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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4680 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4680

To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide that the United States district 
courts shall not have jurisdiction to condemn property in which a State 
              holds any interest, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2020

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide that the United States district 
courts shall not have jurisdiction to condemn property in which a State 
              holds any interest, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Ending Natural Gas Companies' 
Seizure of Land for Export Profits Act''.

SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS OVER CERTAIN 
              EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS.

    Section 7(h) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f(h)) is 
amended--
            (1) in the second sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``situated: Provided, That the'' 
                and inserting the following: ``situated.
            ``(3) Jurisdiction of united states district courts.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The''; and
                    (B) by striking ``The practice'' and inserting the 
                following:
            ``(2) Practice and procedure.--The practice'';
            (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``(h) When any 
        holder'' and inserting the following:
    ``(h) Eminent Domain.--
            ``(1) In general.--When any holder''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) State property.--The United States district 
                courts shall not have jurisdiction to condemn property 
                in which a State owns any interest.''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR EXPORTS.

    Section 7(h) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f(h)) (as amended 
by section 2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Limitation on use of eminent domain for exports.--A 
        holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity may 
        not exercise the right of eminent domain under this subsection 
        if the project covered by the certificate is a project to be 
        constructed substantially for the purpose of transporting 
        natural gas to an LNG terminal or to other pipelines for export 
        from the United States to a foreign country.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 102.164 Review of the obligation. ( a ) The debtor shall have the opportunity to obtain review by the Agency of the determination concerning the existence or amount of the debt as set forth in the notice. In cases where the amount of the debt has been fully liquidated, the review is limited to ensuring that the liquidated amount is correctly represented in the notice.
( b ) The debtor seeking review shall make the request in writing to the Agency, not more than 15 days from the date the demand letter was received by the debtor. The request for review shall state the basis for challenging the determination. If the debtor alleges that the Agency's information relating to the debt is not accurate, timely, relevant or complete, the debtor shall provide information or documentation to support this allegation.
( c ) The Agency may effect an administrative offset against a payment to be made to a debtor prior to the completion of the due process procedures required by this subpart, if failure to take the offset would substantially prejudice the Agency's ability to collect the debt; for example, if the time before the payment is to be made would not reasonably permit the completion of due process procedures. Administrative offset effected prior to completion of due process procedures must be promptly followed by the completion of those procedures. Amounts recovered by administrative offset, but later found not owed to the Agency, will be promptly refunded.
( d ) Upon completion of the review, the Agency's reviewing official shall transmit to the debtor the Agency's decision. If appropriate, this decision shall inform the debtor of the scheduled date on or after which administrative offset will begin. The decision shall also, if appropriate, indicate any changes in information to the extent such information differs from that provided in the initial notification to the debtor under § 102.161.
( e ) Nothing in this subpart will preclude the Agency from *sua sponte* reviewing the obligation of the debtor, including reconsideration of the Agency's determination concerning the debt, and the accuracy, timeliness, relevance, and completeness of the information on which the debt is based.
[62 FR 55164, Oct. 23, 1997, as amended at 82 FR 11785, Feb. 24, 2017]
§ 1450.26 Refunds. ( a ) Refunds shall promptly be made when— ( 1 ) A debt is waived or otherwise found not owing to the United States (unless expressly prohibited by statute or regulation); or
( 2 ) The employee's paying agency is directed by an administrative or judicial order to refund amounts deducted from his or her current pay.
( b ) Refunds do not bear interest unless required or permitted by law or contract.
# EUR-Lex - 31996R1323 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R1323

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1323/96 of 26 June 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 concerning the certification of hops **

*
Official Journal L 171 , 10/07/1996 P. 0001 - 0002 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1323/96 of 26 June 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 concerning the certification of hops

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 of 26 July 1971 on the common organization of the market in hops (1), and in particular Article 2 (4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 (2) specifies the stage at which certification must be carried out and lays down the conditions under which hop products may undergo further processing;

Whereas, in the former German Democratic Republic, the treatment of hops after harvest is traditionally different from that in other parts of the Community in the sense that, on numerous farms producing hops, cleaning and initial drying of cones is carried out at the same time as milling and pressing into granules, existing equipment not permitting separation of the two stages; whereas this procedure does not, however, conform to Community legislation, which lays down that certification must take place before any processing; whereas, to enable producers to spread their new investment over a suitable period, Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 laid down a transitional period longer than that provided for by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2239/91 of 26 July 1991 on transitional measures applicable in the hop sector after the unification of Germany (3), which expired on 31 December 1992; whereas, by 31 December 1995, the situation had not been regularized on certain farms; whereas therefore the said derogation should be extended by one year and the list of farms concerned should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 is hereby amended as follows:

1. In the second subparagraph of Article 1 (3), '31 December 1995` shall be replaced by '31 December 1996`.

2. The Annex shall be replaced by the Annex set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 1996.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 1996.

For the Council

The President

M. PINTO

(1) OJ No L 175, 4. 8. 1971, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 105).

(2) OJ No L 200, 8. 8. 1977, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession.

(3) OJ No L 204, 27. 7. 1991, p. 14.

ANNEX

'ANNEX

Farms on which certification may be carried out after processing into granules:

>TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31997R1196 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R1196

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature **

*
Official Journal L 170 , 28/06/1997 P. 0013 - 0014 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1195/97 (2), and in particular Article 9,

Whereas in order to ensure uniform application of the combined nomenclature annexed to the said Regulation, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation;

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has set down the general rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature and those rules also apply to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods;

Whereas, pursuant to the said general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table annexed to the present Regulation must be classified under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3;

Whereas it is accepted that binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the combined nomenclature and which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation, can continue to be invoked, under the provisions in Article 12 (6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3), for a period of three months by the holder;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The goods described in column 1 of the annexed table are now classified within the combined nomenclature under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2 of the said table.

Article 2

Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation can continue to be invoked under the provisions of Article 12 (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 for a period of three months.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 1997.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1.

(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.

(3) OJ No L 302, 19. 10. 1992, p. 1.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
#### § 1202.11 Emergency boards.

Under the terms of section 10 of the Railway Labor Act, if a dispute between a carrier and its employees is not adjusted through mediation or the other procedures prescribed by the act, and should, in the judgment of the National Mediation Board, threaten to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the Board shall notify the President, who may thereupon, in his discretion, create an emergency board to investigate and report to him respecting such dispute. An emergency board may be composed of such number of persons as the President designates, and persons so designated shall not be pecuniarily or otherwise interested in any organization of employees or any carrier. The compensation of emergency board members is fixed by the President. An emergency board is created separately in each instance, and is required to investigate the facts as to the dispute and report thereon to the President within 30 days from the date of its creation.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11913]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-944; MM Docket No. 96-242; RM-8940, RM-9243]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Cheyenne, WY, Grover, CO.

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Montgomery Broadcasting 
Limited Liability Company, allots Channel 229A to Cheyenne, Wyoming, 
and dismisses the counterproposal for Channel 229C2 at Grover, 
Colorado, filed by Magic City Media at its request. See 61 FR 65509 
(December 13, 1996). Channel 229A can be allotted to Cheyenne in 
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation 
requirements, with respect to domestic allotments, with a site 
restriction of 9.7 kilometers (6.0 miles), at coordinates 41-12-39 and 
104-44-54. A filing window will not be opened at this time. Instead, 
the issue of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed 
by the Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES: Effective June 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria McCauley Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-242, adopted April 19, 2000, and 
released April 28, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.


    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Wyoming, is 
amended by adding Channel 229A at Cheyenne.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-11913 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### HILER v COHEN et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9589.

Decided Feb 4, 1929

Fry, Oliver & Maerlander, Cleveland, for Hiler.

Theodore R Spilka, Cleveland, for Cohen et.

*233VICKERY, J.

Whether it was right to file a demurrer or not does not become very material. When a judgment is rendered against' the defendant on proper service, at a subsequent term two or three things must exist before he can have that judgment vacated or suspended. One is, there must have been some misadventure, or some reason why he could not be present, why he did not put in a defense in the original action, and that is the prerequisite thing.' In the instant case there is no reason given why he did not attend court ,and put in his defense. It is admitted that he had notice of the suit, and it is admitted with equal exactness in this court at léast, that he did not go because he thought he did not owe the plaintiff anything; so he failed so far as giving a statutory ground why he was not present in that suit, which alone would be sufficient for the court to refuse to vacate the judgment.

But second, he claims by his attorneys in this court that this right to vacate was based upon fraud committed by the prevailing party, but when one reads the petition one will find that it sets up that the judgment was rendered upon the f,alse testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, and that brings us squarely within section 11631-10 General Code, which provides that no judgment shall be vacated or new trial granted when the judgment is rendered in favor of the prevailing party by his false testimony or the testimony of any of his witnesses, unless the person falsely swearing shall first have been indicted and convicted of perjury. It is true they seek to bring this within sub-section 4 of section 11631, but a reading of the petition shows that the action to vacate and set aside the judgment was not based upon conspiracy to defraud or conspiracy to commit perjury, but upon the false testimony which brings it within the tenth, and not the fourth, sub-section of this general section.

Consequently, for the two grounds above alluded to, the court committed no error in refusing to op.en up .this judgment, and so whether a demurrer is to be recognized as a proper pleading in this kind of proceeding or not, becomes immaterial. The court could not have done other than he did and there being no error in the proceedings, the judgment will be affirmed.

Sullivan, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
# AGENCY:

 Office of Admissions, HQ USAF Academy, Department of the Air Force, DoD. 

# ACTION:

 Notice.

In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Admissions announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 

# DATES:

 Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 20, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

 Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Office of Admissions, 2304 Cadet Drive, Suite 236, USAF Academy, CO 80840. Point of contact is Ms. Patricia Marinski, 719-333-3226. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposed and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address. 

*Title and Associated Form:*                         USAF Academy Writing Sample, USAFA Form 0-878.                     

*Needs and Uses:*                         The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain data on candidate's background and aptitude in determining eligibility and selection to the Air Force Academy.                     

*Affected Public:*                         Individuals or households.                     

*Annual Burden Hours:*                         4,100.                     

*Number of Respondents:*                         4,100.                     

*Responses Per Respondent:*                         1.                     

*Average Burden Per Response:*                         60 minutes.                     

*Frequency:*                         1.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Summary of Information Collection 

The information collected on this form is required by 10 U.S.C. 9346. The respondents are students who are applying for admission to the United States Air Force Academy. Each student's background and aptitude is reviewed to determine eligibility. 

If the information on this form is not collected, the individual cannot be considered for admittance to the Air Force Academy. 

Janet A. Long, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-1197 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
#### MAYHEW v BAILEY

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Oct 26, 1928

McKain & Ohl, Youngstown, for- Mayhew.

R. L. Thomas, Youngstown, for Bailey.

FARR, J

Upon the trial below all testimony relating to an overcharge for the work was excluded by the trial court, and it is claimed that this was error. Testimony relating to defective work was admitted but *108the defense was not permitted to go farther than that.

It is insisted that the court erred in excluding. testimony as to the overcharge. It will be recalled that Dr. Bailey is a dentist and practicing as such is engaged in ,a special line of work. Therefore, there could perhaps be no definite and fixed schedule of prices to be charged by dentists in view of fact that no two could well be governed by any such schedule, but rather does each, as a sort of specialist in his class, fix his own prices, and which might and probably would substantially differ from prices fixed by other dentists of varying and different degrees of skill. Had it been sought to show that Dr. Bailey had charged the Mayhews more for the services rendered than was his custom for similar services, such testimony would have been competent, but this was not the purpose of the testimony offered.

Therefore, for the reasons given, the trial court properly excluded the testimony in question, and for the same reason the instructions of the trial court to the jury were not erroneous, nor is the verdict and judgment under .all of the circumstances of this case against the weight or contrary to the evidence.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ, concur.
#### § 93.119 Aircraft operations.

Each person piloting an airplane landing at the Lorain County Regional Airport shall enter the traffic pattern north of the airport and shall execute a right traffic pattern for a landing to the southwest or a left traffic pattern for a landing to the northeast. Each person taking off from the airport shall execute a departure turn to the north as soon as practicable after takeoff.

[Doc. No. 8669, 33 FR 11749, Aug. 20, 1968]