alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 16.4 Investigation. ( a ) If an investigating official concludes that a subpoena pursuant to the authority conferred by 31 U.S.C. 3804(a) is warranted— ( 1 ) The subpoena so issued shall notify the person to whom it is addressed of the authority under which the subpoena is issued and shall identify the information, records, or documents sought;
( 2 ) The investigating official may designate a person to act on his behalf to receive the information, records, or documents sought; and
( 3 ) The person receiving such subpoena shall be required to tender to the investigating official or to the person designated to receive the information, records, or documents, a certification that the information, records, or documents sought have been produced, or that such information, records, or documents are not available and the reasons therefor, or that such information, records, or documents, suitably identified, have been withheld based upon the assertion of an identified legal privilege.
( b ) If the investigating official concludes that an action under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act may be warranted, the investigating official shall report the findings and conclusions of such investigation to the reviewing official.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall preclude or limit the investigating official's discretion to refer allegations directly to the Department of Justice for suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3731, or for other civil relief, or to preclude or limit such official's discretion to defer or postpone a report or referral to avoid interference with an investigation into criminal misconduct or a criminal prosecution.
( d ) Nothing in this section modifies any responsibility of the investigating official to report violations of criminal law to the Attorney General.
Tilden Line 1

This information was taken from July 2012 discussions and emails with Don 

Shepherd.

From Don Shepherd:

“Here is my revised GSA workbook which eliminates the baghouse and assumes a

much lower cost in "Assume" cell C9--please feel free to enter whatever

cost you believe appropriate there. You can also assume a higher control 

efficiency in cell C13, and a lower fan power cost in cell C28. (I also

added 6% inflation from 2009 to 2010 in cell C29--that adjusts the "Cap

Cost" cell M8.)”

(See attached file: revised updated Tilden GSA.xls)

“The file below uses data from Tilden's 12/28/2006 submittal for a wet

scrubber (absorber) and Tilden's 9/11/09 submittal for a Venturi rod

scrubber to estimate costs of a conventional wet scrubber following the

ESP. The "Absorber + auxiliary equipment" cost in cell C6 of the "Assume"

tab is adjusted downward to eliminate the 60% retrofit adder that Barr

applied to all taconite plants--because that is actually the Total Capital

Investment, it is entered directly at the bottom of the "Cap Cost" tab (and

the inflation adjustment is included there). You can enter your estimate

for control efficiency in "Assume" cell C9--Tilden assumed 80%, but 90% -

95% is reasonable.”

(See attached file: Tilden conventional SO2 absorber scrubber workbook.xls)

“I also estimated the cost of a conventional absorber by using the UTac

9/07/06 estimate for "Absorber + auxiliary equipment" cost in cell F8 of

the "Assume" tab and adjusted it upward for inflation and the higher gas

flow at Tilden in cell M8 in the "Cap Cost" tab. You can enter your estimate

for control efficiency in "Assume" cell C9--Tilden assumed 80%, but 90% -

95% is reasonable.”

(See attached file: Tilden SO2 wet scrubber from UTac.xls)

“I estimated the cost of a Venturi rod scrubber from Tilden's

9/11/09 submittal and included an inflation adjustment. You can enter your

estimate for control efficiency in "Assume" cell C9--Tilden assumed 50%,

which is reasonable.”

(See attached file: Tilden SO2 Venturi rod scrubber workbook.xls)

Don Shepherd

National Park Service

Air Resources Division

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy.

Lakewood, CO 80228

Phone: 303-969-2075

Fax: 303-969-2822

E-Mail: don_shepherd@nps.gov
revised updated Tilden GSA.xls 

Tilden conventional SO2 absorber scrubber workbook.xls

Tilden SO2 wet scrubber from UTac.xls

Tilden SO2 Venturi rod scrubber workbook.xls
#### § 1024.314 Structured transactions.

Refer to § 1010.314 of this chapter for rules regarding structured transactions for mutual funds.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13404-000]


Clean River Power MR-3, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 6, 2009.
    On March 25, 2009, Clean River Power MR-3, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Beverly Lock and Dam Water 
Power Project, to be located at the State of Ohio's Beverly lock and 
dam on the Muskingum River in Washington County, Ohio.
    The proposed Beverly Lock and Dam Project would consist of: (1) The 
existing 17.0-foot-high, 535-foot-long concrete dam; (2) the existing 
490-acre reservoir with a 3,345 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a new 
175-foot-long, 100-foot-wide intake structure; (4) a 120-foot-long, 
100-foot-wide power canal; (5) a new powerhouse containing four 
proposed generating units with a total installed capacity of 4.8 
megawatts; (6) a new 250-foot-long tailrace; (7) a new switchyard 
containing a single three-phase step-up transformer; and (8) a new 
1,000-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt overhead transmission line. The project 
would have an estimated average annual generation of 19,300 megawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Alan Skelly, 8425 Beechmont Avenue, 
Cincinnati, OH 45255, phone (513) 375-9242.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer, (202) 502-6093.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13404) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19603 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 78 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J. Res.78

                       One Hundred Fourth 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, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                            Joint Resolution

 
   To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional powers 
conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency by the States of Missouri 
                              and Illinois.

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between Missouri and 
  Illinois creating the Bi-State Development Agency and the Bi-State 
  Metropolitan District provided that no power shall be exercised by 
  the Bi-State Agency under the provisions of article III of such 
  compact until such power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency 
  by the legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an 
  Act of Congress; and
Whereas such States have now enacted certain legislation in order to 
  confer certain additional powers on such Bi-State Development Agency: 
  Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the consent of 
Congress is hereby given to the additional powers conferred on the Bi-
State Development Agency of the Compact Between Missouri and Illinois 
approved under the Joint Resolution of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) 
by section 70.378 of the Act of May 26, 1993 (1993 Mo. Laws 382) and 
section 5 of Public Act 88-611, Laws of Illinois 1994.
    (b) The powers consented to in subsection (a) and conferred by the 
laws referred to in such subsection shall take effect on January 1, 
1995.
    Sec. 2. The provisions of the Joint Resolution of August 31, 1950 
(64 Stat. 568) shall apply to the additional powers approved under this 
joint resolution to the same extent as if such additional powers were 
conferred under the provisions of the compact consented to in such 
Joint Resolution.
    Sec. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution 
is expressly reserved.
    Sec. 4. The right is hereby reserved to the Congress to require the 
disclosure and furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State 
Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by the Congress.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 33

For the relief of Alexander Vraciu.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on National Security

JOINT RESOLUTION

For the relief of Alexander Vraciu.

Whereas the World War II commanding officer of then Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu and all of the 7 firing line

commanders who were there and knew what happened,

recommended Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu for the

Congressional Medal of Honor;

Whereas Admiral G.D. Murray, at Pearl Harbor Headquarters, improperly processed the recommendation and

wrongfully deleted part of the 4 mission citation indicating with tortuous, if not contorted logic, to wit: ‘‘His superior performance of normal duties brought distinction

upon himself. His failure, if it had occurred, to engage
2

•HJ 33 IH

the enemy, on 19 June 1944, would have brought censure upon himself’’;

Whereas at that time Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu was

the leading Navy flying ace, having shot down 19 enemy

aircraft and destroyed 21 planes on the ground;

Whereas in one engagement alone, Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander

Vraciu, dismissing thoughts of self, plunged into the fray

and destroyed 6 attacking enemy bomber aircraft in 8

minutes’ time, quite clearly performing far above and beyond the call of duty;

Whereas Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu alone sank a

large and significant enemy cargo vessel and shot down

2 additional enemy planes and materially assisted our

bombers in sinking an enemy carrier—all in a matter of

a few days; and

Whereas Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu was shot down 2

different times in the thick of battle and welter of antiaircraft enemy fire, selflessly and repeatedly venturing

his entire moral being for the life of his country: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO ALEXANDER

4 VRACIU.

5 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 6248

6 of title 10, United States Code (relating to the award of

7 the Medal of Honor), the President shall award a Medal

8 of Honor to Alexander Vraciu of Danville, California, in

9 accordance with the decision of Vraciu’s commanding offi-
3

•HJ 33 IH

1 cer at sea and pursuant to section 6241 of that title, for

2 his superlatively heroic service to our Nation.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1231

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to improve the provision of trade

readjustment allowances during breaks in training, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 14, 1995

Mr. OLVER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to improve the provision

of trade readjustment allowances during breaks in training, 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 ‘‘Trade Adjustment As5 sistance Program Improvement Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOW7 ANCES DURING BREAKS IN TRAINING.

8 Section 233(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

9 2293(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘14 days’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘45 days’’.
2

•HR 1231 IH

1 SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PRO2 GRAM.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 250(d)(3)(B)(i) of the

4 Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(3)(B)(i)) is

5 amended by striking ‘‘of such worker’s initial unemploy6 ment compensation benefit period’’ and inserting ‘‘after

7 such worker’s most recent qualifying separation’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to workers covered

10 under a certification issued under section 250(c) of the

11 Trade Act of 1974 on or after the date of the enactment

12 of this Act.

Æ
www.gpo.gov

### §1741. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

Congress finds and declares that—

(1) there is pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida a lawsuit by the Miccosukee Indian Tribe which involves certain lands within the State of Florida;

(2) the pendency of such lawsuit may result in economic hardships for residents of the State of Florida by clouding the titles to lands in the State, including lands not now involved in the lawsuits;

(3) the pendency of such lawsuit also has clouded the easement rights of the South Florida Water Management District in lands necessary for use as a water flowage and storage area, which is part of a federally authorized project for flood control and water management in central and southern Florida, and which is being used to provide and regulate a water supply for the residents of South Florida;

(4) the State of Florida and the Miccosukee Indian Tribe have executed agreements for the purposes of resolving tribal land claims and settling such lawsuit, which agreements require implementing legislation by the Congress of the United States and the Legislature of the State of Florida; and

(5) Congress shares with the parties to such agreements a desire to settle such Indian claims in the State of Florida without additional cost to the United States.

(Pub. L. 97–399, §2, Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2012.)

#### Short Title

Section 1 of Pub. L. 97–399 provided: “That this Act [enacting this part] may be cited as the ‘Florida Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1982’.”
#### Sydney HERRON, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad litem, John HERRON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 01-56128.

D.C. No. CV-00-01645-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 3, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Since the district court’s decision in this case, we rendered our opinion in *McGraw v. United States,*281 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.2002), *pet. for reh. and reh. en banc pending. McGraw*refines the rule on accrual of certain medical malpractice claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. We reverse and remand, as the issue of subject matter jurisdiction was briefed and resolved in the district court without reference to *McGraw.*

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David M. Condes, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 753]

*1150Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered October 15, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, rape in the first degree (four counts), criminal sexual act in the first degree (three counts), attempted assault in the second degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), assault in the third degree and attempted aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (Penal Law § 135.10) and four counts of rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [1]). Following opening statements by the People and defense counsel at trial, defendant entered a plea of guilty. He thus forfeited his present challenge to County Court’s *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v McCorkle,*298 AD2d 848 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 561 [2002]; *People v Nichols,*277 AD2d 715, 718 [2000]; *People v Kilmer,*228 AD2d 808 [1996]).

We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to remove a sworn juror, thereby denying defendant his rights to due process and a fair trial. We note that defendant’s contention is properly before us despite the fact that defendant pleaded guilty after jury selection and opening statements *(see generally People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]). Pursuant to CPL 270.35 (1), “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . ., the court must discharge such juror.” “In concluding that a juror is grossly unqualified, the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on [his or] her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent [him or] her from rendering an impartial verdict” *(People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]). Here, the court questioned the sworn juror in chambers and, upon ascertaining that the juror’s casual acquaintance with a witness years earlier would not affect the juror’s ability to be fair and impartial, the court properly determined that the juror was not “grossly unqualified” to continue serving (CPL 270.35 [1]; *see*
      *1151
      *People v Booker,*282 AD2d 201 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 916 [2001]; *People v Davis,*248 AD2d 632 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 850 [1998]). Finally, the sentence, which was less than the maximum allowable, is not unduly harsh or serve. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J, Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,461,910
<SECURITIES>                                 1,769,679
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,902,991
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,936,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          461,473
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,792,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,936,271
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,227
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (348,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (348,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (348,022)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (34.10)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (34.10)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2
                                                               ------------

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


      The undersigned, Deborah A. McLaughlin, is the Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the
"Company"). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing
by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)); and

B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
      Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

DATE:  August 15, 2005                 /S/ DEBORAH A. MCLAUGHLIN
       -----------------------         ------------------------------------
                                       DEBORAH A. MCLAUGHLIN
                                       Executive Vice President
                                       Chief Financial Officer/Chief
                                       Operating Officer


<PAGE>