alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 16.34 Evidence. ( a ) The ALJ shall determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided herein, the ALJ shall not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, e.g., to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ shall exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement shall be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( h ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by all parties, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ pursuant to § 16.24.
### International Strategic Minerals Inventory summary report; nickel

By: John H. DeYoung, Jr.**D. M. SutphinA.B.T. WernerM. P. Foose

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir930D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 501.733 Evidence: confidential information, protective orders. ( a ) *Procedure.* In any proceeding as defined in § 501.702, a respondent; the Director; any person who is the owner, subject or creator of a document subject to subpoena or which may be introduced as evidence; or any witness who testifies at a hearing may file a motion requesting a protective order to limit from disclosure to other parties or to the public documents or testimony containing confidential information. The motion should include a general summary or extract of the documents without revealing confidential details. If a person seeks a protective order against disclosure to other parties as well as the public, copies of the documents shall not be served on other parties. Unless the documents are unavailable, the person shall file for inspection by the Administrative Law Judge a sealed copy of the documents as to which the order is sought.
( b ) *Basis for issuance.* Documents and testimony introduced in a public hearing are presumed to be public. A motion for a protective order shall be granted only upon a finding that the harm resulting from disclosure would outweigh the benefits of disclosure.
( c ) *Requests for additional information supporting confidentiality.* A person seeking a protective order under paragraph (a) of this section may be required to furnish in writing additional information with respect to the grounds for confidentiality. Failure to supply the information so requested not later than 5 days from the date of receipt by the person of a notice of the information required shall be deemed a waiver of the objection to public disclosure of that portion of the documents to which the additional information relates, unless the Administrative Law Judge shall otherwise order for good cause shown at or before the expiration of such 5-day period.
( d ) *Confidentiality of documents pending decision.* Pending a determination of a motion under this section, the documents as to which confidential treatment is sought and any other documents that would reveal the confidential information in those documents shall be maintained under seal and shall be disclosed only in accordance with orders of the Administrative Law Judge. Any order issued in connection with a motion under this section shall be made public unless the order would disclose information as to which a protective order has been granted, in which case that portion of the order that would reveal the protected information shall not be made public.
§ 501.804 Rulemaking. ( a ) All rules and other public documents are issued by the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. In general, rulemaking by the Office of Foreign Assets Control involves foreign affairs functions of the United States, and for that reason is exempt from the requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public comment, and delay in effective date.
( b ) Any interested person may petition the Office of Foreign Assets Control for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any rule, including a general license, at *OFACReport@treasury.gov* with the number of this section in the subject line.
[62 FR 45101, Aug. 25, 1997. Redesignated at 68 FR 53642, Sept. 11, 2003, as amended at 89 FR 40377, May 10, 2024]
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Theundersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Texas Eastern ProductsPipeline Company, LLC, the sole general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, filed with the UnitedStates Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Thiswritten statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionas an exhibit to such Form 10-Q.  Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and will be retained by TEPPCO Partners, L.P.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 
| November 1, 2004                                              |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date                                                          |
|                                                          |
| /s/ CHARLES H. LEONARD                                        |   |
| Charles H. Leonard                                            |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer             |
| Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC, General Partner |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2095
MARY JO BARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE HOAK, M.D., Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1197-2) Submitted: March 27, 2003 Decided: April 11, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Jo Barker, Appellant Pro Se. Richard D. Jones, Mark Allen Robinson, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Mary Jo Barker appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bruce Hoak in this medical malpractice action. In the briefing order, Barker was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in her informal brief. See4th Cir. R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Barker’s informal brief does not challenge the grounds for the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Instead, she presents new information that was not before the district court as support for the merits of her claim. We may not consider such new information on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). Accordingly, we affirm. We grant Dr. Hoak’s motion to strike and deny Barker’s motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Gregory  Weber

# 				Gregory  Weber			

				U.S. Military–Marine Security Guard			

Deceased				June 19, 1985			

**U.S. Government image**Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialEl Salvador

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1393 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1393

   To direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out an environmental 
   restoration project at the Eastern Channel of the Lockwoods Folly 
                River, Brunswick County, North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 1995

   Mr. Rose introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out an environmental 
   restoration project at the Eastern Channel of the Lockwoods Folly 
                River, Brunswick County, North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall carry out a 
project under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4251-4252; 33 U.S.C. 2309a) at the Eastern Channel of 
the Lockwoods Folly River, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
    (b) Project Features.--In carrying out the project under subsection 
(a), the Secretary shall open the Old Eastern Navigation Channel at the 
mouth of the Lockwoods Folly River in Brunswick County, North Carolina, 
and partially close the present ocean channel between the west end of 
Sheep Island and the northeast point of Holden Beach.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 1995. Such sums shall remain available 
until expended.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 34.403 Use of funds—Comprehensive Plan Component.

An activity may be funded in whole or in part if the applicable requirements of subparts C and E of this part are met.
§ 50.17 General disclosure requirements for State residual market insurance entities and State workers' compensation funds. ( a ) *Residual market mechanism disclosure.* A state residual market insurance entity or state workers' compensation fund may provide the disclosures required by this subpart B to policyholders using normal business practices, including forms and methods of communication used to communicate similar information to policyholders. The disclosures may be made by the state residual market insurance entity or state workers' compensation fund itself, the individual insurers that participate in the state residual market insurance entity or state workers' compensation fund, or its servicing carriers. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the disclosure requirements have been met rests with the insurer filing a claim under the Program.
( b ) *Other requirements.* Except as provided in this section, all other disclosure requirements set out in this subpart B apply to state residual insurance market entities and state workers' compensation funds.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 18-30139 

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C., 

Plaintiff - Appellant 

v. 

RIVER BIRCH, INCORPORATED; ALBERT J. WARD, JR.; FREDERICK R. 

HEEBE; HIGHWAY 90, L.L.C., 

Defendants - Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

Before DAVIS, COSTA, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM: 

ON PETITION FOR PANEL AND EN BANC REHEARING 

Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel 

Rehearing, we note that Defendants did not cite or rely on Matsushita Electric 

Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), in the district court 

or to the panel. We therefore decline to consider that case now. Both the 

majority and the dissent agree that the issue in this case is factual, more 

particularly, what inferences can or will be drawn by the jury from the 

evidence. 

The majority continues to adhere to its view that fact issues are 

presented that preclude summary judgment. The dissent disagrees and would
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1378

To require the Secretary of State to publish the names of United States

citizens who renounce their citizenship.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To require the Secretary of State to publish the names

of United States citizens who renounce their citizenship.

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLICATION OF NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO

4 RENOUNCE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, not later than 30 days after the close of each

7 calendar quarter ending after the date of the enactment

8 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish in the Fed9 eral Register the names of each United States citizen who
2

•HR 1378 IH

1 renounced such citizenship, or otherwise ceased to be such

2 a citizen, during such quarter.

3 (b) RENUNCIATIONS ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,

4 1995, INCLUDED IN FIRST PUBLICATION.—The publica5 tion under subsection (a) for the first calendar quarter

6 ending after the date of the enactment of this Act shall

7 include the names of each United States citizen who re8 nounced such citizenship, or otherwise ceased to be such

9 a citizen, on or after January 1, 1995, and before such

10 calendar quarter.

Æ
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary O’Brien’s Travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina

# 									Assistant Secretary O’Brien’s Travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

January 29, 2024

Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs James C. O’Brien will travel to Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 1-3, 2024. His visit will emphasize the strong partnership between the United States and Bosnia and Herzegovina and reaffirm the United States’ support for the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and multiethnic character. While in Sarajevo, Assistant Secretary O’Brien will meet with senior government officials to underscore that functional, efficient, and accountable democratic institutions at all levels of government are essential to a better future for all citizens, in both the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. Assistant Secretary O’Brien will also meet with High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Christian Schmidt and will deliver a keynote address on U.S. priorities in the region at the University of Sarajevo.

Tags

Bosnia and HerzegovinaBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International Travel

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 205.20 What is a clearance pattern? States use clearance patterns to project when funds are paid out, given a known dollar amount and a known date of disbursement. A State must ensure that clearance patterns meet the following standards: ( a ) A clearance pattern must be auditable.
( b ) A clearance pattern must accurately represent the flow of Federal funds under the Federal assistance programs to which it is applied.
( c ) A clearance pattern must include seasonal or other periodic variations in clearance activity.
( d ) A clearance pattern must be based on at least three consecutive months of disbursement data, unless additional data is required to accurately represent the flow of Federal funds.
( e ) If a State uses statistical sampling to develop a clearance pattern, the sample size must be sufficient to ensure a 96 percent confidence interval no more than plus or minus 0.25 weighted days above or below the estimated mean.
( f ) A clearance pattern must extend, at a minimum, until 99 percent of the dollars in a disbursement have been paid out for Federal assistance program purposes.
( g ) We and a State may agree to other procedures, such as estimates to project when funds are paid out when the dollar amount and/or the timing of disbursements are not known.
Home2022 Treaties and Agreements...Argentina (22-308) – Extension of Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in Space Geodetic Research

# 									Argentina (22-308) – Extension of Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in Space Geodetic Research							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

March 8, 2022

Space: Geodesy

Exchange of letters at Washington and Buenos Aires March 8, 2022; entered into force March 8, 2022.

Extension of Memorandum of Understanding of October 26, 2011: TIAS 11-1026.
Download Agreement						 [865 KB]

Tags

ArgentinaSpaceTreaties

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### § 539.503 Exclusion from licenses.

The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control reserves the right to exclude any person, property, or transaction from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon all persons receiving actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31110

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFRED D. LEWIS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-30018

- - - - - - - - - -

May 16, 1996

Before KING, GARWOOD, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfred D. Lewis appeals his sentence, arguing that the

district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a

downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 and that the

court erred by denying his motion for a concurrent sentence

and/or for downward departure pursuant to §§ 5G1.3(b) and (c). 

Because the sentencing court's refusal to depart downward

pursuant to § 5K2.0 was not the result of a violation of the law

or a misapplication of the guidelines, this court lacks
2

jurisdiction to review the court's refusal to depart. See United

States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995). Section

5G1.3 is not applicable to Lewis's case because Lewis was not

subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment at the time of

sentencing. See § 5G1.3. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK DEVIN PARTMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00377-CMC-1)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Devin Partman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Devin Partman, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as 

amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 

5239. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S Ct. 

383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. The district 

court denied Partman’s motion after assessing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

and sufficiently explained its reasons for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 

181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of 

compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2038]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of a Meeting

    Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission.
    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 74 FR 4746.
    Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting: January 28, 
2009-11:00 a.m.
    Change: The Meeting for January 28, 2009 is canceled.
    For Further Information Contact: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 
523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2038 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M