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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4474 

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the export of certain 

unmanned aircraft systems. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2020 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. COONS, and Mr. 

PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the 

export of certain unmanned aircraft systems. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF CERTAIN UN4 MANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. 

5 Chapter 7 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 

6 U.S.C. 2797 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 

7 73B the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4474 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 73C. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF CERTAIN UN2 MANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by subsection 

4 (b), the export, transfer, or trade of covered unmanned 

5 aircraft systems, or equipment, assemblies, or components 

6 for such systems, is prohibited. 

7 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection 

8 (a) does not apply to the export, transfer, or trade of sys9 tems, equipment, assemblies, or components described in 

10 that subsection to the government of any of the following: 

11 ‘‘(1) A country that is a member of the North 

12 Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

13 ‘‘(2) Australia. 

14 ‘‘(3) Israel. 

15 ‘‘(4) Japan. 

16 ‘‘(5) New Zealand. 

17 ‘‘(6) South Korea. 

18 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

19 ‘‘(1) COVERED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYS20 TEM.—The term ‘covered unmanned aircraft system’ 

21 means an unmanned aircraft system— 

22 ‘‘(A) capable of delivering a payload of not 

23 less than 500 kilograms over a range of not less 

24 than 300 kilometers; or 

25 ‘‘(B) described in item 1.A.2 of category I 

26 of the MTCR Annex. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4474 IS

1 ‘‘(2) PAYLOAD.—The term ‘payload’ means the 

2 total mass that can be carried or delivered by an un3 manned aircraft system that is not used to maintain 

4 flight. 

5 ‘‘(3) RANGE.—The term ‘range’ means the 

6 maximum distance that an unmanned aircraft sys7 tem is capable of traveling in the mode of stable 

8 flight as measured by the projection of its trajectory 

9 over the surface of the Earth.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.5
 CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND
SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
   1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
  /s/ Glenn J. ChamandyName:
    Glenn J. ChamandyTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND
SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
   1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
  /s/ Laurence G. SellynName:
    Laurence G. SellynTitle:
    Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
Order entered April 9, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01584-CR

BRIGHAM EUGENE KREBS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-80655-2013

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On March 4, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief had not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeal; (2) appellant is not indigent; and (3) retained counsel’s explanation for the delay in filing 

appellant’s brief was due to a medical issue involving his left arm. Because appellant’s brief was 

not tendered by March 31, 2014, we DO NOT ADOPT the finding that the brief would be filed 

by that date.

We GRANT appellant’s April 3, 2014 motion to extend time to file his brief. We 

ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.
The Court ORDERS Jennifer Corley, official court reporter of the County Court at Law 

No. 6, to coordinate with court reporters Kristen Kopp and Crystal Cannon to file a supplemental 

record containing State’s Exhibit nos. 1 and 2, the videos that were admitted during the 

suppression hearing. The supplemental record is due within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Jennifer Corley, official court reporter, County Court at Law No. 6; court reporters Kristen Kopp 

and Crystal Cannon; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### BROOKS v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 91-784-AC (County Court Case No. 90-9985-MM)

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion County

October 17, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Charles P. Horn, Esquire, for appellant.

Brad King, State Attorney, for appellee.

Before McNEAL, BOOTH, SINGELTARY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

McNEAL, R. Circuit Judge.

The Marion County Sheriffs Department failed to record or negli*53gently erased portions of a videotape of appellant’s field sobriety tests. Alleging that the state “wilfully altered” the tape, appellant moved to dismiss the charges of driving under the influence and driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level and moved to suppress the tape. The court found that the state did not act in bad faith and denied the motions. We affirm.

The trial court relied on *Youngblood v Arizona,*488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 337, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), which held “unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Appellant contends that *State v Powers,*555 So.2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) requires dismissal of the charges regardless of whether the state acted in bad faith, unless the state can establish the absence of prejudice. That is not the holding of *Powers.*A defendant’s due process rights are violated when the prosecution suppresses material evidence favorable to the accused, even if the state acted in good faith. *Brady v Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). But a defendant’s due process rights are not violated where the state fails to preserve potentially useful evidence, unless the defendant can prove that the state acted in bad faith. *State v Larringa,*569 So.2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Appellant argues that the trial court incorrectly applied the *Young-blood*test. The stipulated record on appeal states that the court found that the state inadvertently erased portions of the videotape of appellant’s field sobriety tests and that appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the state acted in bad faith. Substantial portions of the videotape were missing, but the trial court was able to view the missing portions in context and determine whether the state acted in bad faith, whether the evidence was exculpatory, whether the evidence was material to the case, and whether the defendant was prejudiced by the erasure. The court was also able to consider these issues in light of the entire evidence in the case, including appellant’s breathalyzer readings of .24 and .25. The record does not establish any error on part of the trial judge in weighing these factors and in denying the motion to dismiss or suppress.

Appellant also argued that his retrial violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the first trial the court granted appellant’s motion for mistrial based on an improper comment by the prosecutor. The court found that the prosecutor did not intentionally provoke a mistrial. The record supports this finding.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, J. and SINGELTARY, G., concur.
§ 33.92 Rotor locking tests. If continued rotation is prevented by a means to lock the rotor(s), the engine must be subjected to a test that includes 25 operations of this means under the following conditions: ( a ) The engine must be shut down from rated maximum continuous thrust or power; and
( b ) The means for stopping and locking the rotor(s) must be operated as specified in the engine operating instructions while being subjected to the maximum torque that could result from continued flight in this condition; and
( c ) Following rotor locking, the rotor(s) must be held stationary under these conditions for five minutes for each of the 25 operations.
[Doc. No. 28107, 61 FR 28433, June 4, 1996]
#### In the Matter of Landmark West! et al., Appellants, v New York City Board of Standards and Appeals et al., Respondents.

[699 NYS2d 334]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered March 2, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied the petition to set aside and annul a resolution of respondent New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) and to determine that Special Permit No. C880189AZSM, awarded January 9, 1989, had lapsed by operation of law, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As the IAS Court found, the challenged determination of the BSA, that the Special Permit had not lapsed under New York City Zoning Resolution § 11-42, enacted in 1995, was not arbitrary and capricious. The BSA properly determined, based on a rational construction of the language of section 11-42, that there was neither an express nor a necessarily implied requirement that the section be retroactively applied *(see, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist.,*91 NY2d 577, 584). In concluding that section 11-42 did not apply to the Special Permit, the BSA properly examined the legislative history of the 1995 Zoning Resolution amendments to ascertain the legislative intent respecting the section’s retroactivity or lack thereof, a matter which, contrary to petitioners’ argument, is not, given the presumption against retroactivity *(see, supra),*unambiguously clear from the language of section 11-42 *(see, City of New York v Stringfellow’s of N. Y.,*253 AD2d 110, 115-116, l*v dismissed*93 NY2d 916). As the Special Permit was not subject to a lapse provision, section 11-43, authorizing a review of the factual basis for renewing a permit prior to its lapse date, did not apply.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Malaria Vaccine Production and Support Services.                    

*Date:*                         May 26, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Georgetown, Fortune Room, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20007.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anna Ramsey-Ewing, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2220, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301 496-2550, ar15o@nih.gov

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 26, 2000.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-11207  Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10740]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1; 
Notice of Correction to Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to 
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

    On April 19, 2000 (65 FR 21034), the Federal Register published the 
Biweekly Notice of Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses 
Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations. On page 21042, under 
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, the amendment number was 
incorrectly noted. It should read, ``Amendment No.: 205.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of April 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
M. Christopher Nolan,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-10740 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.409 Default.

Failure of a respondent to file and serve an answer within the time and in the manner prescribed by § 302.408 shall be deemed to authorize the DOT decisionmaker or administrative law judge, as a matter of discretion, to find the facts alleged in the complaint incorporated in or accompanying the notice instituting a formal enforcement proceeding to be true and to enter such orders as may be appropriate without notice or hearing, or, as a matter of discretion, to proceed to take proof, without notice, of the allegations or charges set forth in the complaint or order; *Provided,* that the DOT decisionmaker or administrative law judge may permit late filing of an answer for good cause shown.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
24/7 Real Media, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-118747, 333-112729, 333-111991, 333-109925,
333-108422, 333-106252, 333-100583, 333-89985, 333-47074, and 333-34020) on Form S-3 and (Nos.
333-122041, 333-100582, 333-87714, 333-83287, 333-66995, 333-56308, and 333-35306) on Form S-8 of
24/7 Real Media, Inc. of our report dated March 1, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statements, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. and of our report dated April 12, 2005, with respect to management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of 24/7
Real Media, Inc.



New
York, NY
April 12, 2005

---



QuickLinks
§ 25.395 Control system. ( a ) Longitudinal, lateral, directional, and drag control system and their supporting structures must be designed for loads corresponding to 125 percent of the computed hinge moments of the movable control surface in the conditions prescribed in § 25.391.
( b ) The system limit loads of paragraph (a) of this section need not exceed the loads that can be produced by the pilot (or pilots) and by automatic or power devices operating the controls.
( c ) The loads must not be less than those resulting from application of the minimum forces prescribed in § 25.397(c).
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5672, Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29776, July 20, 1990; Amdt. 25-141, 79 FR 73468, Dec. 11, 2014]
Dr. Donn J. Viviani 

4907 Yorktown Blvd 

Arlington, VA 22207 

Dear Dr. Viviani: 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JUL 1 0 2015 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

I am writing to confirm that on June 30,2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received a 

petition from you and the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that EPA promulgate regulations 

pursuant to Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to protect "public health and the 

environment from the serious harms associated with anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, 

including ocean acidification." The petition alternately requests that EPA "adopt a rule under section 4 

of [TSCA] requiring manufacturers and processors responsible for the generation of carbon dioxide to 

undertake testing to determine toxicity, persistence, and other characteristics which affect health and the 

environment and are necessary to determine if there is an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the 

environment." 

Your petition has been filed pursuant to TSCA Section 21, which provides that within 90 days after the 

date of tiling, or September 27, 2015, for your petition, the Administrator shall either grant or deny the 

petition. Section 21 of TSCA further provides that if the Administrator grants such petition, then the 

Administrator shall promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. Section 21 ofTSCA also provides 

that if the Administrator denies such petition, then the Administrator shall publish in the Federal 

Register the Administrator's reasons for such denial. 

If you have any questions relating to your petition or EPA's guidelines for TSCA Section 21 petitions, 

please contact Mike Mattheisen by telephone at (202) 564-3077 or by email at 

mattheisen.mike@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Wendy 

~C.~ Cleland-Hamnett, Director 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

cc: Ms. Miyoko Sakashita 

Oceans Director, Center for Biological Diversity 

Internet Address (URL) • http;l/www.epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted wtth Vegetable Otl Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper
EXHIBIT 10.72



Addendum to "Extension of Maturity of Promissory Note and Modification of
Subscription and Warrant Purchase Agreement" dated May 7, 2003 between
UltraStrip Systems, Inc. and Eugene C. Rainis, in the amount of $125,000.00


Whereas on September 26, 2003, the outstanding principal balance on the
promissory note extension referenced above is $125,000.00, UltraStrip Systems,
Inc. ("Maker") and Eugene C. Rainis ("Holder") hereby agree to amend the
promissory note referenced above as follows:


         - The exercise price of the additional 10,000 warrants issued as
           interest is changed from $0.07 to $0.93.


         - The expiration date of the warrants is corrected from July 7, 2023 to
           May 7, 2023.



Date:    September 26, 2003


Lender:                                           UltraStrip Systems, Inc.


-----------------------                           By:
Eugene C. Rainis                                      -----------------------

                                                  Its:
                                                      ----------------------
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04489

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 04489\04489_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04489\04489_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04489\04489_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04489\Certification Statement Plant ID_04489.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Harbor Cogeneration Company Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Harbor Cogeneration Company_Aerial Map.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Part A Section 5_A5-3_Water Balance 3 Harbor final.docPlant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Part A Section 5_A5-3_Water Balance 3 Harbor.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Part A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Part E.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Part H.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_Part I.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\04489_partifinal-revised.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\Supporting Documentation\Questionnaire Instructions.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04489\04489_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04489\Plant04489_Completeness Checklist.xlsx EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.