alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.32 Conditions of construction authorization. ( a ) In a construction authorization for a geologic repository operations area at the Yucca Mountain site, the Commission shall include any conditions it considers necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security, or environmental values.
( b ) The Commission shall incorporate provisions in the construction authorization requiring DOE to furnish periodic or special reports regarding: ( 1 ) Progress of construction;
( 2 ) Any data about the site, obtained during construction, that are not within the predicted limits on which the facility design was based;
( 3 ) Any deficiencies, in design and construction, that, if uncorrected, could adversely affect safety at any future time; and
( 4 ) Results of research and development programs being conducted to resolve safety questions.
( c ) The construction authorization for a geologic repository operations area at the Yucca Mountain site will include restrictions on subsequent changes to the features of the geologic repository and the procedures authorized. The restrictions that may be imposed under this paragraph can include measures to prevent adverse effects on the geologic setting as well as measures related to the design and construction of the geologic repository operations area. These restrictions will fall into three categories of descending importance to public health and safety, as follows: ( 1 ) Those features and procedures that may not be changed without— ( i ) 60 days prior notice to the Commission;
( ii ) 30 days notice of opportunity for a prior hearing; and
( iii ) Prior Commission approval;
( 2 ) Those features and procedures that may not be changed without— ( i ) 60 days prior notice to the Commission; and
( ii ) Prior Commission approval; and
( 3 ) Those features and procedures that may not be changed without 60 days notice to the Commission. Features and procedures falling in this paragraph section may not be changed without prior Commission approval if the Commission, after having received the required notice, so orders.
( d ) A construction authorization must be subject to the limitation that a license to receive and possess source, special nuclear, or byproduct material at the Yucca Mountain site geologic repository operations area may not be issued by the Commission until; ( 1 ) DOE has updated its application, as specified at § 63.24; and
( 2 ) The Commission has made the findings stated in § 63.41.
#### In re GLEBE, LYON, FRISBIE, AND TRATMAN AVES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

In the matter of Glebe, Lyon, Frisbie, and Tratman Avenues.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
§ 217.34 Preferential scheduling. ( a ) A person must schedule operations, including the acquisition of all needed production items or services, in a timely manner to satisfy the delivery requirements of each rated order. Modifying production or delivery schedules is necessary only when required delivery dates for rated orders cannot otherwise be met.
( b ) DO-rated orders must be given production preference over unrated orders, if necessary to meet required delivery dates, even if this requires the diversion of items being processed or ready for delivery or services being performed against unrated orders. Similarly, DX-rated orders must be given preference over DO-rated orders and unrated orders. (Examples: If a person receives a DO-rated order with a delivery date of June 3 and if meeting that date would mean delaying production or delivery of an item for an unrated order, the unrated order must be delayed. If a DX-rated order is received calling for delivery on July 15 and a person has a DO-rated order requiring delivery on June 2 and operations can be scheduled to meet both deliveries, there is no need to alter production schedules to give any additional preference to the DX-rated order.)
( c ) Conflicting rated orders. ( 1 ) If a person finds that delivery or performance against any accepted rated orders conflicts with the delivery or performance against other accepted rated orders of equal priority status, the person shall give precedence to the conflicting orders in the sequence in which they are to be delivered or performed (not to the receipt dates). If the conflicting orders are scheduled to be delivered or performed on the same day, the person shall give precedence to those orders that have the earliest receipt dates.
( 2 ) If a person is unable to resolve rated order delivery or performance conflicts under this section, the person should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 217.40 through 217.44. If the person's customer objects to the rescheduling of delivery or performance of a rated order, the customer should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 217.40 through 217.44. For any rated order against which delivery or performance will be delayed, the person must notify the customer as provided in § 217.33.
( d ) If a person is unable to purchase needed production items in time to fill a rated order by its required delivery date, the person must fill the rated order by using inventoried production items. A person who uses inventoried items to fill a rated order may replace those items with the use of a rated order as provided in § 217.37(b).
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7684** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. FRANK ESQUIVEL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist rict of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:05

- cr - 00026

- F

- 1; 5:08

- cv - 00281

- F )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed b y un published per curiam opinion
. Frank Esquivel, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Frank Esquivel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifica te of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits , a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U .S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional rig ht. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Esquivel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
1223.7000 Contract clauses.       (a) Where all or part of a contract will be performed on Government-owned or leased property, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.223–71, Accident and Fire Reporting.          (b) For all solicitations and contracts under which human test subjects will be utilized, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.223–72, Protection of Human Subjects. Contractors can request copies of applicable Operating Administration (OA)-specific policies regarding the protection of human subjects directly from contracting officers.          (c) In all solicitations and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.223–73, Seat Belt Use Policies and Programs.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1223.70—Safety Requirements for Selected DOT Contracts
§ 62.26 Criteria for designating a disposal facility. ( a ) The Commission shall designate an appropriate non-Federal or regional disposal facility if an affirmative determination is made pursuant to §§ 62.21, 62.23, or 62.24 of this part.
( b ) The Commission will exclude a disposal facility from consideration if: ( 1 ) The low-level radioactive wastes of the generator do not meet the criteria established by the license agreement or the license agreement of the facility; or
( 2 ) The disposal facility is in excess of its approved capacity; or
( 3 ) Granting emergency access would delay the closing of the disposal facility pursuant to plans established before the receipt of the request for emergency access; or
( 4 ) The volume of waste requiring emergency access exceeds 20 percent of the total volume of low-level radioactive waste accepted for disposal at the facility during the previous calendar year.
( c ) If, after applying the exclusionary criteria in paragraph (b) of this section, more than one disposal facility is identified as appropriate for designation, the Commission will then consider additional factors in designating a facility or facilities including— ( 1 ) Type of waste and its characteristics,
( 2 ) Previous disposal practices,
( 3 ) Transportation
( 4 ) Radiological effects,
( 5 ) Site capability for handling waste,
( 6 ) The volume of emergency access waste previously accepted by each site both for the particular year and overall, and
( 7 ) Any other considerations deemed appropriate by the Commission.
( d ) The Commission, in making its designation, will also consider any information submitted by the operating non-Federal or regional LLW disposal sites, or any information submitted by the public in response to a Federal Register notice requesting comment, as provided in paragraph (b) of § 62.11 of this part.
# L_2023172EN.01001701.xml

| 6.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 172/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 172/17

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 102/2020

of 14 July 2020

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1362]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/769 of 14 May 2019 amending Implementing Decision 2012/715/EU establishing a list of third countries with a regulatory framework applicable to active substances for medicinal products for human use and the respective control and enforcement activities ensuring a level of protection of public health equivalent to that in the Union (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/769 of 14 May 2019 amending Implementing Decision 2012/715/EU establishing a list of third countries with a regulatory framework applicable to active substances for medicinal products for human use and the respective control and enforcement activities ensuring a level of protection of public health equivalent to that in the Union (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 15qb (Commission Implementing Decision 2012/715/EU) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘- | 32019 D 0769: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/769 of 14 May 2019 (OJ L 126, 15.5.2019, p. 70).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘-

32019 D 0769: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/769 of 14 May 2019 (OJ L 126, 15.5.2019, p. 70).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/769 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 July 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made. (*1)

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 July 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 126, 15.5.2019, p. 70.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### §§ 431.346-431.346 [Reserved]
#### Clyde O. Argyle et al., v. The Truckers Coal Company et al., Appellants.

Gen. No. 9,567.

opinion filed June 28, 1940;

rehearing denied August 1, 1940.

John P. Madden, Francis A. and Thomas B. Dunn, for appellants; Smith & Hynds, for appellees; H. B. Smith and William I. Hynds, of counsel.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Wolfe.

“Not to be published in full.”
2449 - 1 

(Adopted May 2, 2008) 

Rule 2449. Control of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Off-Road Diesel 

Vehicles 

The provisions of Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), Section 2449.3, in effect June 15, 2008, were adopted in full by the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District on May 2, 2008 through the “opt-in” provision 

provided in the regulation and were made part of the Rules and Regulations of the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District. 

The provisions of this Regulation apply to the owner of any off-road diesel vehicle as 

described in Section 2449.3(b) operating in the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District. Upon the District’s issuance of a solicitation for applications for funding, fleet 

owners subject to Section 2449.3 shall submit applications for funding, in accordance 

with the Rule 2449 Administrative Guidelines developed to implement Section 2449.3. 

Title 13,

Chapter 9

Motor Vehicles – Off-Road Vehicles and Engines Pollution 

Control Devices 

 

Section 2449.3 Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NOx (SOON) Program 

 (13 CCR 2449.3, June 15, 2008) (AQMD Adopted May 2, 2008)
July 31, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MELVIN JETSON, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00629-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Louis
P. Scheps, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CAS Medical Systems,
Inc.;
 
 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;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:
 
 a.
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the small business issuer, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared; 
 b.
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
 c.
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s
      most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal
      quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
      is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s
      internal control over financial reporting; and  
 5. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a.
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability
      to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
 b.
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s
      internal control over financial reporting.  
 
 /s/ Louis
P. Scheps
 
 Louis P.
Scheps
 President
and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 Date: May
1 2,
2005
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 190 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of Lake of the Woods Association of Orange 

County, Virginia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2017 

Mr. BRAT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of Lake of the Woods 

Association of Orange County, Virginia. 

Whereas Lake of the Woods Association is a large property 

owners association located in Orange County, Virginia, 

that was developed 50 years ago; 

Whereas Lake of the Woods Association currently has over 

38,000 homes and 8,000 full-time residents; 

Whereas Lake of the Woods Association members have dedicated the Association to the preservation of the natural 

environment of the area by making significant commitment to maintaining and improving the area’s lakes, foliage, and green space; 

Whereas Lake of the Woods Association members have dedicated the Association to the preservation of historic reVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:51 Mar 10, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR190.IH HR190

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 190 IH 

sources, have conducted extensive research, and have 

marked the location of events of the Battle of the Wilderness, which took place in the area on 5–7 May 1864; 

Whereas Lake of the Woods has been named the 2015 Community Association of the Year for a Large Association 

by the Community Association Institute of Virginia; and 

Whereas the Articles of Incorporation of Lake of the Woods 

Association were approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia on April 21, 1967: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes Lake of the Woods Association 

3 upon the occasion of its 50th anniversary; and 

4 (2) congratulates Lake of the Woods Associa5 tion for 50 years of commitment and concern that 

6 its members have shown for their community and 

7 the environment. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2007-1874.

#### State ex rel. OmniSource Corp. v. Self-Insuring Emps. Evaluation Bd.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-650, 173 Ohio App.3d 24, 2007-Ohio-4452. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Behavior ChangeBehavior DisordersBehavior ModificationBehavior ProblemsDisabilitiesEducational LegislationEducational PlanningElementary Secondary EducationFederal LegislationFunctional Behavioral AssessmentIndividualized Education ProgramsInterventionStudent Evaluation

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
4.9004 Procurement note.

As prescribed in DLAD 4.9000, use procurement note H17 for procurements involving FSC 5962

only that are equal to or under the micro-purchase threshold.

H17 RESTRICTION ON FSC 5962, ELECTRONIC MICROCIRCUITS (MAY 2022)

(a) Application. This procurement note shall apply only to actions at or under the micro-purchase

threshold.

(b) Definitions. As used in this procurement note.

(1) “Covered Nation” means

(i) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea;

(ii) the People’s Republic of China;

(iii) the Russian Federation; and

(iv) the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(2) “Federal Supply Class (FSC) 5962, Electronic Microcircuit” means

(i) a small circuit having a high equivalent circuit element density, which is considered as a single

part composed of interconnected elements placed and/or formed on or within a single substrate to

perform an electronic circuit function. The elements may be formed on or within a semiconductor

material substrate. They may consist of conductive 8 film(s) formed on an insulating substrate or

may be a combination of one or both of these types with discrete elements;

(ii) designed specifically to generate, modify, or process electrical signals included in FSC 5962;

(iii) a supply class identified as being high-risk for counterfeiting; and

(iv) includes Integrated Circuit Devices; Integrated Circuit Modules, Integrated Electronic Devices:

Hybrid, Magnetic, Molecular, Opto-Electronic, and Thin Film.

(c) Prohibition. The offeror represents by the submission of its quotation that it shall not propose to

deliver FSC 5962, Electronic Microcircuits from a covered nation to the Government under this

solicitation or any resulting contract. If the contracting officer is unable to determine whether the

FSC 5962, Electronic Microcircuits is from a covered nation based on traceability documentation or

other means on the offeror’s representation, as described above, then the award shall not be made

to that offeror.

(d) Requirements. The awardee must also meet the following requirements:

(i) Provide post award traceability documentation. If the contracting officer is unable to obtain

traceability accounting for 100% of the material, the contracting officer reserves the right to reject

the material based on the above prohibition.

(ii) Obtain written contracting officer approval prior to shipment.
Parent topic: SUBPART 4.90 – ELECTRONIC MICROCIRCUITS RESTRICTION