alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 503.24 Future use of synthetic fuels. ( a ) *Eligibility.* Section 211(b) of the Act provides for a temporary exemption based upon the future use of synthetic fuels. To qualify, a petitioner must certify that: ( 1 ) The petitioner will be able to comply with the applicable prohibitions imposed by the Act by the use of a synthetic fuel derived from coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source in the proposed facility by the end of the proposed exemption period;
( 2 ) The petitioner will not be able to comply with the applicable prohibitions imposed by the Act by use of a synthetic fuel until the end of the proposed exemption period; and
( 3 ) No alternate power supply exists, as required under § 503.8 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); and
( 3 ) A preliminary compliance plan, including to the extent available, the information required under § 503.12.
( c ) *Final Compliance Plan.* Before an exemption may become effective, the petitioner must submit and OFE must approve a final compliance plan as required by § 503.12.
( d ) *Duration.* This temporary exemption may be granted for a period of up to ten (10) years. Unless the petitioner requests otherwise, any temporary exemption from the fuel use prohibitions of the Act for the future use of synthetic fuels will commence on the date of commercial operation of the facility.
Note:
Contracts based on the anticipated successful demonstration of a development program and/or the anticipated economic feasibility of a synthetic fuels facility, will generally be sufficient to meet the “binding contract” requirements for this exemption.
[46 FR 59903, Dec. 7, 1981; 47 FR 15315, Apr. 9, 1982; 54 FR 52894, Dec. 22, 1989]
H. Res. 3 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2017. 

Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a 

quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready 

to receive any communication that he may be pleased to 

make. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00063-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.R.M., child,

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-11-22140-CV

The Honorable Cathy Morris, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason K. Pulliam, Justice

Debra Gifford’s request to cancel the hearing set for 2:00 p.m. on April 23, 2015, is 

denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED: ______________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 60.75 Inspections. ( a ) DOE shall allow the Commission to inspect the premises of the geologic repository operations area and adjacent areas to which DOE has rights of access.
( b ) DOE shall make available to the Commission for inspection, upon reasonable notice, records kept by DOE pertaining to activities under this part.
( c ) ( 1 ) DOE shall upon requests by the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, provide rent-free office space for the exclusive use of the Commission inspection personnel. Heat, air-conditioning, light, electrical outlets and janitorial services shall be furnished by DOE. The office shall be convenient to and have full access to the facility and shall provide the inspector both visual and acoustic privacy.
( 2 ) The space provided shall be adequate to accommodate a full-time inspector, a part-time secretary and transient NRC personnel and will be generally commensurate with other office facilities at the geologic repository operations area. A space of 250 square feet either within the geologic repository operations area's office complex or in an office trailer or other onsite space at the geologic repository operations area is suggested as a guide. For locations at which activities are carried out under licenses issued under other parts of this chapter, additional space may be requested to accommodate additional full-time inspectors. The Office space that is provided shall be subject to the approval of the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. All furniture, supplies and communication equipment will be furnished by the Commission.
( 3 ) DOE shall afford any NRC resident inspector assigned to that location, or other NRC inspectors identified by the Regional Administrator as likely to inspect the facility, immediate unfettered access, equivalent to access provided regular employees, following proper identification and compliance with applicable access control measures for security, radiological protection and personal safety.
[48 FR 28222, June 21, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 31612, Aug. 21, 1987; 76 FR 72086, Nov. 22, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000764763
<NAME>                        Triangle Imaging Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US Dollars
       
<S>                           <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        278,013
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,729,181
<ALLOWANCES>                  160,000
<INVENTORY>                   35,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,197,523
<PP&E>                        1,012,018
<DEPRECIATION>                765,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                7,028,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,663,677
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      12,912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    4,368,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  4,381,602
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              6,286,172
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,181,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              4,935,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            87,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (678,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (107,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (571,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                (289,162)
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (860,249)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.06)
        


</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Staten Island visitor programs**
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.96/6:
Item Number:0654-B-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000598074
 
2006Fall | 2006-07Winter
 
March 3, 2020
§ 603.535 Value of proposed real property or equipment. The contracting officer rarely should accept values for cost sharing contributions of real property or equipment that are in excess of depreciation or reasonable use charges, as discussed in § 603.680 for for-profit participants. The contracting officer may accept the full value of a donated capital asset if the real property or equipment is to be dedicated to the project and the contracting officer expects that it will have a fair market value that is less than $5,000 at the project's end. In those cases, the contracting officer should value the donation at the lesser of: ( a ) The value of the property as shown in the recipient's accounting records (*i.e.*, purchase price less accumulated depreciation); and
( b ) The current fair market value. The contracting officer may accept the use of any reasonable basis for determining the fair market value of the property. If there is a justification to do so, the contracting officer may accept the current fair market value even if it exceeds the value in the recipient's records.
227 So.2d 143

#### Olga KENNY, wife of/and Paul MALONEY, Jr. v. OAK BUILDERS, INC., et al.

No. 50060.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: Oak Builders, Inc. and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 224 So.2d 161.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

Granted but limited to the issue of attorney fees.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 79 FR 75740, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 40.54 Requirements for license to initially transfer source material for use under the ‘small quantities of source material’ general license. An application for a specific license to initially transfer source material for use under § 40.22, or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State, will be approved if: ( a ) The applicant satisfies the general requirements specified in § 40.32; and
( b ) The applicant submits adequate information on, and the Commission approves the methods to be used for quality control, labeling, and providing safety instructions to recipients.
[78 FR 32340, May 29, 2013]
#### MILLS, Respondent, v. BECK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Mamie Mills against Maurice Beck.

PER CURIAM.

Motion denied, with $10 costs. This appeal was not dismissed, it was simply marked off the day calendar.
H. Res. 46

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 8, 2005.

Whereas mentors serve as role models, advocates, friends,

and advisors to youth in need;

Whereas mentoring is a proven, effective strategy that

matches a caring, responsible adult with a child to provide guidance and build confidence, stability, and direction for that child;

Whereas research has shown that mentoring has a definitive

impact on young people by increasing attendance at

school, improving rates of high-school graduation and college attendance, and decreasing involvement with drugs,

alcohol, and violent behaviors;

Whereas there are over 17.6 million children in this country

who need or want a mentor, yet just 2.5 million young

people are in mentoring relationships, leaving a ‘‘mentoring gap’’ of 15.1 million young people;

Whereas the establishment of a National Mentoring Month

would emphasize the importance of mentoring and recognize with praise and gratitude the many Americans already involved in mentoring;

Whereas a month-long celebration of mentoring would encourage more organizations—such as schools, businesses,
2

•HRES 46 EH

faith communities—and individuals to get involved in

mentoring; and

Whereas the celebration of said month would, above all, encourage more individuals to volunteer as mentors, helping

close our Nation’s mentoring gap: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month;

(2) praises the millions of caring adults who have

already committed their time and energy to mentor a

child; and

(3) supports efforts to recruit more mentors in the

United States.

Attest:

Clerk.
AFS-14-067-E January 9, 2014

Exemption No. 10916 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-1060

Ms. Beth Nodland

Parent of Lochlan Morrison 1111 West Highland Acres Road Bismarck, ND 58501

Dear Ms. Nodland:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received December 16, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Lochlan Morrison for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow Lochlan to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Lochlan.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, Lochlan Morrison is granted an exemption from § 121.311(b). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Lochlan is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow him to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Lochlan’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Lochlan Morrison may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Lochlan’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on January 30, 2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
Santa Fe Gaming Corporation
Las Vegas, Nevada

We have made a review, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting
and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial information of Santa Fe Gaming
Corporation and subsidiaries for the three and six month periods ended March 31,
1997 and 1996, as indicated in our report dated May 13, 1997 because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-44700 on Form S-8 and
in post-effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-7053 on Form
S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
May 13, 1997
222 So.2d 884

#### Mrs. Violet Rose FOY, Individually and as Tutrix of her Minor Children, Tommy Ray Foy, Scotty Joe Foy and LeRoy Foy v. ED TAUSSIG, INC., and Travelers Insurance Company and Eddie L. Ellzey and Rufus LaPointe.

No. 49826.

June 9, 1969.

.In re: Ed. Taussig, Inc., and The Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 220 So.2d 229.

The application is denied. According to the facts of this case as found to be by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 11 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 11 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40520 Conference Calendar

ROBERT LAMARR ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
J. MEYERS ET AL., Defendants,
PAUL B. BARRETT, Corrections Officer, Coffield Unit, Individually and in official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-6

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Lamarr Allen, Texas state prisoner #636644, appeals from a judgment for defendant Barrett following a jury trial on Allen’s civil rights complaint. Allen argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his requests for the appointment of counsel, by refusing to allow his witnesses to testify at his jury trial, by allowing Barrett to call a witnessNo. 98-40520 -2- who was not on his proposed witness list, and by denying his motion for a new trial because Barrett’s testimony conflicted with all of the other evidence presented. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allen’s requests for the appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). This portion of the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. With regard to the remaining issues, Allen did not demonstrate to this court or to the district court that a transcript was necessary for the proper disposition of his appeal. Because Allen has thus failed in his responsibility to provide this court with a transcript, his appeal is DISMISSED as to the remaining issues. See Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
§ 609.4 Submission of applications. ( a ) DOE may direct that Applications be submitted in more than one part; provided, that the parts of such Application, taken as a whole, contain such information published by DOE in guidance on the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program website pursuant to § 609.19. In such event, subsequent parts of an Application may be filed only after DOE invites an Applicant to make an additional submission. If DOE directs that Applications be submitted in more than one part, the initial part of an Application shall contain information sufficient for DOE to determine that the project proposed by an Applicant will be, or may reasonably become, an Eligible Project, and to evaluate such project's readiness to proceed. If there have been any material amendments, modifications, or additions made to the information previously submitted by an Applicant, the Applicant shall provide a detailed description thereof, including any changes in the proposed project's financing structure or other terms, promptly upon request by DOE.
( b ) An Applicant may submit Applications for multiple proposed projects and for projects using different technologies; provided that an Applicant for an Innovative Energy Project or Innovative Supply Chain Project may not submit an Application or Applications for multiple Innovative Energy Projects or multiple Innovative Supply Chain Projects using the same technology. For purposes of this paragraph (b), the term “Applicant” shall include the Project Sponsor and any subsidiaries or affiliates of the Project Sponsor.
( c ) DOE has no obligation to evaluate an Application that is not complete, and may proceed with such evaluation, or a partial evaluation, only in its discretion. DOE will not design an Eligible Project for Applicants, but may respond, in its discretion, in general terms to specific proposals. DOE's response to questions from potential Applicants are pre-decisional and preliminary in nature.
( d ) Unless an Applicant requests an extension and such an extension is granted by DOE in its discretion, an Application may be rejected if it is not complete within two years from the date of submission (or date of submission of the first part thereof, in the case of Applications made in more than one part).
( e ) DOE shall respond, in writing, to any inquiry by an Applicant about the status of its Application within ten (10) days of receipt of such request. If an Application has been pending before DOE for 180 days or more, such response shall include: ( 1 ) A description of the current status of review of the Application;
( 2 ) A summary of any factors that are delaying a final decision on the Application, a list of what items are required in order to reach a final decision, citations to authorities stating the reasons why such items are required, and a list of actions the Applicant can take to expedite the process; and
( 3 ) An estimate of when a final decision on the Application will be made.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JENEEN CARTER-CHISM,

Appellant,

v.

JANE DOE,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2042

[August 25, 2021]

Appeal of order denying petition for injunction from protection against 

stalking from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael G. Kaplan, Judge; L.T. Case No. DVCE21-

004169.

Jeneen Carter-Chism, Coral Springs, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

GROSS, MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 650 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 650

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 31, 2006.
    Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the Senate that a quorum of the 
House is present and that the House is ready to proceed with business.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```