alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 102 appear at 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

§ 102.37 Mixtures of edible fat or oil and olive oil. The common or usual name of a mixture of edible fats and oils containing less than 100 percent and more than 0 percent olive oil shall be as follows: ( a ) A descriptive name for the product meeting the requirements of § 102.5(a), e.g., “cottonseed oil and olive oil” or another descriptive phrase, and
( b ) When the label bears any representation, other than in the ingredient listing, of the presence of olive oil in the mixture, the descriptive name shall be followed by a statement of the percentage of olive oil contained in the product in the manner set forth in § 102.5(b)(2).
#### § 1402.113 What are the mandatory disclosure requirements?

In addition to the disclosures required under 2 CFR 200.112 and 200.113, non-Federal entities, including applicants for all Federal awards, must disclose in writing any potential or actual conflict of interest to the DOI awarding agency or pass-through entity. Non-Federal entities and applicants must also disclose any outstanding unresolved matters with the Government Accountability Office or an Office of Inspector General when submitting a proposal and through the life of the award as needed. Unresolved items are those items that do not have an approved (by the awarding agency) corrective action plan in place and remain open.
427 A.2d 1205

#### Commonwealth ex rel., Gasiorowski v. Gasiorowski, Appellant.

Reargument Denied June 23, 1980.

Argued September 10, 1979.

Anthony B. Quinn, for appellant;

John H. Wood, for appellees.

Before PRICE, WIEAND and VAN der VOORT, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation.

Order affirmed.

PRICE, J., filed a memorandum concurring statement.
§ 1126.2 Applicability of this subchapter. ( a ) *Entities.* This subchapter: ( 1 ) Applies to DoD Components that award cost-type grants and cooperative agreements to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, States, local governments, and Indian tribes.
( 2 ) Does not directly impose requirements on a recipient of a DoD Component's award but does do so indirectly, through the DoD Component's compliance with this subchapter when it constructs its general award terms and conditions. The terms and conditions delineate the rights and responsibilities of the recipient and the Federal Government under the award.
( b ) *Awards.* This subchapter applies to DoD Components' cost-type grants and cooperative agreements to types of entities identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, other than Technology Investment Agreements that are addressed in 32 CFR part 37.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. JEAN ZEDLITZ; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-16477 D.C . No. 3:08-c v-01803-JSW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 * * B e fore : HAW KINS, N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. W illia m J. W hitsitt a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion for re lie f from

judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona

l c la im s a rising from

a tra ffic stop. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w for an a buse of disc re tion. Sc h . Dist. N o. 1J , 

# FIL ED SEP 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Multnomah C ty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th C ir. 1993). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Whitsitt’ s m otion for re lie f from

judgm e nt, file d on July

1, 2014, be c a

use Wh itsitt faile d to de m onstra

te any ba sis for re lie f not pre viously urge d. Se eid. at 1263 (se tting forth grounds for re lie f from

judgm e nt unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)). To the e xte nt tha

t Whitsitt cha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s prior orde rs e nte re d following re m a

nd by this c ourt, we la c k jurisdic tion be c a use Whitsitt did not file

a tim e ly notic e of a

ppe a l a fte r the distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt on July 19, 2013, or a fte r the distric t

c ourt de nie d Whitsitt’ s e arlie r m o tion for re lie f from judgm e nt on Oc tobe r 7, 2013. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notic e of a ppe a l m ust befile d within 30 da

y s a fte r e ntry

of judgm e nt or orde r a

ppe a l e d from ); Ste p hanie -C ardona LLC

v . Smith’s Food &

Drug C trs., Inc . , 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ A tim e l y notic e of a

ppe a l is a non-wa iva

b le jurisdic tiona l re quire m e nt.” ). C ontra ry to W hitsitt’ s c onte ntion tha

t he wa s la

be le d a ve xatious litiga

nt, the re c o rd doe s not indic ate tha t a v e xatious litiga

nt orde r ha s be e n e nte re d a ga i nst him . W e re

je c t a s without me rit W

hitsitt’ s c onte ntions re ga

rding bia s. 1 4 - 1 6 4 7 7 2W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). All pe nding motions a

nd re que sts a

re de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 6 4 7 7 3
TSD Appendix D 

Percent Contribution from Louisiana Emissions to 

Total Visibility Impairment at Class I Areas on 

20% Worst Days 

Class I Area 

Abbreviation 2002 2018 

BRET1 15.75% 24.67% 

WIMO1 3.47% 4.83% 

CACR1 2.86% 4.23% 

BIBE1 2.79% 3.32% 

UPBU1 1.80% 2.71% 

HEGL1 1.71% 2.43% 

GUMO1 1.32% 1.57% 

WHIT1 1.28% 1.44% 

SIPS1 0.96% 1.78% 

SACR1 0.93% 1.07% 

MACA1 0.67% 1.19% 

SENE1 0.54% 0.77% 

BOAP1 0.42% 0.48% 

GRSM1 0.40% 0.83% 

ISLE1 0.39% 0.49% 

BADL1 0.36% 0.41% 

CADI1 0.34% 0.59% 

GICL1 0.30% 0.37% 

BOND1 0.27% 0.41% 

MING1 0.22% 0.33% 

BAND1 0.21% 0.24% 

SAPE1 0.20% 0.22% 

WICA1 0.14% 0.16% 

WHPE1 0.14% 0.16%
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 876 

Expressing that the House of Representatives recognizes the rising cost of 

health care and encourages greater patient empowerment, choice, and 

responsibility in health care decisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2006 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself and Mr. DEAL of Georgia) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing that the House of Representatives recognizes the 

rising cost of health care and encourages greater patient 

empowerment, choice, and responsibility in health care 

decisions. 

Whereas Americans deserve high-quality, reasonably priced, 

reliable health care; 

Whereas Americans deserve the security of knowing that 

health care will be available when they need it; 

Whereas since 2004 more than 3,000,000 Americans have enrolled in health savings accounts; 

Whereas health savings accounts are helping to make health 

insurance more affordable for individuals and companies 

while providing greater choice and flexibility; 
2 

•HRES 876 IH

Whereas medical providers and insurance companies who disclose information about prices and quality prior to the 

time of service or treatment help Americans become more 

knowledgeable regarding personal health care decisions; 

Whereas Congress is working to expand the use of health information technology to lower costs, reduce medical errors, and improve quality of care; 

Whereas reforming the current medical liability system to 

create a fairer and more just system will provide patients 

with meritorious claims a more efficient and predictable 

compensation process for their economic losses, and will 

reduce frivolous lawsuits against physicians and other 

health care providers which otherwise would increase the 

cost of health care for everyone; and 

Whereas fundamental insurance reform will allow small businesses the opportunity to join together to offer more affordable health insurance to employees, thereby increasing the number of insured Americans: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the increasing cost of the current 

3 health care system; and 

4 (2) understands that any reforms in the health 

5 care system that provide for greater patient em6 powerment, choice, and responsibility are positive re7 forms for all Americans. 

Æ
IV 

House Calendar No. 183 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 832 

[Report No. 109–479] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations 

for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2007, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2006 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) making 

appropriations for energy and water development for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 5427) making appropriations for 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

HRES 832 RH

1 energy and water development for the fiscal year ending 

2 September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. The first 

3 reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 

4 order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 

5 debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 

6 one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

7 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appro8 priations. After general debate the bill shall be considered 

9 for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order 

10 against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with 

11 clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for section 102. 

12 During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair13 man of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority 

14 in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering 

15 an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion 

16 of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 

17 in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall 

18 be considered as read. When the committee rises and re19 ports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 

20 that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be consid21 ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 

22 final passage without intervening motion except one mo23 tion to recommit with or without instructions. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS

rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 183 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 832 

[Report No. 109

–479] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5427) 

30, 2007, and for other purposes. velopment for the fiscal year ending September making appropriations for energy and water deMAY 23, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George H. Warren, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In affirming the judgment of conviction we have considered the contents of the affidavit of Dr. Davis recited in appellant’s brief. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of robbery, first degree.) Present ■— Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00439-CV

CARDIOVASCULAR SPECIALTY APPELLANT

ASSOCIATES OF NORTH TEXAS, P.A.

V.

MARK D. HEATH AND SUSAN P. HEATH APPELLEES

----------

FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Agreed Motion To Dismiss.” It is the 

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 4, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE MARCH
31, 1997 FORM 10-Q OF HOLCO MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATOIN-I AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                     9,477
<RECEIVABLES>                                       72
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          8,794
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                         582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,559
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   218
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      8
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
(September 26, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Jeanne Steinhardt, as Executrix of James McKee, Jr., Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v Johns Manville Corporation et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Unarco Industries, Inc., Respondent.

Order modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and complaint dismissed, in accordance with the following memorandum: Decedent James McKee had been employed continuously working with a variety of asbestos products from 1944 until 1970. In 1970 he developed respiratory ailments and stopped working because of his deteriorating physical condition. In 1973 his condition was conclusively diagnosed as asbestosis/pulmonary fibrosis with a moderate degree of obstructive pulmonary emphysema, all of which relate to the asbestos which plaintiff had allegedly ingested over his years of employment. This action was commenced in 1975 and plaintiff served a complaint in which alleged causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty of fitness and merchantability. (In August, 1979 McKee died of mesothelioma—an asbestos related cancer and a substitute plaintiff continues the action.) Plaintiff concedes that the cause of action for breach of warranty was properly dismissed as time barred, but argues that the negligence and strict products liability causes of action were timely, having been commenced within three years of the discovery of his condition. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. "The injury occurs when there is a wrongful invasion of personal or property rights and then the cause of action accrues * * * the statutory period of limitations begins to run from the time when liability for wrong has arisen even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury.” *(Schmidt v Merchants Desp. Transp. Co.,*270 NY 287, 300; see, also, *Reis v Pñzer, Inc.,*48 NY2d 664; *Thornton v Roosevelt Hosp.,*47 NY2d 780; *Schwartz v Heyden Newport Chem. Corp.,*12 NY2d 212.) Here, the injury to plaintiff occurred when he inhaled the allegedly harmful substances, which was no later than 1970. Thus, the negligence cause of action was properly dismissed. Similarly, the cause of action for strict products liability sounds in tort and the period of limitations is the same as the period for negligence *(Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co.,*37 NY2d 395). Accordingly, the cause of action for strict products liability should also be dismissed. All concur, Callahan, J., not participating. (Appeals from order of Erie Supreme Court— dismiss causes of action.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
#### § 1.220 Federal agency implementation of this subtitle.

A Federal agency that awards grants and agreements subject to the guidance in this subtitle implements the guidance in agency regulations in subtitle B of this title and/or in policy and procedural issuances, such as internal instructions to the agency's awarding and administering officials. An applicant or recipient would see the effect of that implementation in the organization and content of the agency's announcements of funding opportunities and in its award terms and conditions.
#### § 901.137 Who in the Department of Energy may grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction?

The Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, DOE, for DOE actions, and the Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply Management, NNSA, for NNSA actions, may grant an exception permitting an excluded person to participate in a particular covered transaction. If the Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, DOE, for DOE actions, and Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply Management, NNSA, for NNSA actions, grants an exception, the exception must be in writing and state the reason(s) for deviating from the government-wide policy in Executive Order 12549.
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:45 AM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Jerry Hodge; Caitlin Johnson; rick.anderson@faypwc.com;

tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org;

jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov;

adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com;

carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com;

mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org;

wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com;

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com;

cabolduc@lbl.gov; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Michael

Rivest; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

Aaron.M eyers@cooperindustries.com; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov;

jmauer@standardsasap.org; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com;

pkumar@publicpower.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com;

eduardorobles@eaton.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com

Subject: Proposed Revisions to ground rules.

Attached are suggestions for ground rules revisions.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIE JAY YOUNG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2063

[March 18, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2013-CF-000798A.

Marquan M. Tate, Carrabelle, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            -------------------------

18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Atlantis  Business Development
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2003  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I Brian Zucker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  that:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in  the  report  fairly  presents, in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of  the  Company.


By:  /s/  Brian  Zucker
          -------------------
          Brian  Zucker
          President
          November  12,  2003


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            -------------------------

18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Atlantis  Business Development
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2003  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"), I Tim DeHerrera, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  that:

     (3)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended; and

     (4)  The  information  contained  in  the  report  fairly  presents, in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of  the  Company.


By:  /s/  Tim  DeHerrera
          -------------------
          Tim  DeHerrera
          Treasurer
          November  12,  2003


                                       16
<PAGE>
§ 3001.605 Award. *Award* means an award of financial assistance by a Federal agency directly to a recipient. ( a ) The term award includes: ( 1 ) A Federal grant, cooperative agreement or reimbursable agreement, in the form of money or property in lieu of money.
( 2 ) A block grant or a grant in an entitlement program, whether or not the grant is exempted from coverage under 2 CFR part 182 and specifies uniform administrative requirements.
( b ) The term “award” does not include: ( 1 ) Technical assistance that provides services instead of money.
( 2 ) Loans.
( 3 ) Loan guarantees.
( 4 ) Interest subsidies.
( 5 ) Insurance.
( 6 ) Direct appropriations.
( 7 ) Veterans' benefits to individuals (*i.e.*, any benefit to veterans, their families, or survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed Forces of the United States).
( 8 ) Other Transactional Authority Award.