alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

§ 4.340 Exhaustion of administrative remedies. ( a ) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if— ( 1 ) 180 days have elapsed since the complainant filed the complaint and NRC has made no finding with regard to the complaint; or
( 2 ) NRC issues any finding in favor of the recipient.
( b ) If NRC fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of the recipient, NRC will— ( 1 ) Promptly advise the complainant; and
( 2 ) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring a civil action under section 305(e) of the Act of injunctive relief that will effect the purposes of the Act; and
( 3 ) Inform the complainant that— ( i ) The complainant may bring a civil action only in a United States District Court for the district in which the recipient is found or transacts business;
( ii ) A complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint;
( iii ) That before commencing the action, the complainant shall give 30 days notice by registered mail to the Commission, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient;
( iv ) The notice must state the relief requested, the court in which the complainant is bringing the action, and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
( v ) The complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of pending action in any court of the United States.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 824 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 824

   To amend title 23, United States Code, to prohibit expenditure of 
 certain transportation and infrastructure funds for a project located 
          in a sanctuary jurisdiction, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2017

Mr. Smith of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 23, United States Code, to prohibit expenditure of 
 certain transportation and infrastructure funds for a project located 
          in a sanctuary jurisdiction, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Transportation Funds for 
Sanctuary Cities Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF GRANT FUNDS IN SANCTUARY JURISDICTION.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 171. Prohibition on use of grant funds in sanctuary jurisdiction
    ``(a) In General.--No grant amounts made available under this 
chapter or provided under the heading `Office of the Secretary--
National Infrastructure Investments' (commonly known as TIGER grants) 
in the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2016 (title I 
of division L of Public Law 114-113) or any subsequent appropriation 
Act, may be obligated or expended for any project located, in whole or 
in part, in a sanctuary jurisdiction.
    ``(b) Sanctuary Jurisdiction Defined.--In this section, the term 
`sanctuary jurisdiction' means any State or political subdivision of a 
State that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that 
prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from--
            ``(1) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with 
        any Federal, State, or local government entity information 
        regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or 
        unlawful) of any individual; or
            ``(2) complying with any Department of Homeland Security 
        detainer ordering that the government entity or official--
                    ``(A) temporarily hold an alien in custody so that 
                the alien may be taken into Federal custody;
                    ``(B) transport the alien for transfer to Federal 
                custody; or
                    ``(C) notify the Department about the release of 
                the alien.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is amended 
by adding at the end the following:

``171. Limitation on use of grant funds in sanctuary jurisdiction.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Audrey L. De Lia, Respondent, v. B. William De Lia, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Pulton County, entered October 2, 1968, upon a decision of the court at Trial Term, without a jury. Plaintiff was granted a divorce against the defendant on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Appellant is challenging that portion of the judgment which awarded counsel fees to respondent’s attorney in the amount of $7,500 and imposed taxable costs and disbursements of $1,061.15. In our opinion, the award of the $7,500 counsel fee is excessive. The record discloses that respondent’s attorney has already been *988paid a substantial counsel fee of $3,000 in a separation action, based on the same grounds as the divorce action, and has never brought that action to trial (see *Bitterman*v. *Bitterman,*256 App. Div. 990). Respondent admits that the money for this payment came either from her husband or his corporation. An. additional sum of $5,000 is sufficient compensation in light of all the facts disclosed in the record. Respondent was also allowed, as part of the bill of costs, $421.90 as Sheriff’s fees, pursuant to CPLR 8011 (subd. [b]) and 8012 (subd. [a]). Included in the above, and charged as taxable coste, was Sheriff’s poundage of 5%. “As often stated, the sheriff’s poundage is to be collected under the execution he holds. It is not to be taxed as costs of the action.” (24 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, p. 592.) The only Sheriff’s fees which can be allowed as costs here are $1.50 for entering the execution, $2.50 for levying upon property by virtue of an execution, and $4 proper mileage at 20 cents per mile from Johnstown to Northville, approximately 20 miles. Therefore, this part of the award must be reduced to $8. We have examined appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Judgment modified, on the facts, to the extent of reducing the counsel fee to $5,000 and the taxable costs to $647.25. As so modified, judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, 'Cooke and Greenblott, J'J., concur in memorandum *Per Curiam.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of SEDONA Corporation on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Marco A.
Emrich, Chief Executive Officer of SEDONA Corporation certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
SEDONA Corporation.

Dated:  May 13, 2005                       /s/ MARCO A. EMRICH
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Marco A. Emrich
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DEREK WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-716-WKW

)

BLUE CROSS BLUESHIELD OF 

ALABAMA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RULE 26(f) ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The Rule 26(f)

report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not later than

November 2, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed no later

than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that schedule, they should

present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested variance.

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that judge's

regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within four to six weeks of

a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available on the court's

website located at http://almd.uscourts.gov in the civil case information section.

This court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a scheduling

order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the scheduling

conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform Scheduling

Case 2:06-cv-00716-WKW-WC Document 8 Filed 10/12/2006 Page 1 of 2
Order adopted by the judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is also available on the

court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE this 12th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00716-WKW-WC Document 8 Filed 10/12/2006 Page 2 of 2
§ 430.35 Petitions with respect to general service lamps. ( a ) Any person may petition the Secretary for an exemption for a type of general service lamp from the requirements of this subpart. The Secretary may grant an exemption only to the extent that the Secretary finds, after a hearing and opportunity for public comment, that it is not technically feasible to serve a specialized lighting application (such as a military, medical, public safety or certified historic lighting application) using a lamp that meets the requirements of this subpart. To grant an exemption for a product under this paragraph, the Secretary shall include, as an additional criterion, that the exempted product is unlikely to be used in a general service lighting application.
( b ) Any person may petition the Secretary to establish standards for lamp shapes or bases that are excluded from the definition of general service lamps. The petition shall include evidence that the availability or sales of exempted lamps have increased significantly since December 19, 2007. The Secretary shall grant a petition if the Secretary finds that: ( 1 ) The petition presents evidence that demonstrates that commercial availability or sales of exempted incandescent lamp types have increased significantly since December 19, 2007 and are being widely used in general lighting applications; and
( 2 ) Significant energy savings could be achieved by covering exempted products, as determined by the Secretary based on sales data provided to the Secretary from manufacturers and importers.
[74 FR 12070, Mar. 23, 2009]
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 2 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 3 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 4 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 5 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 6 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 7 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 8 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 9 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 10 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 11 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 12 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 13 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 14 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 15 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 16 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 49 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 17 of 17
#### Theodore Coffman et al., Appellants, v. B.T.O. Diner Corp., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) In the Matter of the Arbitration between Theodore Coffman, Appellant, and Harry Diktaban et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

—■ Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 24, 1969, which denied a motion by appellants for reargument of their prior motion to consolidate two arbitration proceedings and to appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(Matter of Foglia,*32 A D 2d 836). We have nevertheless examined the merits and, were the appeal properly before us, we would affirm the order *(Kushlin*v. *Bialer,*32 A D 2d 217, 218). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 37
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 37 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 37.45 LLEA coordination. ( a ) A licensee subject to this subpart shall coordinate, to the extent practicable, with an LLEA for responding to threats to the licensee's facility, including any necessary armed response. The information provided to the LLEA must include: ( 1 ) A description of the facilities and the category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive materials along with a description of the licensee's security measures that have been implemented to comply with this subpart; and
( 2 ) A notification that the licensee will request a timely armed response by the LLEA to any actual or attempted theft, sabotage, or diversion of category 1 or category 2 quantities of material.
( b ) The licensee shall notify the appropriate NRC regional office listed in § 30.6(b)(2) of this chapter within 3 business days if: ( 1 ) The LLEA has not responded to the request for coordination within 60 days of the coordination request; or
( 2 ) The LLEA notifies the licensee that the LLEA does not plan to participate in coordination activities.
( c ) The licensee shall document its efforts to coordinate with the LLEA. The documentation must be kept for 3 years.
( d ) The licensee shall coordinate with the LLEA at least every 12 months, or when changes to the facility design or operation adversely affect the potential vulnerability of the licensee's material to theft, sabotage, or diversion.
[78 FR 17007, Mar. 19, 2013, as amended at 83 FR 30288, June 28, 2018]
#### § 140.13 Amount of financial protection required of certain holders of construction permits and combined licenses under 10 CFR part 52.

Each holder of a part 50 construction permit, or a holder of a combined license under part 52 of this chapter before the date that the Commission had made the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), who also holds a license under part 70 of this chapter authorizing ownership, possession and storage only of special nuclear material at the site of the nuclear reactor for use as fuel in operation of the nuclear reactor after issuance of either an operating license under 10 CFR part 50 or combined license under 10 CFR part 52, shall, during the period before issuance of a license authorizing operation under 10 CFR part 50, or the period before the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g) of this chapter, as applicable, have and maintain financial protection in the amount of $1,000,000. Proof of financial protection shall be filed with the Commission in the manner specified in § 140.15 of this chapter before issuance of the license under part 70 of this chapter.

[72 FR 49565, Aug. 28, 2007]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv711-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to consolidate (doc.

no. 28) is granted to the extent that the parties may

conduct discovery in this case and in case no. 3:06cv728-

MHT jointly. The cases are not otherwise consolidated.

DONE, this the 1st day of November, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 32 Filed 11/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 221.33 Order. ( a ) *Issuance.* If ERA determines that issuance of a priority rating for a crude oil or refined petroleum product is necessary to provide the crude oil or petroleum products needed to meet the national defense requirement established by DOD, it shall issue such a rating to DOD for delivery of specified qualities and quantities of the crude oil or refined petroleum products on or during specified delivery dates or periods. In accordance with the terms of the order, DOD may then place such priority rating on a supply order.
( b ) *Compliance.* Each person who receives a priority-rated supply order pursuant to this part shall supply the specified crude oil or petroleum products to DOD in accordance with the terms of that order.
( c ) *ERA directives.* Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, where necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense ERA is authorized to issue a directive to a supplier of crude oil or petroleum product requiring delivery of specified qualities and quantities of such crude oil or petroleum products to DOD at or during specified delivery dates or periods.
( d ) *Use of ratings by suppliers.* No supplier who receives a priority-rated supply order or directive issued under the authority of this section may use such priority order or directive in order to obtain materials necessary to meet its supply obligations thereunder.
PGI 216.104 Factors in selecting contract type.       See the policy tab for Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting memorandum dated April 1, 2016, entitled “Guidance on Using Incentive and Other Contract Types,” when selecting and negotiating the most appropriate contract type for a given procurement.    **PGI 216.104-70 Research and development.****Parent topic:** PGI 216.1 -SELECTING CONTRACT TYPES
PGI 203.570-2 Prohibition period.

(a)(1) The contracting officer shall—

(i) Review any request for waiver; and

(ii) Deny the request if the contracting officer decides the waiver is not required in the interests of

national security; or

(iii) Forward the request to the head of the agency or designee for approval if the contracting officer

decides the waiver may be in the interest of national security.

(2) The head of the agency or designee shall report all waivers granted, and the reasons for granting

the waiver, to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), who will forward the

report to Congress.

(3) Guidance on using the Exclusions section of the System for Award Management is available at

PGI 209.105-1 .

(b) Submit a copy of the determination to Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice,

810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531.

Parent topic: PGI 203.570 Prohibition on persons convicted of fraud or other defense-contractrelated felonies.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 327

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Passport Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2005

Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. OWENS, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Passport Month.

Whereas, through international travel, Americans can individually play a major role towards improving foreign relations by building bridges and making connections with 

citizens of other countries; 

Whereas interacting with the global community inspires 

Americans to reflect on the diverse multi-cultural background that has defined the United States as a great 

country of cooperation and progress; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad creates connections with the global community, supporting goodwill 

throughout the world; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad promotes 

understanding and goodwill throughout the world, open-
2

•HRES 327 IH 

ing the doors to increased peace, tolerance, and acceptance; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad opens up a 

preponderance of educational opportunities and experiences for Americans of all ages; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad enables 

Americans to see first-hand the effect of the United 

States on the world, including the tremendous amount of 

humanitarian aid given by the United States through 

both public and private sectors; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad reminds 

Americans that they are members of a global family and 

gives them opportunities to mend rifts around the world; 

Whereas fewer than 23 percent of Americans have passports, 

thereby limiting their ability to travel outside the United 

States; 

Whereas the more Americans travel outside the United 

States, the more they will experience opportunities to increase their understanding of the world and the place of 

the United States in it; 

Whereas the creation and support of a National Passport 

Month signals to Americans the important role they can 

play as ambassadors for the United States by serving as 

agents of understanding, tolerance, and mutual respect; 

and 

Whereas travel publishers along with travel editors from the 

most prestigious media outlets in the United States, student travel organizations, and book sellers have designated September as ‘‘National Passport Month’’ to educate the public about the importance of having a passport 
3

•HRES 327 IH 

and the positive impact international travel has on individuals: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Passport Month; and 

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation calling on the Federal Government, States, 

6 localities, schools, nonprofit organizations, busi7 nesses, other entities, and the people of the United 

8 States to observe the month with appropriate cere9 monies, programs, and activities.

Æ