alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1818 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow importation 

of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before the date 

the polar bear was determined to be a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

allow importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport 

hunts in Canada before the date the polar bear was 

determined to be a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Polar Bear Conserva5 tion and Fairness Act of 2013’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1818 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION OF POLAR BEAR TRO2 PHIES TAKEN IN SPORT HUNTS IN CANADA. 

3 Section 104(c)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protec4 tion Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374(c)(5)(D)) is amended 

5 to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(D)(i) The Secretary of the Interior shall, ex7 peditiously after the expiration of the applicable 30- 

8 day period under subsection (d)(2), issue a permit 

9 for the importation of any polar bear part (other 

10 than an internal organ) from a polar bear taken in 

11 a sport hunt in Canada to any person— 

12 ‘‘(I) who submits, with the permit applica13 tion, proof that the polar bear was legally har14 vested by the person before February 18, 1997; 

15 or 

16 ‘‘(II) who has submitted, in support of a 

17 permit application submitted before May 15, 

18 2008, proof that the polar bear was legally har19 vested by the person before May 15, 2008, from 

20 a polar bear population from which a sport21 hunted trophy could be imported before that 

22 date in accordance with section 18.30(i) of title 

23 50, Code of Federal Regulations. 

24 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall issue permits under 

25 clause (i)(I) without regard to subparagraphs (A) 

26 and (C)(ii) of this paragraph, subsection (d)(3), and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1818 IH

1 sections 101 and 102. Sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 

2 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the importation of any 

3 polar bear part authorized by a permit issued under 

4 clause (i)(I). This clause shall not apply to polar 

5 bear parts that were imported before June 12, 1997. 

6 ‘‘(iii) The Secretary shall issue permits under 

7 clause (i)(II) without regard to subparagraph (C)(ii) 

8 of this paragraph or subsection (d)(3). Sections 

9 101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) shall not apply to the 

10 importation of any polar bear part authorized by a 

11 permit issued under clause (i)(II). This clause shall 

12 not apply to polar bear parts that were imported be13 fore the date of enactment of the Polar Bear Con14 servation and Fairness Act of 2013.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
119 So.2d 848

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through The DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. David A. HERNDON, Jr.

No. 45001.

April 25, 1960.

D. Ross Banister, Glenn S. Darsey, Norman L. Sisson, Ben C. Norgress, Brunswig Sholars, Chester E. Martin, Baton Rouge,, for plaintiff-applicant.

Malcolm W. Feist, Shreveport, for defendant.

VIOSCA, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari in this case to review an order of the district judge commanding the plaintiff to produce in court the appraisal reports and any other written data and material in the possession of plaintiff used by either or both of its expert witnesses in a suit against defendant to expropriate his property for highway purposes and we issued a stay order suspending further proceedings pending our *749determination of the issues involved. Subsequent thereto the defendant, in order to expedite the trial of the case, filed a motion to withdraw his application for the order in question and requested the district court to revoke the order granting the motion, which was done.

It necessarily follows that the issue is moot and there remains nothing before us for consideration. Brown v. Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc., 212 La. 698, 33 So.2d 200; Tyson v. Spearman, 187 La. 223, 174 So. 269. The case of First National Bank Building Company Ltd., v. Dickson & Denny, 202 La. 970, 13 So.2d 283 cited by plaintiff clearly has no application.

For the reasons assigned, the writs and stay order heretofore issued herein are recalled.
## Other Youth Topics

## Breadcrumb

            -  Youth Topics 
            -  Opportunity Youth 
            -  Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3) 
            -  Round 3 (FY 2016) 
            -           Round 3 Pilot Site Orientation      

# Round 3 Pilot Site Orientation

On November 17, 2017, representatives from the third round of P3 Pilot Sites gathered for an orientation webinar to learn about the Federal agency partners, the technical assistance providers, and the project evaluator. In addition to introductions, this orientation provided the grantees with opportunities to ask questions and share information about their project.

Watch the webinar **recording**.

Download the presentation **slides** (PDF, 30 pages) and **transcript** (PDF, 13 pages).

## Re-Connect Menu

-  Overview 
-  Evaluation 
-  Round 5 (FY 2021) 
-  Round 4 (FY 2018 and FY 2019) 
-  Round 3 (FY 2016)    -  Round 3 Pilot Site Orientation 
  -  Round 3 NIA FAQs 
  -  Round 3 Bidders Conference 
  -  Round 3 Bidders Conference Recording 
  -  Round 3 Program List 
  -  Round 3 Blog Post (2016) 
-  Round 2 (FY 2015) 
-  Round 1 (FY 2014) 
-  Background
Exhibit 32.1





Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Sundaram Nagarajan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nordson Corporation, an Ohio corporation (the “ Company ”), do hereby certify that, to the bet of my knowledge:


1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2023 of the Company (the “ Form 10-Q ”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


2. Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: February 23, 2023/s/ Sundaram NagarajanSundaram NagarajanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 160.67 Fees under cooperative agreements.

Fees and charges for any inspection and grading service covered by the terms of any cooperative agreement with any interested person may be established by and incorporated into such agreement.
§ 1728.203 Inspector's qualifications. Inspection agencies must assure borrowers that employees assigned to the inspection of timber products and preservative treatments are competent and experienced. In general, any of the following examples are considered as minimum qualifying experience before an individual may be permitted to inspect timber products for borrowers: ( a ) Three years of direct experience inspecting untreated and treated utility products; or
( b ) Three years of direct experience conducting in-plant quality control work at a treating plant producing treated utility products; or
( c ) Under the direct supervision of an experienced, qualified inspector, the individual shall have performed the following: ( 1 ) For poles, inspected at least 10,000 individual untreated poles, and checked preservative penetration on at least 3,000 individual poles;
( 2 ) For crossarms, inspected at least 5,000 individual untreated arms and checked penetration on at least 500 individual arms;
( 3 ) Conducted at least 100 retention assays, including at least 25 analyses for each different preservative treatment being inspected.
( d ) In both paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the experience should be not less than that required in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) Individuals involved in the inspection of more than one commodity must have the minimum experience required in paragraph (c) of this section for each respective product.
[84 FR 28200, June 18, 2019]
#### § 1486.501 Evaluation.

Project evaluations may be carried out by CCC at its option with or without Recipients. CCC may also seek outside expertise to conduct or participate in evaluations.
Exhibit 10.12

 

Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC

Non-Employee Director Compensation Arrangement

 

Directors of Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC who are not officers, employees or paid consultants are entitled to be paid the following (pro-rated for time served):

 

1.                                      An annual retainer of $50,000, to be paid quarterly in arrears;

 

2.                                      An annual retainer of $10,000 for the Chairperson of the Audit Committee, to be paid quarterly in arrears;

 

3.                                      An annual retainer of $5,000 for the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee of the Board, to be paid quarterly in arrears;

 

4.                                      An annual retainer of $2,500 for the Chairperson of the Conflicts Committee of the Board, to be paid quarterly in arrears;

 

5.                                      $1,500 for each Board meeting attended (whether in person or telephonically);

 

6.                                      $1,200 for each Committee (Audit, Compensation or Conflicts) meeting attended (whether attended in person or telephonically);

 

7.                                      A per diem amount for assistance with special projects, in an amount commensurate with the amount payable for attendance at Board or Committee meetings; and

 

8.                                      An annual equity grant of common units of Southcross Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) pursuant to the Partnership’s 2012 Long-Term Incentive Plan equivalent to $75,000 divided by the average of the closing daily sales price of the Partnership’s common units for the ten trading days immediately prior to April 1 of each year.
§ 1744.209 Records. ( a ) The records of borrowers, including records relating to qualified investments, shall be subject to the auditing procedures prescribed in part 1773 of this chapter. RUS reserves the right to review the records of the borrower relating to qualified investments to determine if the borrower is in compliance with this subpart.
( b ) Borrowers shall report to RUS on the end-of-year operating report, RUS Form 479, the current status and principal amount of each qualified investment it has made or is committed to make pursuant to § 1744.202.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0098)
EX-10.17



 Exhibit 10.17 
 ADDENDUM NO. 3 
 to the 

AUTOMOBILE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT 
 Effective: September 1, 2011 
 (the “Contract”) 

issued to 

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY 
 Burr Ridge, Illinois 
 (the “Company”) 

by 
 THE
SUBSCRIBING REINSURER(S) IDENTIFIED 
 IN THE INTERESTS AND LIABILITIES AGREEMENT(S) 

ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF THE CONTRACT 
 (the “Reinsurer”) 
 RECITALS 

 

	A.	The Company and the Reinsurer entered into the Contract effective September 1, 2011. 


 

	B.	Paragraph C of Article 2 – Term – of the Contract provides that “in the event that no approval is obtained from the Illinois Department of Insurance by
February 28, 2012, this Contract shall be null and void at inception and any amounts previously paid either party shall be returned.” 

  

	C.	As of February 28, 2012, the Company believes it had resolved all outstanding issues with the Illinois Department of Insurance with respect to the Contract.


  

	D.	On March 5, 2012, the Illinois Department of Insurance issued its written approval of the Contract. 


 

	E.	Notwithstanding the March 5, 2012 written approval by the Illinois Department of Insurance, Company and Reinsurer have continued to operate as though the Contract
is in full force and effect at all times subsequent to and including February 28, 2012. 

  

	F.	Article 35 of the Contract provides that the Contract may only be modified or changed by an amendment to the Contract in writing signed by both parties.


  

	G.	The Company and the Reinsurer desire to make clear that the Contract is, and at all times since September 1, 2011 has been, in full force and effect
notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph C, Article 2 – Term. 








 AMENDMENT 
  

	A.	Effective February 28, 2012, paragraph C of Article 2 – Term – of the Contract is deleted. 


 

	B.	The Company and the Reinsurer agree that neither party shall invoke paragraph C of Article 2 – Term – of the Contract as the basis for voiding or otherwise
terminating the Contract. 

 All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain unchanged. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Addendum to be executed by its duly authorized representative(s) 

This
15th day of November, in the year 2012. 

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY 
  

	
	/s/ Michael J. McClure

 AUTOMOBILE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT 







 ENDORSEMENT NO. 3 

to the 

INTERESTS AND LIABILITIES AGREEMENT 
 Effective: September 1, 2011 
 (the “Agreement”) 

of 

AUTOMOBILE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT 
 Effective: September 1, 2011 
 (the “Contract”) 

issued to 

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY 
 Burr Ridge, Illinois 
 (the “Company”) 

Addendum No. 3 to the Contract, as executed by the Company, shall form part of the Contract, effective February 28, 2012. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Subscribing Reinsurer has caused this Endorsement to be executed by its duly authorized representative(s) 

this
13th day of November, in the year 2012. 

GREENLIGHT REINSURANCE LTD. 
  

	
	/s/ Jim Ehman

 AUTOMOBILE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28782]


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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Date and Time:  Friday, November 19, 2010, 11 a.m.

Place:  Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

Subject:  Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. The BBG will be considering 
protection of BBG journalists, a resolution regarding the Agency's 
Ethics Program, a report from the Board's Governance Committee, a 
status report from the International Broadcasting Bureau Coordinating 
Committee, and research presentations by InterMedia and Gallup. The 
meeting is open to the public--but due to space limitations via Webcast 
only--and will be streamed live on the BBG's public Web site at http://www.bbg.gov. The meeting will also be made available on the BBG's 
public Web site for on-demand viewing.

Contact Person for More Information:  Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-28782 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
#### § 1726.18 Pre-loan contracting.

Borrowers must consult with RUS prior to entering into any contract for material, equipment, or construction if a construction work plan, general funds, loan or loan guarantee for the proposed work has not been approved. While the RUS staff will work with the borrower in such circumstances, nothing contained in this part is to be construed as authorizing borrowers to enter into any contract before the availability of funds has been ascertained by the borrower and all environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, have been met.

[81 FR 11027, Mar. 2, 2016]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Iver Gardea Ramirez, * From the 385th District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR41936.

Vs. No. 11-14-00045-CR * April 3, 2014

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Iver Gardea Ramirez’s motion to dismiss his appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsContinuous hydroponic wheat production using a recirculating systemContinuous crop production, where plants of various ages are growing simultaneously in a single recirculating nutrient solution, is a possible alternative to batch production in a Controlled Ecological Life Support System. A study was conducted at John F. Kennedy Space Center where 8 trays (0.24 sq m per tray) of Triticum aestivum L. Yecora Rojo were grown simultaneously in a growth chamber at 23 C, 65 percent relative humidity, 1000 ppm CO2, continuous light, with a continuous flow, thin film nutrient delivery system. The same modified Hoagland nutrient solution was recirculated through the plant trays from an 80 L reservoir throughout the study. It was maintained by periodic addition of water and nutrients based on chemical analyses of the solution. The study was conducted for 216 days, during which 24 trays of wheat were consecutively planted (one every 9 days), 16 of which were grown to maturity and harvested. The remaining 8 trays were harvested on day 216. Grain yields averaged 520 g m(exp -2), and had an average edible biomass of 32 percent. Consecutive yields were unaffected by nutrient solution age. It was concluded that continual wheat production will work in this system over an extended period of time. Certain micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities posed problems and must be addressed in future continuous production systems.Document ID19900009537Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMackowiak, C. L.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Owens, L. P.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Hinkle, C. R.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Prince, R. P.*(NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center Cocoa Beach, FL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1989Subject CategoryLife Sciences (General)Report/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102784NASA-TM-102784Accession Number90N18853Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS10-10285Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900009537.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
#### § 170.11 How are farmers and vendors selected for participation in the USDA Farmers Market?

USDA reviews all applications and selects participants based primarily on the type of farmer or vendor (i.e., fruit, vegetable, herb, baker) and secondly, on the specific types of products to be sold. The selection of the participants is conducted by the market management to ensure a balanced product mix of fruits, vegetables, herbs, value-added products, and baked goods.
#### §§ 15e.141-15e.148 [Reserved]
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00109

- CV

Sam F.

v.

Mona Hamamiyah §

§

§

§ From the 324th District Court

o f Tarrant County (324

- 546069

- 13 )

November 20, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Sam F. shall pay all of the costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
#### MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. WILKERSON et al.

No. 6721.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 14, 1954.

Decided Jan. 30, 1954.

*246Ernest G. Garrett, Jr., Richmond, Va. (John G. May, Jr., Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellant.

J. Segar Gravatt, Blackstone, Va., and Robert K. Brock, Farmville, Va., for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs on an automobile liability insurance policy issued to one Dowdy pursuant to the provisions of section 492 of ch. 46 of the Code of Virginia of 1950. That section requires that insurance be carried by the owner of an automobile providing minimum liability for any one accident of $5,000 for injuries to one person, $10,000 for injuries to two or more persons and $1,000 property damage. Section 498(6) of ch. 46 provides that no violation of the terms of the policy by the insured “shall operate to defeat or avoid the policy so as to bar recovery within the limits provided in this chapter.” The policy issued to Dowdy was in the standard form and contained a provision that the company would pay “all interest accruing after entry of judgment until the company has paid, tendered or deposited in court such part of such judgment as does not exceed the limit of the company’s liability thereon”.

Dowdy’s automobile was in a collision in which three persons were injured. They sued him and recovered judgments aggregating around $47,000. Dowdy failed to notify the company to defend these suits in accordance with the provisions of the policy with the result that the company is liable only because of the provisions of section 498(6) of ch. 46 of the Code and within the limits there specified. The three persons who sued the insured have sued the company in the case now before us; and the company while admitting liability for $11,-000 for personal injury and property damage with interest thereon and costs, denies any further liability. Plaintiffs contend that the company is liable, under the language of the policy above quoted, for all interest on the judgments in their behalf from the time that they were rendered until the company paid into court the amount of its admitted liability. The District Judge so held and the company has appealed from his holding. The only question involved in the appeal is the amount of interest for which the company is liable between the entry of the judgment and the company’s payment into court of its admitted liability. For reasons adequately stated by the District Judge in his opinion, 119 F.Supp. 383, we think that his decision was correct and should be affirmed.

Affirmed.