alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 169.220 When must a ship be fitted with LRIT equipment? A ship identified in § 169.205 must be equipped with LRIT equipment— ( a ) Before getting underway, if the ship is constructed on or after December 31, 2008.
( b ) By the first survey of the radio installation after December 31, 2008, if the ship is— ( 1 ) Constructed before December 31, 2008, and
( 2 ) Operates within— ( i ) One hundred (100) nautical miles of the United States baseline, or
( ii ) Range of an Inmarsat geostationary satellite, or other Application Service Provider recognized by the Administration, with which continuous alerting is available.
( c ) By the first survey of the radio installation after July 1, 2009, if the ship is— ( 1 ) Constructed before December 31, 2008, and
( 2 ) Operates within the area or range specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section as well as outside the range of an Inmarsat geostationary satellite with which continuous alerting is available. While operating in the area or range specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, however, a ship must install LRIT equipment by the first survey of the radio installation after December 31, 2008.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4853

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 13 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Received

AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1568 South Green Road in South Euclid,

Ohio, as the ‘‘Arnold C. D’Amico Station’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4853 RDS

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 1568 South Green Road in South Euclid, Ohio,

4 and known as the South Euclid Station, shall be known

5 and designated as the ‘‘Arnold C. D’Amico Station’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Arnold C. D’Amico Station’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 12,

2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Statutory Considerations","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"q3q3yFGdGJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/22-sc\/\">Statutory Considerations<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/22-sc\/embed\/#?secret=q3q3yFGdGJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statutory Considerations” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"q3q3yFGdGJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
§ 334.1030 Oakland Inner Harbor adjacent to Alameda Facility, Naval Supply Center, Oakland; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* Within 100 feet of the Alameda Facility wharf.
( b ) *The regulations.* No persons and no vessels or other craft, except vessels of the United States Government or vessels duly authorized by the Commanding Officer, Naval Supply Center, Oakland, shall enter this area.
[26 FR 11201, Nov. 28, 1961, as amended at 31 FR 6590, May 3, 1966. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985; 51 FR 25198, July 11, 1986, as amended at 62 FR 17557, Apr. 10, 1997]
EX-99.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                          (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of 5G Wireless Communications,
Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to 5G Wireless Communications, Inc. and will be
retained by 5G Wireless Communications, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: May 7, 2003                          /s/ Jerry Dix
                                            Jerry Dix, Chief Executive
                                            Officer/President


Dated: May 7, 2003                          /s/  Don Boudewyn
                                            Don Boudewyn, Assistant
                                            Secretary/Treasurer/Chief
                                            Operating Officer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21075]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 12, 2011.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. C-B-G, Inc., West Liberty, Iowa; to acquire up to 50.01 percent 
of the voting shares of Washington Bancorp, and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of Federation Bank, both in Washington, Iowa.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Community Bank Partners, Inc., Denver, Colorado; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of First National Bancshares, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank, both 
in Goodland, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 15, 
2011.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-21075 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 111 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14426]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[Announcement Number 00066]


Using Private Provider Partnerships To Strengthen the 
Immunization Message; Notice of Availability of Funds; Amendment

    A notice announcing the availability of Fiscal Year 2000 funds to 
fund a cooperative agreement program with national private provider 
organizations which was published in the Federal Register on May 1, 
2000, [Vol. 65, No. 84, Pages 25334-25336]. The notice is amended as 
follows:
    On page 25335, Third Column, under Section F. Submission and 
Deadline, the submission due date is revised to read on or before July 
18, 2000.

    Dated: June 2, 2000.
John L. Williams,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 00-14426 Filed 6-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 506 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 506

Expressing the sense of the Senate that funding provided by the United 
 States to the Government of Iraq in the future for reconstruction and 
training for security forces be provided as a loan to the Government of 
                                 Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 8, 2008

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Senate that funding provided by the United 
 States to the Government of Iraq in the future for reconstruction and 
training for security forces be provided as a loan to the Government of 
                                 Iraq.

Whereas the United States has been engaged in Iraq for more than 5 years at a 
        great cost to the United States in both lives and resources;
Whereas March 19, 2008, marked the fifth anniversary of the engagement of the 
        United States in Iraq;
Whereas the United States Government has spent $600,000,000,000 to fight the war 
        in Iraq and that expenditure has contributed greatly to the Nation's 
        debt;
Whereas taxpayers in the United States have provided $45,000,000,000 in funding 
        for reconstruction to the country and the Government of Iraq;
Whereas world oil prices have reached more than $100 a barrel;
Whereas consumers in the United States are paying record gas prices of 
        approximately $3.29 a gallon;
Whereas, when the war began, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, 
        ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own 
        reconstruction, and relatively soon.'';
Whereas, due to high oil prices and expanded oil production, it has been 
        predicted that the Government of Iraq is likely to experience an 
        enormous revenue windfall;
Whereas, in January 2008, the Government Accountability Office issued a report 
        stating that, according to Iraq's official expenditure reports, the 
        Government of Iraq had spent only 4.4 percent of its $10,100,000,000 
        investment budget as of August 2007;
Whereas Iraq has not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the political 
        benchmarks established by Congress; and
Whereas the Government of Iraq needs to invest in the future of Iraq by paying a 
        larger share of the costs of reconstruction: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that any funding 
provided by the United States to the Government of Iraq for 
reconstruction and training for security forces after the date on which 
the Senate agrees to this resolution be provided as a loan to the 
Government of Iraq.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.146 Similar tank design: Inspections on U.S. tank vessels. ( a ) If a U.S. tank vessel has tanks similar in dimensions and internal structure, the owner or operator may submit a written request to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, of the zone in which the COW system is inspected, for only one of those tanks to be inspected under § 157.140(a)(1).
( b ) Only one tank of a group of tanks similar in dimensions and internal structure is inspected under § 157.140(a)(1), if the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, accepts the request submitted under paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 20.904 Reopening. ( a ) To the extent permitted by law, the ALJ may, for good cause shown in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, reopen the record of a proceeding to take added evidence.
( b ) Any party may move to reopen the record of a proceeding 30 days or less after the closing of the record. ( 1 ) Each motion to reopen the record must clearly set forth the facts that the movant would try to prove and the grounds for reopening the record.
( 2 ) Any party who does not respond to any motion to reopen the record waives any objection to the motion.
( c ) The ALJ may reopen the record of a proceeding if he or she believes that any change in fact or law, or that the public interest, warrants reopening it.
( d ) The filing of a motion to reopen the record of a proceeding does not affect any period for appeals specified in subpart J of this part, except that the filing of such a motion tolls the running of whatever time remains in the period for appeals until either the ALJ acts on the motion or the party filing it withdraws it.
( e ) ( 1 ) At any time, a party may file a petition to reopen with the Docketing Center for the ALJ to rescind any order suspending or revoking a merchant mariner's license, certificate of registry, credential, or endorsement document if— ( i ) The order rests on a conviction— ( A ) For violation of a dangerous-drug law;
( B ) Of an offense that would prevent the issuance or renewal of the license, certificate, credential, or endorsement document; or
( C ) Of an offense described in subparagraph 205(a)(3)(A) or (B) of the National Driver Register Act of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 401, note); and
( ii ) The respondent submits a specific order of court to the effect that the conviction has been unconditionally set aside for all purposes.
( 2 ) The ALJ, however, may not rescind his or her order on account of any law that provides for a subsequent conditional setting-aside, modification, or expunging of the order of court, by way of granting clemency or other relief after the conviction has become final, without regard to whether punishment was imposed.
( f ) Three years or less after an S&R proceeding has resulted in revocation of a credential, endorsement, license, certificate, or document, the respondent may file a motion for reopening of the proceeding to modify the order of revocation with the ALJ Docketing Center. ( 1 ) Any motion to reopen the record must clearly state why the basis for the order of revocation is no longer valid and how the issuance of a new merchant mariner credential with appropriate endorsement is compatible with the requirement of good discipline and safety at sea.
( 2 ) Any party who does not respond to any petition to reopen the record waives any objection to the motion.
[CGD 98-3472, 64 FR 28062, May 24, 1999, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11211, Mar. 16, 2009]
ACL Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA)

FY 2016 Annual Allocation

9/30/2016

State

Priority 1 - 

SHIPs

Priority 2 - 

AAAs

Priority 3 - 

ADRCs Total for State

Alabama $339,760 $188,860 $110,173 $638,793

Alaska $22,921 $12,748 $6,328 $41,997

Arizona $155,261 $86,308 $113,102 $354,671

Arkansas $255,943 $142,299 $69,489 $467,731

California $576,266 $320,240 $187,539 $1,084,045

Colorado $154,251 $85,738 $78,820 $318,809

Connecticut $66,734 $37,090 $74,187 $178,011

Delaware $38,089 $21,178 $19,398 $78,665

District Of Columbia $9,654 $5,363 $10,207 $25,224

Florida $610,361 $339,213 $435,709 $1,385,283

Georgia $503,688 $279,997 $160,390 $944,075

Hawaii $56,938 $0 $0 $56,938

Idaho $93,867 $52,199 $29,724 $175,790

Illinois $472,616 $262,703 $219,202 $954,521

Indiana $325,759 $181,091 $131,386 $638,236

Iowa $182,701 $101,608 $16,902 $301,211

Kansas $157,374 $87,503 $56,685 $301,562

Kentucky $380,872 $211,750 $99,200 $691,822

Louisiana $232,376 $129,168 $89,357 $450,901

Maine $76,120 $42,349 $34,568 $153,037

Maryland $180,193 $100,140 $102,191 $382,524

Massachusetts $135,424 $75,262 $138,308 $348,994

Michigan $417,048 $231,829 $200,896 $849,773

Minnesota $192,033 $106,787 $102,212 $401,032

Mississippi $260,615 $144,906 $30,659 $436,180

Missouri $338,410 $188,141 $8,068 $534,619

Montana $79,904 $44,433 $15,716 $140,053

Nebraska $97,607 $54,280 $7,492 $159,379

Nevada $88,458 $49,163 $45,147 $182,768

New Hampshire $72,973 $40,577 $28,352 $141,902

New Jersey $231,157 $128,430 $173,558 $533,145

New Mexico $108,655 $60,412 $40,680 $209,747

New York $588,604 $327,115 $215,859 $1,131,578

North Carolina $588,755 $327,293 $122,424 $1,038,472

Ohio $444,184 $246,912 $247,990 $939,086

Oklahoma $222,443 $123,675 $78,748 $424,866

Oregon $164,322 $91,365 $29,553 $285,240

Pennsylvania $552,877 $307,303 $298,141 $1,158,321

South Carolina $320,727 $178,273 $100,290 $599,290

South Dakota $54,522 $30,321 $17,878 $102,721

Tennessee $361,553 $201,010 $137,400 $699,963

Texas $1,073,060 $596,380 $275,079 $1,944,519

Utah $70,838 $39,384 $34,206 $144,428

Vermont $41,980 $23,352 $14,501 $79,833

Virginia $386,373 $214,778 $127,379 $728,530

Washington $196,999 $109,523 $44,643 $351,165

West Virginia $181,208 $100,752 $50,040 $332,000

Wisconsin $206,511 $114,848 $118,683 $440,042

Total $12,368,984 $6,844,049 $4,748,459 $23,961,492
Carroll

No. 7182

#### Horace L. Richardson & *a. v.*Curtis Schneider & *a.*

June 30, 1975

*382*Nighswander, Lord, Martin & KillKelley (Mr. David J. KillKelley*orally) for the plaintiffs.

*Sheehan, Phinney, Bass Green*and *E. Paul Kelley (Mr. Kelly*orally) for the defendant.

Grimes, J.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the master and the superior court, which approved the master’s report, erred in determining the extent of land adversely possessed by the defendant. We believe they did.

This appeal is the second chapter in this controversy. In *Richardson v. Schneider,*112 N.H. 475, 298 A.2d 583 (1972), we established a boundary line which gave the Richardsons ownership of a peninsula. The Schneiders had built a camp in 1935 on the peninsula and the master had found that they had acquired title to some portion of the peninsula by adverse possession but could not determine the extent of their ownership. We therefore remanded the case for further hearing in the event the parties could not agree. They could not agree, and a hearing was then held before the Master, *Norman H. Stahl,*Esq., whose report was approved by *Flynn,*J., who transferred defendants’ exceptions.

The master quieted the title of the plaintiffs to the entire peninsula except for a portion around the camp shown on a plan (Plfs’ Exh. 34), which, it is represented, depicts an offer of compromise by the plaintiffs. Defendants claim they are entitled to more.

The master ruled that where there was no color of title the claimant must establish the extent of his adverse possession by metes and bounds. He also ruled, relying on *Adams v. Mellian,*99 N.H. 140, 106 A.2d 389 (1954), that the superior court had nojurisdiction to determine the boundaries of the adverse possession unless the burden of proof is met. At the time the master’s report was filed, we had not decided *Frew v. Dasch,*115 N.H. 274, 339 A.2d 18 (1975), which pointed out the limitations of *the Adams*case.

The master did find that the Schneiders “made continuous use of the fireplace area, the camp itself and perhaps the dump area ... [and that] the testimony of the elder Schneider is credible and believable as to the use of the dump area and the fireplace area.” However he did not include those areas in that part of the peninsula *383which he found belonged to the Schneiders. Having made the specific findings that their use extended to the fireplace and dump, his ultimate finding must be consistent with them. *See Bean v. Quirin,*87 N.H. 343, 350, 180 A. 251 (1935).

We hold therefore that the defendants are entitled, under the findings of the master, to have the area of their ownership as determined by the master, enlarged to include the fireplace and dump areas. The matter is remanded for the actual location of the area of adverse possession if the parties cannot agree.

*Remanded.*

All concurred.
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Ch.22 – ADR for This Case?

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Ch.22 – ADR for This Case? Ch.22 – ADR for This Case?ADR2022-02-19T08:10:45-05:00
			
			Ch.22 – ADR for This Case?Ultimately, it is up to the parties to decide whether ADR will be beneficial in a particular case.  In reaching that decision, the federal contracting professional should attempt to balance the possibility of reaching an expeditious settlement of a dispute against any factors that would tend to support the use of litigation, such as the need to establish and develop a policy or to develop a full public record.  In most cases, ADR can and should provide a viable alternative to formal litigation.  The Department of Justice ADR homepage provides helpful ADR Policy and Case Identification Criteria to assist all federal agencies.
**LEARN MORE**
Considerations for Rejecting ADR
When is ADR Appropriate?
ADR is Effective (Ch.03)

Subpages (2): Statutory Considerations | When ADR is Appropriate? Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508