518 of this title.

#### Savings Provision

Amendment by sections 611 to 614 of Pub. L. 108–357 not to affect the liability of any person under any provision of law so amended with respect to the 2004 or an earlier crop of tobacco, see section 614 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as a note under section 515 of this title.
#### § 21.640 Cooperative agreement.

A legal instrument which, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition “grant”), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Department of Defense and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the cooperative agreement. The term does not include “cooperative research and development agreements” as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a.
### §1531. Apprehension and prosecution of international cyber criminals

#### (a) International cyber criminal defined

In this section, the term "international cyber criminal" means an individual—

(1) who is believed to have committed a cybercrime or intellectual property crime against the interests of the United States or the citizens of the United States; and

(2) for whom—

(A) an arrest warrant has been issued by a judge in the United States; or

(B) an international wanted notice (commonly referred to as a "Red Notice") has been circulated by Interpol.

#### (b) Consultations for noncooperation

The Secretary of State, or designee, shall consult with the appropriate government official of each country from which extradition is not likely due to the lack of an extradition treaty with the United States or other reasons, in which one or more international cyber criminals are physically present, to determine what actions the government of such country has taken—

(1) to apprehend and prosecute such criminals; and

(2) to prevent such criminals from carrying out cybercrimes or intellectual property crimes against the interests of the United States or its citizens.

#### (c) Annual report

#### (1) In general

The Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report that includes—

(A) the number of international cyber criminals located in other countries, disaggregated by country, and indicating from which countries extradition is not likely due to the lack of an extradition treaty with the United States or other reasons;

(B) the nature and number of significant discussions by an official of the Department of State on ways to thwart or prosecute international cyber criminals with an official of another country, including the name of each such country; and

(C) for each international cyber criminal who was extradited to the United States during the most recently completed calendar year—

(i) his or her name;

(ii) the crimes for which he or she was charged;

(iii) his or her previous country of residence; and

(iv) the country from which he or she was extradited into the United States.

#### (2) Form

The report required by this subsection shall be in unclassified form to the maximum extent possible, but may include a classified annex.

#### (3) Appropriate congressional committees

For purposes of this subsection, the term "appropriate congressional committees" means—

(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Financial Services, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

(Pub. L. 114–113, div. N, title IV, §403, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2979.)
#### § 21.525 Who issues policy guidance for the DAADS?

The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (PDASD(R&E)), or his or her designee, issues necessary policy guidance for the Defense Assistance Awards Data System.

[68 FR 47153, Aug. 7, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 51241, Aug. 19, 2020]
ROBERT J. MARTINEAU , JR
. COMMISSIONER
October 23, 20 I 4 STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION NASHV ILL E , TE NN ESSEE 37243 · 0435

Honorable Heather McTe e r Toney United States Environmenta l Protection Agency Region IV Atlanta Federal Ce nter 6 I Fors y th Street , S W At la nt a , GA 3 0 3 0 3-3 I0 4
Dear Admini strator McTeer Toney, BILL HASLAM GOVE RNOR

T hi s letter is in reply to EPA's letter to Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam of Augu st I 9, 20 I4
. That letter out lined E PA 's re spo n se to Tennessee 's initial recommendations of attainment a reas for the 20 I 2 PM 25 NAAQS , out lin ed in our letter of December 9 , 20 I 3. Afte r ca reful considera tion of E PA ' s resp o n se, Te nne ssee rep! ies that Hami I t o n , Mari o n a nd Sequatc hi e Co unti es in Tenn essee s hould be desi g nated as unclas s ifi able- a ttainment in that the most recent ai r monitoring d at a s upports the designati o n r eco mm endation. A s for the remaining counties in Ten n essee, w e recomme nd that E PA exercise it s def erra l a uthorit y in makin g final designation s a s we shou ld soon have a comp lete three year data set to s upp o rt a final d es i g nation
. T hank yo u for your favorable co n s id e rati o n of th i s recommendation
. Technical que s ti o n s s h ou ld be add ressed to o ur department's air pollution contro l director, Barry R. St e phen s, P. E. at (615) 532-0525 or Ba n -y.S tep he n s@ tn .gov .

Ro b e rt J
. Martineau , Jr
. Co mmi ss ion e r Co py to: Beverly Banister, EPA Re g ion IV Air, P es ti c ides and Toxics M anage ment Divi s io n Progra m Dir ec tor Tennessee Air Pollution Cont rol Board Me mb ers Tenne s see Loca l Air Po lluti on Co ntrol Pro gra m Directors TDEC Div is io n of A ir Pollution Co n tro l
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

 

(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-182192) of McEwen Mining Inc.,

 

(2) Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-178306) of McEwen Mining Inc., and

 

(3) Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-144563, 333-144569, 333-112269, 333-36600, 333-179144 and 333-179143);

 

of our report dated April 25, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Minera Santa Cruz S.A. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) of McEwen Mining Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2012.

 

City of Buenos Aires, Argentina

 

April 25, 2014

 

 
|   | /s/   Pistrelli, Henry Martin y Asociados S.R.L. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   | PISTRELLI,   HENRY MARTIN Y ASOCIADOS S.R.L.     |
|   | Member of Ernst & Young Global          |

 

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDigital multishaker modal testingA review of several modal testing techniques is made, along with brief discussions of their advantages and limitations. A new technique is presented which overcomes many of the previous limitations. Several simulated experiments are included to verify the validity and accuracy of the new method. Conclusions are drawn from the simulation studies and recommendations for further work are presented. The complete computer code configured for the simulation study is presented.Document ID19840007454Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBlair, M.*(Texas Univ. Austin, TX, United States)*Craig, R. R., Jr.*(Texas Univ. Austin, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1983Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:170951NASA-CR-170951CAR-83-1Accession Number84N15522Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-33980Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840007454.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 37.530 What criteria do I use in deciding whether to accept a recipient's cost sharing? You may accept any cash or in-kind contributions that meet all of the following criteria: ( a ) In your judgment, they represent meaningful cost sharing that demonstrates the recipient's commitment to the success of the research project. Cash contributions clearly demonstrate commitment and they are strongly preferred over in-kind contributions.
( b ) They are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of the research project's objectives.
( c ) They are costs that may be charged to the project under § 37.625 and § 37.635, as applicable to the participant making the contribution.
( d ) They are verifiable from the recipient's records.
( e ) They are not included as cost sharing contributions for any other Federal award.
( f ) They are not paid by the Federal Government under another award, except: ( 1 ) Costs that are authorized by Federal statute to be used for cost sharing; or
( 2 ) Independent research and development (IR&D) costs, as described at 32 CFR 34.13(a)(5)(ii), that meet all of the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. IR&D is acceptable as cost sharing, even though it may be reimbursed by the Government through other awards. It is standard business practice for all for-profit firms, including commercial firms, to recover their research and development (R&D) costs (which for Federal procurement contracts is recovered as IR&D) through prices charged to their customers. Thus, the cost principles at 48 CFR part 31 allow a for-profit firm that has expenditure-based, Federal procurement contracts to recover through those procurement contracts the allocable portion of its R&D costs associated with a technology investment agreement.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND , TEXAS JUDGMENT
Toronto Clayvernon Williams
, * From the 70 th District Court of Ector County, Trial Court No. A

- 18

- 1436

- CR

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 184

- CR * January 16 , 20 20

The State of Texas
, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment ) ( Willson , J., not participating)
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion, w e modify the judgment of the trial court to change the Time Payment Fee from $25.00 to $2.50 and affirm the judgment as modified

.