alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 110.40 Commission review. ( a ) Immediately after receipt of a license application for an export or import requiring a specific license under this part, the Commission will initiate its licensing review and, to the maximum extent feasible, will expeditiously process the application concurrently with any applicable review by the Executive Branch.
( b ) The Commissioners shall review a license application for export of the following: ( 1 ) A production or utilization facility.
( 2 ) More than 5 effective kilograms of high-enriched uranium, plutonium or uranium-233.
( 3 ) An export involving assistance to end uses related to isotope separation, chemical reprocessing, heavy water production, advanced reactors, or the fabrication of nuclear fuel containing plutonium, except for exports of source material or low-enriched uranium to EURATOM, the United Kingdom, or Japan for enrichment up to 5 percent in the isotope uranium-235, and those categories of exports which the Commission has approved in advance as constituting permitted incidental assistance.
( 4 ) The initial export to a country since March 10, 1978 of source or special nuclear material for nuclear end use.
( 5 ) An initial export to any country listed in § 110.28 or § 110.29 involving over: ( i ) 10 grams of plutonium, uranium-233 or high-enriched uranium;
( ii ) 1 effective kilogram of low-enriched uranium;
( iii ) 250 kilograms of source material;
( iv ) 250 kilograms of heavy water for nuclear end use; or
( v ) 37 TBq (1,000 curies) of tritium.
( 6 ) The export of radioactive material listed in Table 1 of Appendix P of this part involving: ( i ) Exceptional circumstances in § 110.42(e); or
( ii ) Category 1 quantities of material to any country listed in § 110.28.
( c ) The Commission will review export and import license applications raising significant policy issues.
( d ) If the Commission has not completed action on a license application within 60 days after receipt of the Executive Branch judgment, as provided for in § 110.41, or the license application when an Executive Branch judgment is not required, it will inform the applicant in writing of the reason for delay and, as appropriate, provide follow-up reports.
[75 FR 44090, July 28, 2010, as amended at 85 FR 86795, Dec. 31, 2020; 86 FR 55479, Oct. 6, 2021]
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 146

Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2005

Mr. JINDAL (for himself and Mr. BOUSTANY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

RESOLUTION

Expressing support for prayer at school board meetings.

Whereas the freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be a fundamental and 

unalienable right belonging to all individuals; 

Whereas the United States was founded on the principle of 

freedom of religion and not freedom from religion; 

Whereas the framers intended that the First Amendment 

would prohibit the Federal Government from enacting 

any law which favors one religious denomination over another, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference 

to God in civic dialog; 
2

•HRES 146 IH 

Whereas in 1983, the United States Supreme Court held in 

Marsh v. Chambers that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric 

of our society and to invoke divine guidance on a public 

body entrusted with making the laws is not a violation 

of the Establishment Clause, but rather is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the 

people of this Nation; 

Whereas voluntary prayer in elected bodies should not be limited to prayer in State legislatures and the Congress; 

Whereas the Tangipahoa School Board is a deliberative body 

of adults similar to a legislature in that it is elected by 

the people, acts in the public interest, and is open to the 

public for voluntary attendance; 

Whereas the Tangipahoa School Board enjoys a long-standing tradition of opening board meetings with voluntary 

prayer; and 

Whereas voluntary prayer by an elected body should be protected under law and encouraged in society because voluntary prayer has become a part of the fabric of our society, voluntary prayer acknowledges beliefs widely held 

among the people of this Nation, and the Supreme Court 

has held that it is not a violation of the Establishment 

Clause for a public body to invoke divine guidance: Now, 

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) recognizes that prayer before school board 

3 meetings is a protected act in accordance with the 

4 fundamental principles upon which the Nation was 

5 founded; 
3

•HRES 146 IH 

1 (2) strongly disapproves of a decision by the 

2 United States District Court for the Eastern Dis3 trict of Louisiana, which ruled against the 

4 Tangipahoa School Board opening its meetings with 

5 prayer; and 

6 (3) expresses support for the practice of prayer 

7 at the beginning of school board meetings.

Æ
#### Joseph D. Robinson, Respondent, v CSX Transportation, Appellant.

Submitted August 13, 2007;

decided November 27, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 1384.

Motion by the Association of American Railroads for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.

Judge Read taking no part.
Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*November 13, 2007*

[Cite as *11/12/2007 Case Announcements,*2007-Ohio-5989.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-2056.

#### State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators’ Labor Council v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of respondents’ motions to strike,

It is ordered by the court that paragraphs 5-11 of the affidavit of Frank P. Madonia filed on October 9, 2007, and paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Stewart D. Roll filed on October 9, 2007 are stricken. The motions are otherwise denied.

On relators’ motion to strike respondents’ October 19 motion to strike affidavits and for sanctions, It is ordered that the motions are granted, and respondents’ October 19 motion to strike affidavits is stricken.

On relators’ motions for show-cause contempt order and for sanctions,

It is hereby found that respondents are in contempt of the court’s writ and that respondents are ordered to immediately comply with the writ by paying all of the city’s construction-equipment operators and master mechanics the difference between the prevailing wage rates and the lower rates they were paid for the period from May 1, 1994, through February 14, 2005, less the collective-bargaining offset of $2,500 for those employees who worked during the period from January 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005, plus post-judgment interest from the date of the writ.

It is further ordered that relators be awarded attorney fees related to their motions. Relators’ counsel is directed to submit a bill and documentation in support of the award, in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Rule 1.5 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, within ten days of the date of this entry, respondents may file objections to relators’ bill and documentation within ten days of the filing of the bill and documentation, and relators may file a reply to respondents’ objections, if any, within five days of the filing of the objections.

Relators’ remaining motion to strike and respondents’ remaining motions for protective order, to quash subpoenas, and for referral to mediation are rendered moot by this decision.

O’Donnell, J., dissents and would issue a show-cause contempt order, schedule evidence and briefing, and hold all other motions in abeyance.

Lanzinger, J., not participating.
Subpart 2444.2 - Contract Clauses

Parent topic: PART 2444 - SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

2444.204 Contract clauses.

(a) Insert HUDAR clause 2452.244-70 Consent to Subcontract, in contracts and task orders with an

estimated value exceeding $10,000,000.
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 33 Filed 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 1316.1 - Selecting Contract Types

**Parent topic:**PART 1316 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS

## 1316.103 Negotiating contract type.

## 1316.103-70 Identifying contract type.

The type of contract shall be stated in each contract awarded.
§ 993.62 Diversion privileges. ( a ) *Prune plums.* The words *prune plums* as used in this section mean plums of a variety used in the production of prunes.
( b ) *Voluntary principle.* No producer shall be required to divert all or any portion of the prune plums produced by him.
( c ) *Authorization.* If, on the basis of a committee recommendation for diversion operations, the availability of governing rules and procedures established by the Secretary after recommendation of the committee, and other information, the Secretary concurs that diversion operations should be permitted, he shall authorize such operations.
( d ) *Diversion certificates.* After diversion operations are authorized, and subject to the applicable rules and procedures, any producer may divert prune plums of his own production for eligible purposes and receive from the committee a diversion certificate therefor: *Provided,* That diversion certificates for prune plums diverted by producer members of a cooperative marketing association shall be issued by the committee to the association if it so requests. To the extent permitted by the rules and procedures, the certificate may be submitted to any handler in lieu of reserve prunes and to the same extent the certificate shall entitle the handler to satisfy his reserve obligation. Only to the extent permitted by the rules and procedures, diversion certificates may be transferable among producers and handlers.
( e ) *Eligible diversions.* Within such restrictions as may be prescribed in rules and procedures, diversion may be authorized for such dispositions as are not competitive with the normal marketing of prunes and prune products. Such eligible diversions may include: ( 1 ) Disposal of prune plums for nonhuman use;
( 2 ) leaving prune plums unharvested; and
( 3 ) such other methods of diversion as may be authorized. No diversion certificate shall be issued by the committee for prune plums which would not, under normal producer practices, be dried and delivered to a handler.
( f ) *Nonparticipation in pool proceeds.* Any prune plums diverted pursuant to this section shall not be included in any reserve pool.
( g ) *Payment of costs.* Prior to the issuance of a diversion certificate to a producer or a cooperative marketing association, the producer or association shall pay to the committee fees established to cover costs pertaining to the diversion.
[30 FR 9800, Aug. 6, 1965]
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 72 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket No. 101207607-0607-02]

Privacy Act System of Records

AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/
CENSUS-8, Statistical Administrative Records System.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce publishes this notice to announce 
the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled 
COMMERCE/CENSUS-8, Statistical Administrative Records System.

DATES: The system of records becomes effective on December 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to: 
Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Room HQ-8H168, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, 
Room HQ-8H168, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-3700, 301-763-
6560.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 27, 2010, the Department of 
Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed Privacy Act 
System of Records notice entitled COMMERCE/CENSUS-8, Statistical 
Administrative Records System (75 FR 66061). No comments were received 
in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department 
is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective 
December 15, 2010.

    Dated: December 9, 2010.
Brenda Dolan,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-31422 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
Searched for **http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00018-CV 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF H.P., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 140th District Court 

 Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2021-544,580, Honorable Kelley Tesch, Associate Judge Presiding 

February 16, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, S.S., attempts to appeal the associate judge’s order terminating her

parental rights to H.P., a child.1 The associate judge signed the “report and order” on 

January 23, 2023. A day later, S.S. filed a “Notice of Appeal From Associate Judge’s 

Ruling and Request for De Novo Trial.” Although the title of the document includes

“Notice of Appeal,” it only requests a de novo hearing before the referring court. 

1 To protect the privacy of the parties involved, we refer to them by their initials. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2

Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments. Lehmann 

v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. 

§ 109.002(b) (permitting appeals from final orders). Because S.S. filed a request for de 

novo review within three working days of the associate judge’s order, the order is not a 

final order. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 201.007(14), (16) (concerning finality of 

associate judge orders); 201.015 (permitting de novo hearings before referring court), 

201.016(b) (identifying controlling date for purposes of appeal); 201.2041(a) (concerning 

associate judge orders in child protection cases); 201.2042 (permitting de novo hearings 

before referring court in child protection cases). And, we have found no statutory authority 

granting an immediate appeal from such an interlocutory order. See Stary v. DeBord, 

967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to 

consider immediate appeals from interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides 

appellate jurisdiction.”).

By letter of January 26, 2023, we notified S.S. that it did not appear we had 

jurisdiction over the appeal. We directed her to show grounds for continuing the appeal 

by February 6, 2023, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. S.S. did not 

respond to our letter and has had no further communication with this Court to date.

Because there is no final order in this case, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)

Per Curiam
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1320 Responsibility and power of the Presiding Officer in an oral hearing. ( a ) The Presiding Officer in any oral hearing shall conduct a fair hearing, develop a record that will contribute to informed decisionmaking, and, within the framework of the Commission's orders, have the power necessary to achieve these ends, including the power to: ( 1 ) Take action to avoid unnecessary delay and maintain order;
( 2 ) Dispose of procedural requests;
( 3 ) Question participants and witnesses, and entertain suggestions as to questions which may be asked of participants and witnesses.
( 4 ) Order consolidation of participants;
( 5 ) Establish the order of presentation;
( 6 ) Hold conferences before or during the hearing;
( 7 ) Establish time limits;
( 8 ) Limit the number of witnesses; and
( 9 ) Strike or reject duplicative, unreliable, immaterial, or irrelevant presentations.
( b ) Where the Commission itself does not preside: ( 1 ) The Presiding Officer may certify questions or refer rulings to the Commission for decision;
( 2 ) Any hearing order may be modified by the Commission; and
( 3 ) The Presiding Officer will certify the completed hearing record to the Commission, which may then issue its decision on the hearing or provide that additional testimony be presented.
SUBCHAPTER F - SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF

CONTRACTING

PART 2436 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

PART 2437 - SERVICE CONTRACTING

PART 2439 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

PART 2436 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

Subpart 2436.6 - Architect-Engineer Services

2436.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.

2436.602-2 Evaluation boards.

2436.602-4 Selection authority.

2436.602-5 Short selection processes for contracts not to exceed the small

purchase limitation.

PART 2437 - SERVICE CONTRACTING

Subpart 2437.1 - Service Contracts - General

2437.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

Subpart 2437.2 - Advisory and Assistance Services

2437.204 Guidelines for determining availability of personnel.

PART 2439 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

2439.107 Contract clauses.
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 7 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 9 of 9
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
|    |                                                                                            |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |
| Date:  | October 8, 2014 |   | By: |   | /s/ Terrance M. Paradie |
|   |   |   |   |   | Terrance M. Paradie |
|   |   |   |   |   | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-7050 CLODOALDO FAUSTINO SALAS, a/k/a Aldo Salas, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-93-12-MU, CA-97-132-3-4-MU) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Clodoaldo Faustino Salas, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) as barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Subsequent to the district court's order, we concluded that "a prisoner whose statutory right to seek federal habeas relief accrued prior to the AEDPA must receive a reasonable period of time after the statute's effective date to file his petition." See Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370, 374 (4th Cir. 1998). We determined that a reasonable period is one year from the effective date of the AEDPA--April, 23, 1997. Id. at 375.Because Appellant's conviction became final prior to the implementation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. Appellant's § 2255motion was dated and sworn on April 22, 1997, and filed in the district court on April 28, 1997. We conclude Appellant's motion was not time barred. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)(notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials); see also Burns v. Morton , 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houstonto the filing of habeas); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep't , 947 F.2d 733, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houston to filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitation purposes). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2