alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 401.79 Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection. ( a ) USCG Advance Notice of Arrival—All foreign flagged ships of 300 GRT or above intending to transit the Seaway shall submit one completed United States Coast Guard (USCG) Electronic Notice of Arrival (ENOA) prior to entering at call in point 2 (CIP 2) as follows: ( 1 ) If your voyage time to CIP 2 is 96 hours or more, you must submit an ENOA 96 hours before entering the Seaway at CIP 2.
( 2 ) If your voyage time to CIP 2 is less than 96 hours, you must submit an ENOA before departure, but at least 24 hours before entering the Seaway at CIP 2.
( 3 ) If there are changes to the ENOA, submit them as soon as practicable but at least 12 hours before entering the Seaway at CIP 2.
( 4 ) The NOA must be provided electronically following the USCG National Vessel Movement Center's (NVMC) procedures (*http://www.nvmc.uscg.gov*).
( 5 ) To complete the ENOA correctly for Seaway entry, select the following: ( i ) “CIP 2” as the Arrival Port,
( ii ) “Foreign to Saint Lawrence Seaway” as the Voyage Type, and
( iii ) “Saint Lawrence Seaway Transit” as the Arrival State, City and Receiving Facility.
( b ) Foreign Vessel Inspection program: ( 1 ) Enhanced Ship Inspections (ESI)—physical vessel inspection: Foreign flagged vessels are subject to a Seaway inspection once every two navigation seasons. Agents must provide an initial notice of inspection 120 hours prior to the ship's arrival at CIP2. (to: *inspecteursvm@seaway.ca* and to *vtc@dot.gov*).
( 2 ) Subject to satisfactory performance, a Self-Inspection may be permitted in the interim season. Vessel to complete a Foreign Self Inspection report and submit electronically to *inspecteursvm@seaway.ca* and to *vtc@dot.gov .*
( 3 ) The ESI or self-inspection is required on the first transit of the navigation season.
( 4 ) Inland self-inspection: Inland domestic vessels which are approved by the Seaway and are ISM certified and have a company quality management system, must submit the “Self-Inspection Report”, every 2 navigation seasons and not later than 30 days after “fit out”.
( 5 ) Inland domestic vessels not participating in the “Self-Inspection Program” are subject to Seaway inspection prior to every transit of the Seaway.
( 6 ) Tug/barge combinations not on the “Seaway Approved Tow” list are subject to Seaway inspection prior to every transit of the Seaway unless provided with a valid Inspection Report for a round trip transit.
( 7 ) A tall vessel, passenger vessel, or vessel of an unusual design is subject to Seaway yearly inspection.
[89 FR 15961, Mar. 6, 2024]
§ 334.802 Ingleside Naval Station, Ingleside, Texas; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The waters of Corpus Christi Bay beginning at a point at latitude 27°49′15.0′′ N, longitude 97°12′6.0′′ W, thence southerly to latitude 27°49′7.3′′ N, longitude 97°12′5.4′′ W, thence south-southwesterly to latitude 27°49′01′′ N, longitude 97°12′39.4′′ W, thence west-northwesterly to latitude 27°49′02.4′′ N, longitude 97°12′48.3′′ W, thence north-northeasterly to latitude 27°49′16.5′′ N, longitude 97°12′41.5′′, thence easterly to latitude 27°49′17.0′′ N, longitude 97°12′27.5′′ W, thence easterly along the shoreline to the point of beginning.
( b ) *The regulations.* Mooring, anchoring, fishing, recreational boating or any activity involving persons in the water shall not be allowed within the restricted area. Commercial vessels at anchor will be permitted to swing into the restricted area while at anchor and during tide changes.
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, Naval Station, Ingleside and such agencies as he/she shall designate.
[57 FR 46303, Oct. 8, 1992; 58 FR 6718, Feb. 2, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 17556, Apr. 10, 1997]
#### § 946.5 Disposition of property having a value of less than $200.

Where the owner of property subject to this part is unknown and the Chief Postal Inspector or delegate estimates that fair market value of such property is $200 or less, title to the property vests in the United States Postal Service, subject to the right of the owner to submit a valid claim as provided in § 946.6.
Reed McGinley-Stempel 

EPA Hearing Testimony 

My name is Reed McGinley-Stempel, and I am happy to speak in stroQ~ sypport of 

the EPA's proposed carbon emission standards for ~ilt~igr,~-1'l:@:;6ie~.j~ plants. 

Cutting emissions from our nation's largest polluter-- a: pkleifJ is an essential 

step in combatting climate change. 

As the likelihood of our planet surpassing the 2 degrees Celsius rise in temperature 

mark increases, ambitious efforts like the Clean Power Plan aimed at curbing 

significant carbon pollution are increasingly needed. 

I grew u~ in Southern Nevada, and I have witnes1~cH£e negative impacts of climate 

change first-hand. My hometown of Henderson tlfi"W upon the Lake Mead 

reservoir, which is fed by the Colorado River, for virtually all of its water. Therefore, 

it was disconcerting to learn from a recent article in the Desert Sun newspaper that 

Lake Mead's water level is now rapidly declining at 1 foot per week, largely caused 

by the 14-year drought we are experiencing. One study conducted by scientists 

from the University of California-San Diego gives us 50-50 odds that Lake Mead 

will run dry by 2021. To put this in perspective, the reservoir provides water for 

more than 20 million people, including the entirety of the Las Vegas Valley. 

Although drought is not necessarily uncommon in the region, climate change has 

contributed to many of these ill-effects. According to the EPA, temperatures in the 

Southwest have increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, causing 

decreases in snowpack and the Colorado River's flow. These abnormally high 

temperatures have contributed to a dwindling water supply and worsened drought. 

In order to cope, Las Vegas is currently working on an $817 million project aimed at 

temporarily extending the reservoir's lifespan. While it is unlikely that my 

community's plight could be alleviated by ambitious carbon reductions, I hope the 

lesson of Lake Mead serves to underpin the importance of taking swift action 

against climate change to avoid similar fates for other communities. We have 

already seen the economic cost of inaction in Southern Nevada, and there will be 

additional human costs in the form of higher smog and air pollution if we continue 

to ignore the problem. 

Thank you to the EPA for taking this critical step in securing a healthier and more 

sustainable future for America.
§ 3040.152 Supporting justification. Supporting justification shall be in the form of a statement from a knowledgeable proponent of the request who attests to the accuracy of the information contained within the statement. The justification shall: ( a ) Explain the reason for initiating the docket and explain why the change is not inconsistent with the applicable requirements of this part and any applicable Commission directives and orders;
( b ) Explain why, as to market dominant products, the change is not inconsistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code;
( c ) Explain why, as to competitive products, the addition, deletion, or transfer will not result in the violation of any of the standards of 39 U.S.C. 3633.
( d ) Verify that the change does not classify as competitive a product over which the Postal Service exercises sufficient market power that it can, without risk of losing a significant level of business to other firms offering similar products: ( 1 ) Set the price of such product substantially above costs;
( 2 ) Raise prices significantly;
( 3 ) Decrease quality; or
( 4 ) Decrease output.
( e ) Explain whether or not each product that is the subject of the request is covered by the postal monopoly, as reserved to the Postal Service under 18 U.S.C. 1696 subject to the exceptions set forth in 39 U.S.C. 601;
( f ) Provide a description of the availability and nature of enterprises in the private sector engaged in the delivery of the product;
( g ) Provide any information available on the views of those who use the product on the appropriateness of the proposed modification;
( h ) Provide a description of the likely impact of the proposed modification on small business concerns; and
( i ) Include such information and data, and such statements of reasons and bases, as are necessary and appropriate to fully inform the Commission of the nature, scope, significance, and impact of the proposed modification.
[72 FR 63698, Nov. 9, 2007. Redesignated at 85 FR 9615, Feb. 19, 2020, as amended at 85 FR 81138, Dec. 15, 2020]
§ 385.16 Design agreements. ( a ) The Corps of Engineers shall execute a design agreement with each non-Federal sponsor for the projects of the Plan prior to initiation of design activities with that non-Federal sponsor.
( b ) Any procedures, guidance, or documents developed by the Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor pursuant to a design agreement shall be consistent with this part.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee Meeting Notice

AGENCY:  Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY:  The Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee will 
meet on Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at the Gifford Pinchot National 
Forest Office, located at 10600 NE 51 Circle, Vancouver, Washington. 
The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m. The 
purpose of the meeting is to: (1) Review the Law Enforcement program on 
the Forest; (2) Review the Cowlitz Valley Ranger District Flood 
Restoration Program; (3) Approve revisions to the Committee Vision 
Statement; and (4) Provide for a Public Open Forum. All Southwest 
Washington Provincial Advisory Committee meetings are open to the 
public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The ``open 
forum'' provides opportunity for the public to bring issues, concerns, 
and discussion topics to the Advisory Committee. The ``open forum'' is 
scheduled as part of agenda item (4) for this meeting. Interested 
speakers will need to register prior to the open forum period. The 
committee welcomes the public's written comments on committee business 
at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Linda Turner, Public Affairs Specialist, at (360) 891-5195, 
or write Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 
10600 NE 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

    Dated: January 14, 2000.
Claire Lavendel,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-1504 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 4, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2291 Lower Tribunal No. F18-9894

________________ 

### Alfton McKay, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge. Alfton McKay, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
§ 3030.244 Calculation of unused rate adjustment authority for rate adjustments that only include rate decreases. ( a ) For rate adjustment filings that only include rate decreases, unused rate adjustment authority for a class is calculated in two steps. First, the difference between the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3030.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through G of this part and this subpart, as appropriate, for the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase and the percentage change in rates for the class calculated pursuant to § 3030.128(d) is calculated. Second, the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase is subtracted from that result.
( b ) Unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section for a class shall be added to the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase on the schedule maintained under § 3030.241. For purposes of this section, the unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section for a class shall be deemed to have been added to the schedule maintained under § 3030.241 on the same date as the most recent rate adjustment filing that involves a rate increase.
( c ) For rate adjustment filings that only include rate decreases, the sum of unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section and the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase cannot exceed the unused portion of rate adjustment authority calculated pursuant to subparts C and D of this part and § 3030.222 in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase.
( d ) Unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to the limitation under § 3030.245, regardless of whether it is used alone or in combination with other existing unused rate adjustment authority.
( e ) For rate adjustment filings that only include rate decreases, unused rate adjustment authority generated under this section lapses 5 years from the date of filing of the most recent rate adjustment filing that involves a rate increase.
( f ) A rate adjustment filing that only includes rate decreases that is filed immediately after a rate adjustment due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances (*i.e.,* without an intervening rate adjustment involving a rate increase) may not generate unused rate adjustment authority.
EXHIBIT
32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Express Credit Corporation
(the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
David L. Yowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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.

|                    |                         
|------------------- | ------------------------
|/s/ David L.
 Yowan
|                   
|Name:               | David L.
 Yowan         
|Title:              | Chief
 Financial Officer
|Date:               | November 4,
 2008       

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except
to the extent that this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly and specifically incorporated
by reference in any such filing.

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

---
Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22329-GAYLES/TORRES

LAZARO DEJESUS ARMENTEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s

Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 23]. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a

Complaint seeking judicial review of the partially favorable final decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security 

income and disability insurance benefits with respect to the period from January 10, 2017, through

April 4, 2021. The matter was referred to Judge Torres pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a 

ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive motions and for a Report and Recommendation on any 

dispositive motions. [ECF Nos. 2, 4]. On August 24, 2023, Judge Torres issued his Report 

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] be denied, the 

Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] be granted, and that the

Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Plaintiff has timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 24].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

Case 1:22-cv-22329-DPG Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and agrees with Judge Torres’s

well-reasoned analysis and recommendation that the Commissioner’s decision should be 

affirmed.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 23] is AFFIRMED AND 

ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 17] is DENIED.

(3) The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is 

GRANTED.

(4) The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

(5) This action is CLOSED for administrative purposes.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of September, 2023. 

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-22329-DPG Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2023 Page 2 of 2
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 of NUECES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 22nd day of 

January, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

The State Of Texas, Appellant,

v.

Glenn Wrightman Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00652-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 09CR5089-2)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 22, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 7th day of April, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5048 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5048

 To amend chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, with respect to 
the liability of the United States for claims of military personnel for 
                     damages for certain injuries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2000

Mr. Kanjorski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, with respect to 
the liability of the United States for claims of military personnel for 
                     damages for certain injuries.

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

SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF UNITED STATES FOR CLAIMS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL 
              FOR DAMAGES FOR CERTAIN INJURIES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code 
(commonly referred to as the ``Federal Tort Claims Act''), is amended 
by inserting after section 2679 the following:
``Sec. 2679A. Applicability to claims of military personnel for damages 
              for certain injuries
    ``Except as provided in section 2680 of this title, this chapter 
and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim resulting 
from--
            ``(1) an injury sustained by a member of the military or 
        naval forces of the United States while serving on active duty 
        (as defined in section 101 of title 10), arising or resulting 
        from, or aggravated by, a negligent or wrongful act or omission 
        of another member of the military or naval forces of the United 
        States or the Federal Government; or
            ``(2) the death of a member of the military or naval forces 
        of the United States resulting from an injury described in 
        paragraph (1).''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 2679 the following:

``2679A. Applicability to claims of military personnel for damages for 
                            certain injuries.''.
                                 <all>
```
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824

DCN CBM00656 

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.