alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### EPA ICR No.: 1669.06; OMB Control No.: 2070 - 0158

Attachment 1 Section 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act

15 U.S.C. 2686Sec. 2686 Lead hazard information pamphlet

(a) Lead hazard information pamph let Not later than 2 years after October 28, 1992, after notice and opportunity for comment, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and with the Secretary of Health and Hum an Services, shall publish, and from time to time revise, a lead hazard information pamphlet to be used in connection with this subchapter and section 4852d of Title 42. The pamphlet shall

– (1) contain information regarding the health risks associate d with exposure to lead; (2) provide information on the presence of lead
- based paint hazards in federally assisted, federally owned, and target housing; (3) describe the risks of lead exposure for children under 6 years of age, pregnant women, women of c hildbearing age, persons involved in home renovation, and others residing in a dwelling with lead
- based paint hazards; (4) describe the risks of renovation in a dwelling with lead
- based paint hazards; (5) provide information on approved methods for evalu ating and reducing lead
- based paint hazards and their effectiveness in identifying, reducing, eliminating, or preventing exposure to lead
- based paint hazards; (6) advise persons how to obtain a list of contractors certified pursuant to this subchapter in l ead
- based paint hazard evaluation and reduction in the area in which the pamphlet is to be used; (7) state that a risk assessment or inspection for lead
- based paint is recommended prior to the purchase, lease, or renovation of target housing; (8) state that certain State and local laws impose additional requirements related to lead
- based paint in housing and provide a listing of Federal, State, and local agencies in each State, including address and telephone number, that can provide information about app licable law s and available governmental and private assistance and financing; and (9) provide such other information about environmental hazards associated with residential real property as the Administrator deems appropriate. (b) Renovation of target ho using Within 2 years after October 28, 1992, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations under this subsection to require each person who performs for compensation a renovation of target housing to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to the owne r and occupant of such housing prior to commencing the renovation.
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

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) Panel on Quality of Life will meet to examine Quality of Life issues for Sailors and Marines in an effort to anticipate what they will be for the new Navy of the 21st century and what the Navy's responses to the new challenges will have to look like. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 31, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; on Thursday, June 1, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and on Friday, June 2, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Office of Naval Research, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Mason-Muir, Program Director, Naval Research Advisory Committee, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660, telephone (703) 696-6769. 

Dated: May 11, 2000. 

J.L. Roth, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-12595 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV-050-1020-001]


Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council; Notice of 
Meeting Locations and Times

May 5, 2000.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Resource Advisory Council meeting locations and times.

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

DATES: May 18 and 19, 2000.

TIMES: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day.

ADDRESSES: Beatty, Nevada Community Center, Knight Ave. and Watson St.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phillip L. Guerrero, Las Vegas Field 
Office, Public Affairs Officer, telephone: (702) 647-5046.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C., the 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), council 
meeting of the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council 
(RAC) will be held as indicated above. The agenda includes a public 
comment period, and discussion of public land issues.
    The Resource Advisory Council develops recommendations for BLM 
regarding the preparation, amendment, and implementation of land use 
plans for the public lands and resources within the jurisdiction of the 
council. For the Mojave-Great Basin RAC this jurisdiction is Clark, 
Esmeralda, Lincoln and Nye counties in Nevada. Except for the purposes 
of long-range planning and the establishment of resource management 
priorities, the RAC shall not provide advice on the allocation and 
expenditure of Federal funds, or on personnel issues.
    The RAC may develop recommendation for implementation of ecosystem 
management concepts, principles and programs, and assist the BLM to 
establish landscape goals and objectives.
    All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written 
comments to the council. Public comments should be limited to issues 
for which the RAC may make recommendations within its area of 
jurisdiction. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, 
and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be 
limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need further information 
about the meetings, or need special assistance such as sign language 
interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact 
Phillip L. Guerrero at the Las Vegas District Office, 4765 Vegas Dr., 
Las Vegas, NY 89108, telephone, (702) 647-5000.

    Dated: May 5, 2000.
Phillip L. Guerrero,
Public Affairs Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12197 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8912]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ennion: Master of Roman Glass''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ennion: Master of Roman Glass,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about December 9, 2014, 
until on or about April 13, 2015, The Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, 
New York, from on or about May 15, 2015, until on or about October 19, 
2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 3, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-24141 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### § 22.36 Post-hearing briefs.

The ALJ may require the parties to file post-hearing briefs. In any event, any party may file a post-hearing brief. The ALJ shall fix the time for filing such briefs, not to exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record. Such briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
#### GOODALL v STATE ex DANIELS

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Lawrence Co

Decided November 22, 1929

MAUCK, J.

The trial court found the petition to be true. We can not, under these circumstances, g.o behind the record and ascertain whether the relator was legally elected by the votes of those entitled to participate in the selection of a clerk. We can only inquire whether a clerk in -office is obliged to resort to a mandatory injunction rather than mandamus to secure the property pertaining to his office. -The Supreme Court was considering the relations between one just going into a public office and his predecessor in State ex rel Keyser vs. Babst, 101 OS. 275. That was a case in quo warranto. The court had occasion to discuss a Wisconsin case bearing upon the question involved and Judge Jones, speaking for the court, said:

> “The case is also authority for the principle that an incumbent retaining possession of an office, but without other color of authority, is not a de facto officer against one who holds a certificate of election, and that mandamus is a proper remedy to enforce the right of the. person having, prima facie title to the office.”

Upon the authority nuoted judgment in this case is affirmed. •

Middleton, PJ. and Blosser, J., concur.
#### Sundail Construction Company, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Liberty Bank of Buffalo, Respondent.

Argued April 19, 1937;

decided April 21, 1937.

*Perry E. Wurst, Jr.,*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion, unless a new undertaking is filed within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.
[No. 48413-3-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John Arthur Hall, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-1-04732-6, James D. Cayce, J., entered April 23, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### § 21.118 Applications and proposals lacking definite plans for involvement of human subjects.

Certain types of applications for grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts are submitted to Federal departments or agencies with the knowledge that subjects may be involved within the period of support, but definite plans would not normally be set forth in the application or proposal. These include activities such as institutional type grants when selection of specific projects is the institution's responsibility; research training grants in which the activities involving subjects remain to be selected; and projects in which human subjects' involvement will depend upon completion of instruments, prior animal studies, or purification of compounds. Except for research waived under § 21.101(i) or exempted under § 21.104, no human subjects may be involved in any project supported by these awards until the project has been reviewed and approved by the IRB, as provided in this policy, and certification submitted, by the institution, to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research.
792 A.2d 597

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Robert Lee FELDER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 6, 2002.

Decided March 22, 2002.

Sally A. Frick, Pittsburgh, for Robert Lee Felder.

Michael Wayne Streily, Francesco Lino Nepa, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

*93
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

Mr. Chief Justice ZAPPALA and Mr. Justice NIGRO dissent.
#### BRAUNLIN et v DOTY

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided November 22, 1929

Mr. Edgar G. Miller, Portsmouth, for Braunlin et.

Messrs.. Irish & Riley, Ironton, and Miller & Searl, Portsmouth, for Doty.

*52MAUCK, J.

It will be observed that the defendants do not plead that the plaintiff had any knowledge of any defense that the maker had to the note purchased by the plaintiff nor that he had any notice that there had been any failure of title to the lands sold. The averment only charges that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale of the land and that the mortgage was given for the purchase money. Now. it is apparent that the plaintiff might have had knowledge that the note was given in consideration of the sale of real estate without any knowledge that the title to such .real estate was defective, and as an innocent purchaser he is entitled to all of the immunities attaching to an innocent purchaser, unless there is something peculiar to notes given for the purchase money for real estate that takes those notes out of the general rule relating to innocent purchasers. The plaintiff in error claims that notes of this character, as distinguished from all other negotiable instruments, are open to a defense even though in the hands of an innocent purchaser by virtue of Section 11902 GC. Certainly so radical an innovation in the law of negotiable instruments should not be adopted unless by the terms of the statute invoked it is necessary to do so.

The section referred to does not by its terms attempt to establish any rule in substantive law. It only provides a method of procedure. It is limited by its own language to actions between vendor and vendee, and consequently by its terms does not relate to the instant' case. Its purpose and effect seem to have been clearly set forth in Templeton vs. Kraner, 24 OS. 554. In that case the court says on page 563 that without the section referred to in an action brought by the vendor to realize upon a purchase money obligation the maker of the note would be required to gp into equity and secure an injunction against the prosecution of the action at law until the equities arising through a failure .of title had been settled ■ in a chancery proceeding, and that the effect of this section was to enable the purchaser in such an action to bring in outside parties and determine such equities in one case.. The court says that the section is remedial only. Upon the authority of this case, upon what seems to be the sounder reasoning and the plain letter of the statute, Section 11902 was not available to the defendant in this case.

The trial court was right in entering judgment upon the pleadings.

Middleton, PJ., and Blosser, J., concur.
----

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

2,02 % on 1 September 2004

Euro exchange rates (2)

1 September 2004

(2004/C 220/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### § 1601.9 Form of charge.

A charge shall be in writing and signed and shall be verified.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

EG/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISIAH DANIELS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

D.K. SISTO,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-16257

D.C. No. CV-04-05123-MHP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Isiah Daniels appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

MAR 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EG/Research 2 07-16257

As a threshold matter, we deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. Daniels does not require a certificate of appealability under 28

U.S.C. § 2253 to challenge the Board of Parole Hearings’ administrative decisions

regarding his parole. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005)

(per curiam). 

Daniels contends that his due process rights were violated when he was not

granted parole within nine years of his sentencing. The California courts’ denial of

this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as

established by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)(1). As the district court correctly concluded, the judge’s statements at

sentencing regarding parole were not part of the plea agreement. Cf. Brown v.

Poole, 337 F.3d 1155, 1159-61 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding prosecutor’s oral promise

to defendant at plea colloquy prior to court’s acceptance of plea was part of plea

agreement). 

We construe Daniels’ argument regarding the validity of his guilty plea as a

motion to reconsider our prior denial of a certificate of appealability as to this

issue. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(d)-(e); see also

Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 11.
<TABLE>

 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

 For the periods ended September 30
<CAPTION>

                                                3rd Qtr.                    Nine months
                                          1999           1998             1999         1998


Diluted earnings per common share:
<S>                                   <C>            <C>            <C>          <C>
  Average common shares outstanding     643,053          106,386        548,694      106,386



Net income (loss) .................   $(353,176)     $  (159,896)   $  (368,125) $  (152,577)

Diluted earnings (loss) per share:    $   (0.55)     $     (1.50)   $     (0.67) $     (1.43)
Basic earnings (loss) per share: ..   $   (0.55)     $     (1.50)   $     (0.67) $     (1.43)

</TABLE>
#### DAVIS et v MORAINE CENTER INC

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 980.

Decided July 26, 1930

McMahon, Corwin, Landis & Markham, Dayton, for Davis, et.

McConnaughey, Shea, Demann & Mc-Connaughey, Dayton, for Moraine Center Inc.

*576BY THE COURT

We have examined with considerable care the rather exhaustive briefs which have been filed by counsel, and in which many of the leading authorities of this and other states are cited and discussed. We shall not attempt to discuss these authorities in detail, but our examination of the same leads to the conclusion that this case is controlled by the principles announced by our Supreme Court in the case of Elliott v. Lawhead, 43 Oh St., 171; and the case of Long v. Newhouse 57 Oh St., 348 and other Ohio authorities discussed in the briefs.

In the case of Elliott v. Lawhead the Supreme Court say:

> “It is true the defendant ‘comes for the purpose of filing this motion and for no other purpose,’ and had the motion been confined to the want of proper service it would not have operated’as an appearance. It was not so limited, but embraced an additional reason, to wit, the right of the court to hear .and determine the subject-matter. The rule is that where a defendant appears solely for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, such motion is not a voluntary appearance of defendant which is equivalent to service.

Where, however, the motion involves the merits of the case made in the petition the rule is otherwise. Handy v. Insurance Co., 37 Oh St, 366; Maholm v. Marshall, 29 Oh St, 611.”

The fifth paragraph of the syllabus in the Elliott case is as follows:

> “The appearance of defendant in court *577for the sole purpose of objecting, by motion, to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, is not an appearance in the action, but where such motion also asks to have the cause dismissed on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action which motion is not well founded, it is a voluntary appearance, which is equivalent to service of summons.”

From the reasoning found in the case reported in the 43rd Oh St, 171 and in the 57th Oh St, 348, we cannot escape the conclusion but that the plaintiffs in error being non-residents of Ohio by virtue of the particular joint answer, which they filed entered their appearance in the case and that the ruling of the lower court was correct. Judgment affirmed.

Kunkle, PJ, Allread and Hornbeck, JJ, concur.
----

----

I Teave

Komisjon

----

ÜHTNE PÕLLUKULTUURIDE SORDILEHT

22. tervikväljaande 13. lisa

(2004/C 232 A/01)

SELGITAVAD MÄRKUSED

IV

80.ZEA MAYS L.

----

(1)ELT C 91 A, 16.4.2003. Kataloogi on viimati muudetud 12. lisaga (EÜT C 213 A, 25.8.2004).

----