alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7998 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 

higher education to track and record additional information on hate 

crimes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2024 

Mr. ESPAILLAT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

institutions of higher education to track and record additional information on hate crimes, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Combating Hate 

5 Across Campus Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7998 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CAMPUS SECURITY POLICY AND 

2 CAMPUS CRIME STATISTICS. 

3 Section 485(f)(1)(F)(ii) of the Higher Education Act 

4 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended by strik5 ing ‘‘which data shall be collected and reported according 

6 to category of prejudice; and’’ and inserting ‘‘which data 

7 shall— 

8 ‘‘(I) be collected and reported ac9 cording to category of prejudice; and 

10 ‘‘(II) disaggregated by sub11 category based on the identity of the 

12 targeted individual or group, as listed 

13 in the most recently available Hate 

14 Crime Data Collection Guidelines and 

15 Training Manual published by the 

16 Criminal Justice Information Services 

17 Division of the Federal Bureau of In18 vestigation; and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
§ 884.3575 Vaginal pessary. ( a ) *Identification.* A vaginal pessary is a removable structure placed in the vagina to support the pelvic organs and is used to treat conditions such as uterine prolapse (falling down of uterus), uterine retroposition (backward displacement), or gynecologic hernia.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
|FORM 6 - K
|----------



|SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549
|--------------------------------------------------------





|Report of Foreign Private
Issuer  Pursuant to Rule 13a - 16 or 15d - 16 of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|As of April 25, 2003
|--------------------



|TENARIS, S.A.(Translation of Registrants name into English)
|------------------------------------------------------------





|TENARIS, S.A.23 Avenue Monterey 
      2086 Luxembourg 
      (Address of principal executive offices)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Indicate by check mark whether the registrant
      files or will file annual reports under cover 
      Form 20-F or 40-F.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Form 20-F  [X]      Form 40-F
       [   ]
|------------------------------------------



|Indicate by check
mark whether the registrant by furnishing the  information contained in this Form is also
thereby furnishing the information to  the Commission pursuant to Rule 12G3-2(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of  1934.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Yes  [   ]      No
       [X]
|-----------------------------



|If Yes is marked,
indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule
12g3-2(b): 82-____.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | 
| |  | 



---





|The attached material is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange  Commission pursuant to Rule 13a-16 and Form 6-K under the
Securities Exchange  Act of 1934, as amended. This report contains Tenariss announcing
resumption of  its acquisition of the remaining minority interests in Siderca.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|SIGNATURE
|---------



|Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the  Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the  undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 25, 2003
|--------------------



|Tenaris, S.A.
|-------------



|By: /s/ Cecilia Bilesio                   
|------------------------------------------
|Cecilia Bilesio 
      Corporate Secretary



| |  | 
| |  | 



---
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Hutson, Nick

Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:00 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Culligan, Kevin; Fruh, Steve

Subject: Revised versions of 111(b) preamble/rule 

Attachments: 111b preamble_DRAFT_072815_clean.docx; 111b preamble_DRAFT_072415_clean.docx; 

SummaryofInteragencyCommentsUnderEO 12866_13563_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 

Final_7 26 2015_EPAResponse.docx

Nathan, 

Please find three files attached: 

1. A clean version of the latest version of the 111(b) preamble and rule for GHG emissions from new, modified, and 

reconstructed EGUs – this version incorporates changes responsive to Interagency comments/suggestions and 

also changes that we have made as we continue to improve the document. The document also has EPA 

responses to OMB/Interagency comments in marginal comment balloons. 

2. A RLSO version showing changes that have been made – compared to the clean version that was submitted to 

OMB on 07/24/15. 

3. EPA’s response to summary of comments from review of the 07/24/15 submission. 

We are continuing to work on the document. However, we expect no more substantive changes to the document. 

Specifically we are still working on: 

1. We are reading through to ensure consistency in terminology, formatting, punctuation, grammar, etc. 

2. We are revising some sections (esp. turbine sections) for readability and clarity – however, again, no substantive 

or directional changes. 

3. We are working on the NTTA section and amendments to 60.17 – this involves making sure we are properly

incorporating the test methods (e.g., ASME test methods for determining efficiency and ANSI method for

assuring consistent accuracy of electricity monitoring) 

4. We are reviewing regulatory text to make sure it is as easy as possible for the public to understand & verifying 

that it is consistent with the preamble. 

If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.

Thanks, 

Nick 

Nick Hutson, PhD 

Energy Strategies Group 

Office of Air & Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

tel: +1 919 541 2968 

email: hutson.nick@epa.gov
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.5940 Cast component. ( a ) *Identification.* A cast component is a device intended for medical purposes to protect or support a cast. This generic type of device includes the cast heel, toe cap, cast support, and walking iron.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 888.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, regarding general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, regarding complaint files.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 52954, Dec. 29, 1988; 59 FR 63014, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38815, July 25, 2001]
# C_2014292EN.01005001.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/50

---

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission

(Case T-468/14)

2014/C 292/61

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the eDIGIREGION project, order the applicant to be indemnified for the losses suffered, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 3 0 55  000, or in the alternative the amount determined by the judicial expert, together with the interest accruing in accordance with the expert’s report, and expressly order that this be paid by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the decision to refuse to allow the applicant — an undertaking engaged principally in telecommunications, R&D and consultancy services in telecommunications, research and innovation — to participate in the European eDIGIREGION project under the Seventh Framework Programme.

In this regard, the applicant states that it has participated in developing the proposal for the eDIGIREGION project since its creation, in close connection with other entities and held a number of meetings in Brussels and several audio conferences between July 2011 and January 2012, resulting in the formation of a European Consortium which submitted a proposal for an eDIGIREGION project (Realizing the Digital Agenda through Transnational Cooperation between Regions). The applicant is partner number 5 of the Consortium with a budget of EUR 4 91  400.00 and a contribution from the Commission of EUR 4 38  165 ,00. (14,61 % of the total requested).

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the arguments put forward by the European Commission are totally unjustified, as they infringe the main requirement necessary if the latter is to be able to decide to suspend the participation of an undertaking in a project which has been positively appraised; the arguments must be clear, unequivocal and properly substantiated.

Specifically, the applicant states that it is technically and operationally prepared to participate in the eDIGIREGION Consortium, it has sufficient financial capacity to take on its share of the co-financing, and it has sufficient experience in the management and administration of projects.

In this respect, the applicant considers that there is a manifest inconsistency between what the Director General signed in the text of the letter giving notice of the suspension of the participation in the project and the arguments set out in the Annex to that letter.

---
Exhibit 35.6



LOGO

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

WFCM 2015-C30

In accordance with
Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §11.12 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Agreement) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the CMBS Pool), CWCapital Asset Management LLC
(CWCAM), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officers Certificate with respect to the following:



| | (A) | a review of CWCAMs activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the Reporting Period) and of CWCAMs performance under the Agreement has been made under such officers
supervision and;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda,
MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
Exhibit 99.2
                                                                    ------------



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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of GVC Venture Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Russell Banks, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes--Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

      (3)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (4)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Date: February 4, 2003                     /s/ Russell Banks
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Russell Banks
                                           Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           and Director


Date: February 4, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7893 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.7893

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
306 Pickens Street in Marion, Alabama, as the ``Albert Turner, Sr. Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ALBERT TURNER, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 306 Pickens Street in Marion, Alabama, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Albert Turner, Sr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Albert 
Turner, Sr. Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
39397.

#### JACKSON v. THE STATE.

Decided April 3, 1962

Rehearing denied April 17, 1962.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The testimony of the State’s witnesses, two police offcers, disclosed that on the day alleged the officers, while patrolling the City of Sandersville in their patrol car, noticed the defendant who had a package under his arm walking along the sidewalk. The defendant “looked the other way” as they passed him and when they turned their car around he started walking away from them at an accelerated speed; when one of the officers “called to” the defendant, he commenced running and the officers got out of the car and ran after him; and as they were nearing the defendant, he threw the package into a pile of bricks, the package containing a jar of non-tax-paid liquor which did not break. The jar containing the liquor was admitted into evidence.

This evidence was sufficient to authorize the defendant’s conviction, and the general grounds and the single special ground, which assigned error on the admission into evidence of the testimony of the officers on the ground that such evidence disclosed that the officers had forced the defendant to incriminate himself and had committed an illegal search and seizure, are without merit. *Stephens v. State,*21 Ga. App. 151 (94 SE 69).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1035 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-038-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) Model 407 and 427 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 582 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: This AD is prompted by a report that a quality escape by a supplier has occurred and certain 

servos may have a loose nut, shaft, and clevis assembly. This AD requires inspecting certain hydraulic 

servo actuators and under certain conditions, inspecting the condition of the lock washers. Based on the 

condition of the lock washers, the AD requires either replacement or repair. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $33,000

Labor per Helicopter

($85/work-hour)

$170 (inspection)

$170 (replacement)

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $170 (inspection); 

$33,340 (inspection and one replacement) 

Total US Fleet Cost $164,940

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks
No. 99-20549

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20549 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN MIGUEL CHAIDEZ-ORANTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-504-1

--------------------

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Juan Miguel Chaidez-Orantes appeals his conviction and

sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after

deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the

district court should have suppressed his prior deportation

because he was deprived of due process during the administrativedeportation proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1228. He also argues 

that he need not establish actual prejudice in order to

collaterally attack his prior deportation. 
No. 99-20549

-2-

 This court has rejected the arguments made by ChaidezOrantes in United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d 651,

659-60 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 838 (2000). We

therefore AFFIRM his conviction.

 Chaidez-Orantes also argues that the case should be remanded

so that the district court may correct the judgment’s incorrect 

recitation that he pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry

and that non-existent remaining counts were dismissed on the

Government’s motion. The Government concedes that the judgment

contains the above-mentioned errors, but also asserts that the

judgment erroneously states that Chaidez-Orantes was sentenced to

“time served” rather than to a seven-month term. 

 Accordingly, the case is remanded for the purpose of

correcting the clerical errors in the judgment pursuant to Fed.

R. Crim. P. 36. The amended judgment should clarify and/or

correct the provision regarding Chaidez-Orantes’s term of

imprisonment.

 AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1600 Angiographic x-ray system. ( a ) *Identification.* An angiographic x-ray system is a device intended for radiologic visualization of the heart, blood vessels, or lymphatic system during or after injection of a contrast medium. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.2785 Software for optical camera-based measurement of pulse rate, heart rate, breathing rate, and/or respiratory rate. ( a ) *Identification.* The device uses software algorithms to analyze video signal and estimate pulse rate, heart rate, breathing rate, and/or respiratory rate. This device is not intended to independently direct therapy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) A software description and the results of verification and validation testing based on a comprehensive hazard analysis and risk assessment must include: ( i ) A full characterization of the software technical parameters, including algorithms;
( ii ) If required image acquisition hardware is not included with the device, full specifications of the hardware requirements and testing to demonstrate the specified hardware ensures adequate data for validated and accurate measurements;
( iii ) A description of the expected impact of all applicable sensor acquisition hardware characteristics and associated hardware specifications;
( iv ) A description of all mitigations for user error or failure of any subsystem components (including signal detection, signal analysis, data display, and storage) on output accuracy; and
( v ) Software documentation must include a cybersecurity vulnerability and management process to assure software functionality.
( 2 ) Clinical data must be provided. This assessment must fulfill the following: ( i ) The clinical data must be representative of the intended use population for the device. Any selection criteria or sample limitations must be fully described and justified.
( ii ) The assessment must demonstrate output consistency using the expected range of data sources and data quality encountered in the intended use population and environment.
( iii ) The assessment must compare device output with a clinically accurate patient-contacting relevant comparator device in an accurate and reproducible manner.
( 3 ) A human factors and usability engineering assessment must be provided that evaluates the risk of improper measurement.
( 4 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) A description of what the device measures and outputs to the user;
( ii ) Warnings identifying sensor acquisition factors or subject conditions or characteristics (garment types/textures, motion, etc.) that may impact measurement results;
( iii ) Guidance for interpretation of the measurements, including a statement that the output is adjunctive to other physical vital sign parameters and patient information;
( iv ) The expected performance of the device for all intended use populations and environments; and
( v ) Robust instructions to ensure correct system setup.
[88 CFR 6167, Jan. 31, 2023]