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.

#### § 4.46 Means available.

If there appears to be a failure or threatened failure to comply with any of the provisions of this subpart, and if the noncompliance or threatened concompliance cannot be corrected by informal means, compliance with this subpart may be effected by the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance or by any other means authorized by law. Such other means may include, but are not limited to: (a) A reference to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that appropriate proceedings be brought to enforce any rights of the United States under any law of the United States (including other titles of the Act), or any assurance or other contractual undertaking, and (b) any applicable proceeding under State or local law.
#### § 207.5 Violations.

Any practice that circumvents or contravenes or results in a circumvention or contravention of the requirements of any provision of this subpart or any order issued pursuant thereto is a violation of the DOE regulations stated in this subpart.
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sound Aircraft Services, In.c. COMPLAINANT



### v
. Town of East Hampton and East Hampton Airport RESPONDENT Docket No. 16-1 4-07

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules ofPractice, §16.11(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before September 26 , 2016.

Kevi C. Willis Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# ft:lf 2K 1 

# to**I~** Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on Jul} 29, 2016 , I placed in the United States mail (first class , postage paid) , a true copy ofthe Notice of Extension ofTime addressed to: Counsel to the Complainant
Paul A. Lange , Esq. Alison 

### L. Squiccimarro, Esq. Law Offices of Paul A. Lange, LLC 80 Ferry Boulevard Stratford, CT 06615 pal@lopal .com als @ lopal.com
Counsel to the Respondent
Michael Sendlenski Town Attorney Town ofEast Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton , NY 11937 msendlenski @ ehamptonny .gov Jemille Charlton Airport Manager Town ofEast Hampton Airport 200 Daniels I Iole Road Wainscott, NY 11937 jcharlton @ ehamptonny

. gov
Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis , ACO-l 00

A:aministrative Officer Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 950 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 950

  To require a report and assessment regarding Department of Homeland 
 Security responses to terrorist threats to Federal elections, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

 Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require a report and assessment regarding Department of Homeland 
 Security responses to terrorist threats to Federal elections, 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 ``Security for the Administration of 
Federal Election from Terrorists Intervention Act of 2017'' or the 
``SAFETI Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RESPONSES TO 
              TERRORIST THREATS TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

    (a) Secretary of Homeland Security.--Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall submit to the Comptroller General of the United States 
and Congress a report on actions taken by the Department of Homeland 
Security relating to terrorist threats to the integrity of elections 
for Federal office held in 2016.
    (b) GAO Assessment.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
shall, upon receipt of the report required pursuant to subsection (a), 
conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of Department of Homeland 
Security actions described in such report and include recommendations 
for improvements as the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 379 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 379

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 26, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 525) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with 
respect to medical care for their employees. The bill shall be considered as 
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative 
Kind of Wisconsin or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 52.10 Attacks and destructive acts. Neither an applicant for a license to manufacture, construct, and operate a utilization facility under this part, nor for an amendment to this license, or an applicant for an early site permit, a standard design certification, or standard design approval under this part, or for an amendment to the early site permit, standard design certification, or standard design approval, is required to provide for design features or other measures for the specific purpose of protection against the effects of— ( a ) Attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a foreign government or other person; or
( b ) Use or deployment of weapons incident to U.S. defense activities.
H. Res. 1176 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 12, 2018. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the reform and continuation 

of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes. 

All points of order against the conference report and against 

its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 

one motion to recommit if applicable. 

SEC. 2. The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers 

Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply during the remainder of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress to a concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5 of the War 
2 

•HRES 1176 EH 

Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544) with respect to the Republic of Yemen. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### LEHRMAN, Respondent, v. LEHRMAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Esther Lehrman against Harry Lehrman, etc.

No opinion. Motion for stay granted. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1126.
§ 708.4 Complaints not covered. An employee of a contractor may not file a complaint against his employer under this part if: ( a ) The complaint is based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or other similar basis; or
( b ) The complaint involves misconduct that the employee, acting without direction from the employer, deliberately caused, or in which the employee knowingly participated; or
( c ) Except as provided in § 708.15(a), the complaint is based on the same facts for which the employee has chosen to pursue a remedy available under: ( 1 ) Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR part 24, “Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Federal Employee Protection Statutes;”
( 2 ) Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR part 3, “Federal Acquisition Regulation; Whistleblower Protection for Contractor Employees (Ethics);” or
( 3 ) State or other applicable law, including final and binding grievance-arbitration, as described in § 708.16 of subpart B; or
( d ) The complaint is based on the same facts in which the employee, in the course of a covered disclosure or participation, improperly disclosed Restricted Data, national security information, or any other classified or sensitive information in violation of any Executive Order, statute, or regulation. This part does not override any provision or requirement of any regulation pertaining to Restricted Data, national security information, or any other classified or sensitive information; or
( e ) The complaint deals with “terms and conditions of employment” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, except as provided in § 708.5.
222 So.2d 66

#### Veday J. MALBROUGH, Jr. v. Amos DAVIDSON et al.

No. 49778.

May 9, 1969.

In re: Doris P. Malbrough et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the *11Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Terrebonne. 219 So.2d 313.

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 79 FR 75740, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 40.34 Special requirements for issuance of specific licenses. ( a ) An application for a specific license to manufacture industrial products and devices containing depleted uranium, or to initially transfer such products or devices, for use pursuant to § 40.25 of this part or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State, will be approved if: ( 1 ) The applicant satisfies the general requirements specified in § 40.32;
( 2 ) The applicant submits sufficient information relating to the design, manufacture, prototype testing, quality control procedures, labeling or marking, proposed uses, and potential hazards of the industrial product or device to provide reasonable assurance that possession, use, or transfer of the depleted uranium in the product or device is not likely to cause any individual to receive in 1 year a radiation dose in excess of 10 percent of the annual limits specified in § 20.1201(a) of this chapter; and
( 3 ) The applicant submits sufficient information regarding the industrial product or device and the presence of depleted uranium for a mass-volume application in the product or device to provide reasonable assurance that unique benefits will accrue to the public because of the usefulness of the product or device.
( b ) In the case of an industrial product or device whose unique benefits are questionable, the Commission will approve an application for a specific license under this paragraph only if the product or device is found to combine a high degree of utility and low probability of uncontrolled disposal and dispersal of significant quantities of depleted uranium into the environment.
( c ) The Commission may deny an applicant for a specific license under this paragraph if the end uses of the industrial product or device cannot be reasonably foreseen.
[41 FR 53332, Dec. 6, 1976, as amended at 43 FR 6924, Feb. 17, 1978; 58 FR 67661, Dec. 22, 1993; 59 FR 41643, Aug. 15, 1994]
#### In the Matter of Liquidation of American Druggists’ Insurance Company. Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Respondent, v Denis D. Kenny, Appellant.

Submitted August 13, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 15 AD3d 268.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*9 NY3d 857].
§ 503.36 State or local requirements. ( a ) *Eligibility.* Section 212(b) of the Act provides for an exemption due to certain State or local requirements. To qualify a petitioner must certify that: ( 1 ) With respect to the proposed site of the unit, the operation or construction of the new unit using an alternate fuel is infeasible because of a State of local requirement other than a building code, nuisance, or zoning law;
( 2 ) The petitioner has made a good faith effort to obtain a variance from the State or local requirement but has been unable to do so or has demonstrated why none is available;
( 3 ) The granting of the exemption would be in the public interest and would be consistent with the purposes of the Act;
( 4 ) The petitioner is not entitled to an exemption for lack of alternate fuel supply, site limitation, environmental requirements, or inability to obtain adequate capital at the site of the proposed powerplant or at any reasonable alternative site for the alternate fuel(s) considered;
( 5 ) At the proposed site and every reasonable alternative site where the petitioner is not entitled to an exemption for lack of alternate fuel supply, site limitation, environmental requirements, or inability to obtain adequate capital, the petitioner nevertheless would be barred at each such proposed or alternate site from burning an alternate fuel by reason of a State or local requirement;
( 6 ) No alternate power supply exists, as required under § 503.8 of these regulations; and
( 7 ) Use of mixtures is not feasible, as required under § 503.9 of these regulations.
( b ) *Evidence required in support of a petition.* The petition must include the following evidence in order to make the demonstration required by this section: ( 1 ) Duly executed certifications required under paragraph (a) of this section;
( 2 ) Exhibits containing the basis for the certifications required under paragraph (a) of this section (including those factual and analytical materials deemed by the petitioner to be sufficient to support the granting of this exemption);
( 3 ) Environmental impact analysis, as required under § 503.13 of these regulations; and
( 4 ) Fuels search, as required under § 503.14 of these regulations.
[46 FR 59903, Dec. 7, 1981; 46 FR 63033, Dec. 30, 1981, as amended at 54 FR 52895, Dec. 22, 1989]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         491,851
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  625,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,121,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,271,815
<PP&E>                                         636,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,997,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          589,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,981,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,997,140
<SALES>                                      2,310,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,310,854
<CGS>                                        1,427,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  693,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                158,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,638
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### § 490.8 Replacement fuel production goal.

The goal of the replacement fuel supply and demand program established by section 502(b)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 13252(b)(2)) and revised by DOE pursuant to section 504(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 13254(b)) is to achieve a production capacity of replacement fuels sufficient to replace, on an energy equivalent basis, at least 30 percent of motor fuel consumption in the United States by the year 2030.

[72 FR 12060, Mar. 15, 2007]
#### § 60.161 Training and certification program.

DOE shall establish a program for training, proficiency testing, certification and requalification of operating and supervisory personnel.
5301.9103 Solicitation Provision and

Contract Clause

Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at DAFFARS 5352.201-9101, Ombudsman, in all

solicitations (including draft solicitations) and contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 5301.91 - OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM
#### SCHNATZ et al., Respondents, v. JACKSON, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Action by Frederick Schnatz and another against Henry H. Jackson, impleaded. O. H. Mohrmann, for appellant. F. H. Avery, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
#### Lindsey *v.*Porter & Garrett.

Beck, J.

1. Where upon a petition filed in 1892 to foreclose a mortgage in equity a judgment was rendered foreclosing the mortgage, while, so far as the same may purport to be a general personal judgment, it is dormant because of failure to issue ah execution thereon in terms of the statute relating to dormancy of judgments, it is valid and enforceable *250as a decree foreclosing a mortgage. *Conway*v. *Caswell,*121 *Ga.*254 (4S S. E. 956, 2 Ann. Cas. 269).

July 18, 1913.

Illegality of execution. Before Judge Daniel. Butts superior court. February *23,*1912.

*W. A. Thompson*and *John B. L. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*O. M. Duke,*contra.

2. The decree is not invalid and void because rendered without a verdict of a jury. The mortgagee filed his petition in equity to foreclose the mortgage under the provisions of the Civil Code, § 3305. There was no appearance by the mortgagor. There was no question of fact involved requiring decision by a jury, and the judge properly rendered the decree without the verdict of the jury, under the provisions of the Civil Code, § 5422.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 501.180 Investigations. ( a ) *General.* Pursuant to section 711 of FUA, the DEOA, and in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 205.201, OFE may initiate and conduct investigations relating to the scope, nature, and extent of compliance by any person with the rules, regulations, and orders issued by OFE under the authority of the Act, or any order or decree of court relating thereto, or any other agency action. When the circumstances warrant, OFE may issue subpoenas as provided in subpart D of this part. OFE may also conduct investigative conferences in conjunction with any investigation.
( b ) Any duly authorized representative of OFE has the authority to conduct an investigation and to take such action as he deems necessary and appropriate to the conduct of the investigation.
( c ) *Notification.* If any person is required to furnish information or documentary evidence pursuant to a subpoena or special report order, OFE will, upon written request, inform that person as to the general purposes of the investigation.
( d ) *Confidentiality.* OFE shall not disclose any information received during an investigation under this section, including the identities of the person investigated and any other person who provides information, to the extent it is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 and 10 CFR part 1004.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In Re: Arthur Chandler

No. 06-12-00114-CV

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus should be conditionally granted. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to 

comply within twenty days of the date of this opinion.

RENDERED JANUARY 10, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# .?!"'"'""""' 

# Miami-Dade County Public Schools

# ~ · · ··. · ·• giving ourstudents the wOrld Superintendent ofSchools Alberto 

### M. Carvalho

April 2, 2015

U. S. DepartmentofTransportation DocketOperations, M-30 West Buildingground floor, -RoomWI2-J40

----**-~-** 1200New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 DOCKET#: EXEMPTION#: FAA-2000-7997 7560F Miami-Dade County School Board Perla Tabares Hantman, Chair Dr. Lawrence 

### S. F_eldman, Vice Chair Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall Susie V Castillo Dr. Wilbert "Tee" Holloway Dr. Martin Karp LubbyNavarro Dr. Marta Perez RaquelA. Regalado**---~-----**

SUBJECT: REQUEST TO EXTEND EXEMPTION NO. 7560F FROM 14CFR (FAR SECTION) -PART: 65.17 (a) 65.19(b); 65.75.
DearSirs: George T Baker Aviation Technical College is requesting an extension ofthe following exemption that will expire on June 30, 2015: Exemption No. 7560F from 14 CFR (FAR Section)- Part: 65.17 (a); 65.19 (b); 65.75. This exemption continues to have a pos1t1ve impact on the enrollment and the number of licensed Airframe and Powerplant Technicians graduating from George T. Baker Aviation Technical College. The college offers the Federal Aviation Administration approved Airframe and Powerplant Aviation Maintenance Curriculum under Air Agency Certificate Number CT9T072R. Your approval ofthis extension-will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully Submitted,

Rene Mantilla, Principal
cc: Mr. Ernst Biamby, Jr. Federal Ayiation Administration SafetyInspector South Florida Flight Standards-District Office-19 2895 S. W. 145thAvenue, Suite 120 Miramar, Florida 33027 .. ::



# ·. :**·~** ...**i~** .:J
.... 

### George 

### T. BakerAviation Technical College· 3275 

### N. W 42"a Avenue • Miami, Florida 33142. Mr. Rene Mantilla (Phone):**305-871~3143** 

### • (FAX): 305-871-5840 • www.BakerAviation.edu