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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4253

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning National

Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 19, 1994

Ms. LAMBERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the

Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Corning National Fish

5 Hatchery Conveyance Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCH7 ERY TO STATE OF ARKANSAS.

8 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of

9 the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas, without

10 reimbursement and by no later than December 31, 1994,
2

•HR 4253 IH

1 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

2 to the property described in subsection (b), for use by the

3 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of the State

4 of Arkansas fish culture program.

5 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

6 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Corning

7 National Fish Hatchery (popularly known as the William

8 H. Donham State Fish Hatchery), located one mile west

9 of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway 67 in

10 Clay County, Arkansas, consisting of 137.34 acres (more

11 or less), and all improvements and related personal prop12 erty under the control of the Secretary that is located on

13 that property, including buildings, structures, and equip14 ment.

15 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES.—

16 If after the conveyance required by subsection (a) any of

17 the property described in subsection (b) is used for pur18 poses other than as described in subsection (a), all right,

19 title, and interest conveyed under this section shall revert

20 to the United States.

Æ
#### § 50-201.301 Agency regulations.

Each agency which prescribes additional regulations for the Administration of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act and for the implementation of the regulations in this part, shall submit such regulations, directives, and orders to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division prior to issuance. Any such regulations may not be enforced prior to approval by the Administrator or prior to 60 days after submission if not disapproved by the Administrator. Currently existing regulations are not affected by this section, except where such regulations are not in conformity with the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act and the Department of Labor regulations. In such cases, agency regulations shall be appropriately revised.

[43 FR 22977, May 30, 1978]
#### § 51-6.9 Correspondence and inquiries.

Routine contracting activity correspondence or inquiries concerning deliveries of commodities being shipped from or performance of services by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities shall be with the nonprofit agency involved. Major problems shall be referred to the appropriate central nonprofit agency. In those instances where the problem cannot be resolved by the central nonprofit agency and the contracting activity involved, the contracting activity or central nonprofit agency shall notify the Committee of the problem so that action can be taken by the Committee to resolve it.
#### § 302-17.8 Who is responsible for knowing which relocation expenses are taxable and which expenses are nontaxable?

Both you and your agency must know which reimbursements and direct payments to vendors are taxable and which are nontaxable in your specific circumstances. When you submit a voucher for reimbursement, your agency must determine whether the reimbursement is taxable income at the Federal, state, and/or local level. Then, when you file your income tax returns, you must report the taxable allowances, reimbursements, and direct payments to vendors as income. Your agency is ultimately responsible for calculating and reporting withholding accurately and you are ultimately responsible for filing your taxes correctly.

[FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49645, Aug. 21, 2014. Redesignated at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39879

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on December 1, 1999, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

concerns imports of certain cotton, manmade fiber, silk blend and other vegetable

fiber textiles and textile products, produced

or manufactured in Bangladesh and exported

during the twelve-month period which began

on January 1, 2000 and extends through

December 31, 2000.

Effective on June 28, 2000, you are directed

to adjust the limits for the following

categories, as provided for under the Uruguay

Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category Adjusted twelve-month

limit 1

335 ........................... 219,794 dozen.

336/636 .................... 620,844 dozen.

342/642 .................... 582,721 dozen.

347/348 .................... 3,453,982 dozen.

641 ........................... 774,451 dozen.

645/646 .................... 421,167 dozen.

647/648 .................... 2,172,317 dozen.

847 ........................... 467,141 dozen.

1The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December

31, 1999.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 00–16291 Filed 6–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 00–44]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of Public

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604–

6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 00–44 with

attached transmittal and policy

justification.

Dated: June 22, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

39880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39881

39882 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–16261 Filed 6–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–C
#### § 301-70.504 When the employee is able to travel, should we continue the use of the existing travel authorization?

Not if the interrupted trip was authorized under a trip by trip authorization. If, when the employee's health has been restored, the agency decides that it is in the Government's interest to return the employee to the TDY location, such return is considered to be a new travel assignment at Government expense. An interrupted trip authorized under an open or limited open authorization may be continued without further authorization.

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15971, Apr. 1, 1998. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57967, Sept. 13, 2002]
#### § 302-12.115 What are the income tax consequences that we must consider when offering relocation services?

Amounts you pay to a relocation services company on behalf of an employee may be taxable to the employee. In some cases, such as certain homesale programs, the amounts may not be taxable. You must determine the taxability of such payments, and pay a relocation income tax (RIT) allowance in accordance with part 302-17 of this chapter on payments you determine to be taxable to the employee. You may contact the: Assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting), Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5501, Washington, DC 20224, for information on the income tax consequences of payments you make to a relocation services company.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18344, Apr. 1, 2011]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.60007 Penalties. ( a ) *Automatic termination.* A license(s) resulting from a Qualifying Transaction in the ECIP shall be automatically terminated without specific Commission action or further notice to the licensee, superseding any service-based penalty, if the assignee fails to comply with any of the following: ( 1 ) The five (5) year holding period pursuant to § 1.60006(f);
( 2 ) The construction requirement pursuant to § 1.60006(b) or (d), or any remaining service-based performance requirement, where applicable; or
( 3 ) The operational requirements pursuant to § 1.60006(c) or (d), where applicable.
( b ) *Bar from future program participation.* A party participating in a Commission approved Qualifying Transaction in the ECIP shall be prohibited from future participation in the ECIP where it is found that it: ( 1 ) Violated the five (5) year holding period requirements of § 1.60006(f), including premature termination of a lease or entering into a sublease in violation of § 1.60006(f)(2), if applicable;
( 2 ) Failed to meet the construction requirement of § 1.60006(b) or (d), or any remaining service-based performance requirement, where applicable;
( 3 ) Failed to meet the operational requirements of § 1.60006(c) or (d), where applicable; or
( 4 ) Entered into a bad faith transaction in violation of § 1.60003(b)(4) or § 1.60004(b)(4).
( c ) *Effect of program bar.* A bar from ECIP is applied as follows: ( 1 ) A program bar shall commence upon the date the assignee or lessee receives notice from the Commission via electronic mail finding a violation pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. A barred party shall be eligible to continue to receive benefits from Qualifying Transactions in ECIP that are unrelated to the Qualifying Transaction that resulted in the program bar, provided that those benefits were conferred prior to the commencement of the program bar, as a result of the Commission accepting a consummation of an approved assignment application, granting a *de facto* transfer lease application, or accepting a spectrum manager lease application, as applicable.
( 2 ) A program bar shall also apply to affiliates of barred parties. Third-parties shall be considered affiliates of a barred party if they qualify as an affiliate under § 1.60001. A prospective ECIP participant will be considered a barred affiliate when either: ( i ) The third-party was identified, or should have been identified, as an affiliate on the initial Commission approved application for the Qualifying Transaction resulting in the bar; or
( ii ) The third-party identifies, or should have identified, a barred affiliate in a subsequent application to participate in the ECIP, regardless of whether they were affiliates at the time of the filing of the initial application for a Qualifying Transaction resulting in the bar.
( 3 ) Transactions that include a barred party shall not be eligible for ECIP benefits, even if all other qualifications are satisfied.
[87 FR 57417, Sept. 20, 2022, as amended at 89 FR 11743, Feb. 15, 2024]
# Comments on: 22-2280: ROSARIO-FABREGAS v. ARMY [OPINION], Nonprecedential
#### § 302-2.3 What determines my entitlements and allowances for relocation?

Your entitlements and allowances for relocation are determined by the regulatory provisions that are in effect at the time you report for duty at your new official station. However, this does not change the requirement that all aspects of a relocation must be completed by the time specified in §§ 302-2.8 through 302-2.12.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57968, Sept. 13, 2002; FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49643, Aug. 21, 2014]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-1997
<CASH>                                           5,682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      857
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                        655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,769
<PP&E>                                          91,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,758
<BONDS>                                         24,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,594
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,993
<SALES>                                         35,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,081
<CGS>                                            3,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                       635
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                841
<DISCONTINUED>                                     360
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,201
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 810

To establish drawback for imports of N-cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide

based on exports of N-tert-Butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. WISE (for himself, Mr. SAWYER, and Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

A BILL

To establish drawback for imports of N-cyclohexyl-2-

benzothiazolesulfenamide based on exports of N-tertButyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide.

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF DRAWBACK BASED ON

4 COMMERCIAL INTERCHANGEABILITY FOR

5 CERTAIN RUBBER VULCANIZATION ACCEL6 ERATORS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Customs Serv8 ice shall treat the chemical N-cyclohexyl-2-

9 benzothiazolesulfenamide and the chemical N-tert-Butyl-
2

•HR 810 IH

1 2-benzothiazolesulfenamide as ‘‘commercially interchange2 able’’ within the meaning of section 313(j)(2) of the Tariff

3 Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2)) for purposes of per4 mitting drawback under section 313 of the Tariff Act of

5 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313.).

6 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply with

7 respect to any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for

8 consumption, of the chemical N-cyclohexyl-2-

9 benzothiazolesulfenamide before, on, or after the date of

10 the enactment of this Act, that is eligible for drawback

11 within the time period provided in section 313(j)(2)(B) of

12 the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2)(B)).

Æ
To: Deborah Jeffrey 

Inspector General

From: Lori Giblin 

Chief Risk Officer

¥-/-Ale~ 

Subject: High-Dollar Overpayments for the quarter ending June 30, 2016 

Date: July 7, 2016 

The purpose of this document is to comply with the High -Dollar overpayments' reporting 

requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Appendix C. 

Appendix C requires agency heads to submit reports quarterly on High-Dollar 

overpayments to the Office of Inspector General. 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) identifies high-dollar 

overpayments through improper payments testing, which has not yet begun for FY2016. 

Therefore, during the reporting period covering 4 / 01 / 2016 through 06/ 30/ 2016, CNCS 

has not identified any high-dollar overpayments. 

This report upholds the Corporation's commitment to carrying out the Executive Order's 

goals of eliminating payment errors. Reducing improper payments remains vital for the 

Corporation. We continue to monitor programs in order to reduce the amount of 

overpayments. 

250 E Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20525 

202-606-5000 I 800-942-2677 1 TTY 800-833-3722 

NATIONAL& 

COMMUNITY 

SERVICEtfX'C
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2249

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Deandre Darnell Blakely

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa

 ____________

Submitted: December 20, 2021

Filed: January 20, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Deandre Darnell Blakely appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and gun

offenses, and the district court1

 imposed a sentence below the advisory guideline

1The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.
range in the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. His counsel has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing the propriety of an

obstruction-of-justice enhancement and the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence. 

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement

for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. See United States v. Abdul-Aziz,

486 F.3d 471, 478 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining the standard of review); see also

United States v. Vera-Gutierrez, 964 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2020) (reiterating the

district court’s broad discretion to apply the enhancement to a wide range of conduct),

cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1252 (2021). Having reviewed the record under a deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51

(2007), we also conclude the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable

sentence. The court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there

is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing

relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009)

(en banc); see also United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009)

(explaining that when a district court varies below the guideline range, “it is nearly

inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still

further”). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

-2-
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: NORMAN ALAN KERR,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-110

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in 

No. 1:09-cr-00290-NCT, Senior Judge N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Norman Alan Kerr petitions for mandamus and moves 

to proceed in forma pauperis and for leave to file a brief in 

support of his petition. 

Mr. Kerr’s petition appears to be challenging his criminal conviction. His submissions include correspondence 

with the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector 

General and the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fourth Circuit concerning his conviction. And his petition 

asks to compel the “Federal Bureau” and “Director of Administration of the Courts” to “perform their dut[ies].” 

Case: 23-110 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 03/01/2023
2 IN RE: KERR

The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “may 

issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute makes 

clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction,

see Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35 (1999). And 

although 28 U.S.C. § 1361, cited by Mr. Kerr, provides that 

“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any 

action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or 

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff” (emphasis added), we are 

not a district court. Because Mr. Kerr’s petition has not 

otherwise identified any matter that could fall within this 

appellate court’s limited jurisdiction, we have no jurisdiction to consider his mandamus request. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied.

March 1, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-110 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 03/01/2023
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Ch armelle Math ews 

Document Number: 

37) IV-E-25 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:28 AM Sheet 37of 105 
P.2 

RADIAN A-83-27 

CORPORATIO N 

TELEPHONE CALL REPORT 

DATE: October 28, 1986 

TO: Mr. Ray Ouellette 

Shell California Production, Inc. 

P. 0. Box 11164 

Bakersfield, California 93389-1164 

(805) 326-5280 

FROM: Phillip A. May, Radian Corporation 

SUBJECT: Update of Sodium Scrubber Effluent Status in California 

Mr. Ouellette stated that the status of sodium scrubber effluent has 

not changed in the last two years. He reiterated that the waste stream is 

still considered a "designated" waste in the state of California. Heavy 

metal concentrations are not high enough for it to be considered a hazardous 

waste. The trace metals in the waste, which are of concern when considering 

a compound hazardous, are Ni, Vn, and Se. 

The waste is presently disposed of in two different manners. 

Approximately 1/3 of it is used in the steam injection wells used for 

secondary oil recovery and the remainder is hauled to a class II waste site. 

Class II is the classification given to waste sites where a "designated" 

waste is disposed of. The tipping fee at the waste site is $5-$6/barrel, 

not including the hauling fee. 

Progress Center/3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy./P.O. Box 13000/Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27709/(919)541-9100
#### § 50-201.101 Employees affected.

The stipulations shall be deemed applicable only to employees engaged in or connected with the manufacture, fabrication, assembling, handling, supervision, or shipment of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the contract, and shall not be deemed applicable to employees performing only office or custodial work, nor to any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or outside salesman capacity, as those terms are defined and delimited by the regulations (29 CFR part 541) applicable during the period of performance of the contract under section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

[35 FR 17782, Nov. 19, 1970. Redesignated at 61 FR 40716, Aug. 5, 1996]