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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3287 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3287

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1996

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Crawford National 
            Fish Hatchery to the city of Crawford, Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Crawford National Fish Hatchery 
Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CRAWFORD NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO THE CITY OF 
              CRAWFORD, NEBRASKA.

    (a) Conveyance Requirement.--Within 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to 
the city of Crawford, Nebraska, without reimbursement, all right, 
title, and interest of the United States in and to the property 
described in subsection (b), for use by the city for a city park and 
other public recreational purposes.
    (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in subsection (a) 
is the property known as the Crawford National Fish Hatchery, located 
in the city of Crawford, Nebraska, consisting of 5.95 acres (more or 
less), and all improvements and related personal property under the 
control of the Secretary that is located on that property, including 
buildings, structures, equipment, and all easements, leases, and water 
rights relating to that property.
    (c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--If any of the property conveyed 
to the city of Crawford, Nebraska, under this section is used by the 
city for any purpose other than the uses authorized under subsection 
(a), all right, title, and interest in and to all property conveyed 
under this section shall revert to the United States. The city of 
Crawford, Nebraska, shall ensure that all property that reverts to the 
United States under this subsection is in substantially the same or 
better condition as at the time of conveyance to the city.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
ACCEPTED 03-14-00734-CR 3608753 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/29/2014 5:32:54 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK NO. 03-14-00734-CR 

## In The Third Court of Appeals Austin, Texas

BRUCE WAYNE HARKEY Appellant 

## v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Cause no. CRS 

### 731 On Appeal from the 33rd Judicial District Court of Llano County, Llano, Texas

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: Appellant, Bruce Wayne Harkey, pursuant to Rule 10.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, by and through his attorney of record, requests anextension of time to file appellant's brief, and in support thereof would show the
court the following: 

### 1_Thereporter's record was filed on December 1, 2014. The clerk's record was filed on November 17, 2014. 2_Underthe court's briefing schedule, the appellant's briefis currently due on January 5, 2015. 3_The Court Reporter's Record exceeds ten (10) volumes oftestimony and the trial before thejurywas approximately one and one-halfweek in duration. More than 100 exhibits were admitted. 4_Theundersigned attorneyhas an extensive trial practice, both civil and criminal. Further, the undersigned counsel has numerous and regular court appearances consisting ofmotions to revoke and suppression hearings. Likewise, the undersigned is preparing for severaljurytrials which are subject to being tried within the following sixty (60) days. 5_ In 

### order to prepare a briefthat will be ofassistance to the Court, the undersigned seeks a 60-day extension oftime to file its appellant's brief, so that the briefwill be due on March 6, 2015. 6_This is the first request for an extension oftime to file Appellant's brief. This extension is not sought solely for delay, but is necessary so thatjustice can be done. For these reasons, Appellant respectfullyrequests that the Court grant this motion to extend the time for filing Appellant's briefand allow that briefto befiled on orbefore March 6, 2015. Appellant also requests any other reliefto which it maybe entitled. Respectfully submitted,

# ~ 111 E. Jackson Street PO Box 398 Burnet, Texas 78611 (512)756-5117 (512) 756-0164 Fax State Bar No. 05537100 Email: rdd@austin.twcbc.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Briefhas beenhand delivered, or sent byU.S. mail, certified return receipt requested, or transmitted bytelephonic transfer to the counsel for the State, Gary W. Bunyard, ofthe Office ofthe District Attorney ofLlano County, P.O. Box 725, Llano, Texas 78643; on this

### th~**1~day** of

# J) e_

### c..~~, 2014.

RICHARD D. DAVIS CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE The undersigned byhis signature below certifies that the District Attorney's Office ofthe 33RD Judicial District has been contacted and that this motion i
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135178 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135178 

 COA: 268695 
 Wayne CC: 05-007563-01

JOHN EARL PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 6, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 22, 2008 

 Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 202

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 202 appear at 76 FR 27898, May 13, 2011.

#### §§ 202.7-202.9 [Reserved]
§ 482.11 Condition of participation: Compliance with Federal, State and local laws. ( a ) The hospital must be in compliance with applicable Federal laws related to the health and safety of patients.
( b ) The hospital must be— ( 1 ) Licensed; or
( 2 ) Approved as meeting standards for licensing established by the agency of the State or locality responsible for licensing hospitals.
( c ) The hospital must assure that personnel are licensed or meet other applicable standards that are required by State or local laws.
1 

### Chappell, Regina

From: Sorrels, Larry

Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:40 AM

To: Chappell, Regina

Subject: Email and attachments for inclusion in Control Cost Manual update docket

Attachments: removed.txt; ipm 2013 final sncr_cost_ methodology.pdf; EPA Cost Manual _ICAC

Commentstoepaletter oct21.pd f; ICAC_Ltr_2015-10-21final.pdf

Hello Regina:

Please insert the email below, and the attachments to it, into the docket for the Control Cost Manual update docket

(EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2015

‐ 0341). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

From: Haley Armstrong < harmstrong@icac.com >

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 4:29 PM

To: Sorrels, Larry

Cc: Betsy Natz; mstafford@ajw

‐ inc.com ; Michael Goo; Chris Hessler

Subject: ICAC information on revision to SNRC chapter in EPA Cost Manual

Hi Larry,

I am writing to provide the additional information that was requested in a letter dated October 21, 2015 to the ICAC

from you regarding the comments the ICAC submitted to Docket ID No. EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2015

‐ 0341, Notice of Availability of

the EPA’s Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 80 FR (June 12, 2015) on September 10,

2015 for revisions to the SNCR chapter of the Cost Manual. I am attaching the comments with edits to provide additional

information, the IPM Model

– Updates to Cost and Performance for APC Technologies, and the original letter the ICAC

received from you in October.

I called your office this afternoon, and they suggested that we email these materials directly to you. Please let me know

if you need any additional information or have any questions, and I will be happy to help!

Kind regards,

Haley

Haley Armstrong

Marketing Coordinator

Institute of Clean Air Companies

2200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 310

Arlington, VA 22201

202.478.6188 (office)

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the co rrect file and location.2 

## Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)

www.linkedin.com

Comprised of more than 80 member companies, the Institute of

Clean Air Companies (ICAC) is a national trade organization that

represents suppliers of air pollution monitoring and control

systems, equipment, and services for stationary sources in the

U.S. and Canada. The association serves its members by working

with government, business, public , and private groups to ensure

that the industry and its products are properly represented.

ICAC provides its members with current information and weekly

updates on policies and develo pments that impact their

companies as well as events that offer member companies the

opportunity to network and conne ct with representatives from

the industry. 2015 ICAC Annual Meeting April 22-25, 2015 Omni

Hilton Head Oceanfront Resort Hilton Head Island, South

Carolina For more information, visit us online at www.icac.com

.

Larry Sorrels

US EPA/OAQPS/HEID/AEG

Economist

919

‐ 541

‐ 5041

919

‐ 541

‐ 0839 (fax)

C439

‐ 02

Room C441H
#### Isaac Pichel, Appellant, *v.*Adolph Pichel et al., Respondents.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment' of the Municipal Court, ninth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendants.

Carl L. Schurz,'for appellant.

Greenstein *&*Sóbel, for respondents.

MacLean, J.

In 'their answer' to' the oral plea of the plaintiff for “ money loaned ”, the defendants set up" counterclaims aggregating more than the sum claimed by the plaintiff. The learned justice reached the ■ conclusion on the evidence that the counterclaims of the defendants were established, and vouchsafed in his opinion the unusual explanation: “But- as the plaintiff is poor, the court would not give an affirmative judgment, but gave judgment for thé defendants on the ground that their, counterclaim had been established to the extent of the plaintiff’s claim.” . Evidence was adduced in support of the allegations of defendants, which justified a finding in "their favor. If they be not aggrieved- that the judgment was not for the full amount to. which the justice found they were entitled, the plaintiff may not complaint. The judgment should be affirmed. ,

.Fbeedmah, P. J., and Leveetp.itt, J.,. concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARTHUR DEON DAVIS,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00 209

- C R

Appeal from the

299th Judicial District Court

o f Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- DC

- 20

- 300434 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2023.

Y VONNE T. RODRIGUEZ

, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.803 Reporting professional misconduct.

(a) A practitioner who knows that another practitioner has committed a violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that practitioner's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a practitioner in other respects, shall inform the OED Director and any other appropriate professional authority.

(b) A practitioner who knows that a judge, hearing officer, administrative law judge, administrative patent judge, or administrative trademark judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the individual's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

(c) The provisions of this section do not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by § 11.106 or information gained while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 184 (Thursday, September 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10855-000]


Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

September 17, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 
380, Commission staff have prepared an environmental assessment (EA) 
regarding Upper Peninsula Power Company's request to replace the 
penstock at the McClure development of the Dead River Hydroelectric 
Project (FERC No. 10855) located on the Dead River in Marquette County, 
Michigan.
    The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental effects of the proposed replacement of the McClure 
Penstock and concludes that the proposed penstock replacement, with 
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a 
major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's 
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. 
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket 
number field to access the document. Additional information about the 
project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, 
at (202) 502-6088, or on the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary 
link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbfdfee9f8f4d5d7d2d5dee8cecbcbd4c9cffbdddec9d895dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="71373423323e1f1d181f14220401011e030531171403125f161e07">[email protected]</span></a> 
or toll-free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY contact (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22996 Filed 9-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 231.2 Request for Register's review.

A party may not file for review of the Board's *final determination* by the Register of Copyrights unless it has first filed, and had denied, a request for reconsideration. Where the Board has denied a request for reconsideration, the party who requested reconsideration may request review of the *final determination* by the Register of Copyrights. Such a request must be filed within 30 days of the denial of a request for reconsideration, shall be no more than 12 pages, and shall meet the requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter. The request must include the reasons the party believes there was an abuse of discretion in denying the request for reconsideration. The request must be accompanied by the filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 201.3(g)(3).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

          - 48 CFR Part 205

### CFR Correction

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2 (Parts 201 to 299), revised as of October 1, 2008, on page 34, in section 205.470, remove “$100,000,000” and add “$1,000,000” in its place.

[FR Doc. E9-22901 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
HomeHuman Rights and Democracy

# Human Rights and Democracy

515 items

        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		2018 Report on International Religious Freedom	  June 21, 2019 
        -    		Cuba: Title III FAQs (LIBERTAD)	   
        -    		About Us	   
        -    		Defining Antisemitism	   
        -    		Legislation	   
        -    		Frequently Asked Questions: IRF Report and Countries of Particular Concern	   
        -    		Global Equality Fund	   
        -    Other Release  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Translations	   
        -    Report  		2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices	  March 13, 2019 

previous page1…474849505152next page

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.74 Reference to drawings.

When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### COLLECTOR OF REVENUE, State of Louisiana v. GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.

No. 54564.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 11, 1974.

In re: Gulf States Utilities Co. applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 289 So.2d 367.

Writ denied. No error of law in the judgment.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
§ 90.6 Notification of determination to conduct a health assessment in response to a request from the public. ( a ) Following a determination by ATSDR to conduct a health assessment in response to a request from the public, ATSDR shall notify in writing, at a minimum, the following parties of its intent to perform a health assessment: ( 1 ) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
( 2 ) The appropriate State government environmental agency;
( 3 ) The appropriate State and local health departments;
( 4 ) The requestor;
( 5 ) The owner or operator of the facility of concern, if their identity is readily available to ATSDR. In addition, ATSDR will notify, in writing or by telephone, other potentially responsible parties, if their identity is readily available to ATSDR.
( b ) At its discretion, ATSDR may notify any other persons which it feels may be affected by the release or have information pertaining to the release.
§ 498.100 Basis, timing, and authority for reopening an ALJ or Board decision. ( a ) *Basis and timing for reopening.* An ALJ of Departmental Appeals Board decision may be reopened, within 60 days from the date of the notice of decision, upon the motion of the ALJ or the Board or upon the petition of either party to the hearing.
( b ) *Authority to reopen.* ( 1 ) A decision of the Departmental Appeals Board may be reopened only by the Departmental Appeals Board.
( 2 ) A decision of an ALJ may be reopened by that ALJ, by another ALJ if that one is not available, or by the Departmental Appeals Board. For purposes of this paragraph, an ALJ is considered to be unavailable if the ALJ has died, terminated employment, or been transferred to another duty station, is on leave of absence, or is unable to conduct a hearing because of illness.
§ 483.206 Transfers, discharges and relocations subject to appeal. ( a ) “Facility” means a certified entity, either a Medicare SNF or a Medicaid NF (See § 483.5).
( b ) A resident has appeal rights when he or she is transferred from— ( 1 ) A certified bed into a noncertified bed; and
( 2 ) A bed in a certified entity to a bed in an entity which is certified as a different provider.
( c ) A resident has no appeal rights when he or she is moved from one bed in the certified entity to another bed in the same certified entity.
[57 FR 56514, Nov. 30, 1992, as amended at 81 FR 68871, Oct. 4, 2016]