alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 102-75.675 What responsibilities does the grantee or recipient of the property have in accomplishing or completing the transfer?

Where appropriate, the disposal agency may make the assignment subject to DOI requiring the grantee or recipient to bear the cost of any out-of-pocket expenses necessary to accomplish the transfer, such as for surveys, fencing, security of the remaining property, or otherwise.
No. 11-9625.

#### Torres-Cespedes *v.*United States.

C. A; 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 17-1959: REAL FOODS PTY LTD. v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. [OPINION], Precedential
Summary of Interagency Wo rking Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review. Subject to Further Policy Review

Below is a summary of interagency co mments received during EO 12866 review of the draft proposed rule establishing GHG emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty trucks. They are for your consideration and subject to further policy review.

Interagency commenters suggest the following edits to the we lfare impacts discussion in the Preamble and RIA:

“The costs estimates include the costs of holding other vehicle attributes, such as performance, constant. Th e 2010 light-duty GHG/CAFE rule, discussed that if other vehicle attributes are not held constant, then the cost estimates do not capture the impacts of these changes. The light duty rule also discussed other potential issues that could affect the calculation of the we lfare impacts of these types of changes, such as behavioral issues affecting the demand for technology i nvestments, investment horizon uncertainty, and discount rates. The agencies seek comments

, including supporting data and quantitative analyses

, if possible , of any additional impacts of the proposed standards on vehicle attributes and performance, and other potential aspects that could positively or negatively affect the welfare im plications of this rulemaking, not addressed in this analysis.”
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

I, Dorrance W. Lamb certify that: 

 

1.      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Performance Technologies, Incorporated;

 

2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

                                                                                                               Dorrance W. Lamb

                                                                                                               Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 73 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 73

  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at 
  birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not 
                 citizens or permanent resident aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at 
  birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not 
                 citizens or permanent resident aliens.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Citizenship Reform Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at 
birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not 
citizens or permanent resident aliens.

SEC. 3. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CHILDREN OF NON-CITIZEN, NON-PERMANENT 
              RESIDENT ALIENS.

    (a) In General.--Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by inserting after subsection (c) the 
following new subsection:
    ``(d) For purposes of section 301(a), a person born in the United 
States shall be considered as `subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States' if--
            ``(1) the child was born in wedlock in the United States to 
        a parent either of whom is (A) a citizen or national of the 
        United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence and maintains his or her residence (as 
        defined in subsection (a)(33)) in the United States; or
            ``(2) the child was born out of wedlock in the United 
        States to a mother who is (A) a citizen or national of the 
        United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence and maintains her residence in the United 
        States.
For purposes of this subsection, a child is considered to be `born in 
wedlock' only if both parents are married to each other and parents are 
not considered to be married if such marriage is only a common law 
marriage.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 301 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) 
is amended by inserting ``(as defined in section 101(d))'' after 
``subject to the jurisdiction thereof''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to aliens born on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-10929.

#### Vuong *v.*Dexter, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

Z ENEIDA CENTENO
, Appellant,

v.

T OWER HILL SELECT INS. CO

. , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3838

[ February 11, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Nicholas Richard Lopane , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE17005382

.

Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Todd L. Wallen of Wallen Kelley, Coral Gables, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, C ONNE R
, and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                             526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                       609
<INVENTORY>                                     53,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          13,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,492
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,437
<SALES>                                         15,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,900
<CGS>                                            9,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,598
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,065
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,065
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
        

</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The NLST newsletter [electronicresource].**
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3152:L 97/4

Item Number:0507-G-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000878910
 
2005| 2007 | 2009
 
April 27, 2020
Slot Holder and Operator Reports by Carrier, Day, and Slot Time for Docket Number FAA

- 2014

- 1073 : In response to requests received for information related to the notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “ Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport ”, 1 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) previously posted a number of slot reports providing summary slot holder and operator information during particular periods at Joh n F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), 2 LaGuardia Airport (LGA), 3 and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR)

. 4
Additional information detailing the carrier slot allocations for August 2009 at JFK, LGA, and EWR has been placed in the Docket. The reports include information on slots held or operated by carrier, airport, and day of week, slot time, and arrival or departure for the weeks of August 3, 10, 17, 24, and 31, 2009. The report status date reflects FAA confirmed slot transactions as of th at date. T he reports for LGA exclude Saturdays and before 1200 local time on Sundays as those periods are not slot controlled.

I n some cases , the reports do not reflect all transfers between mainline carriers marketing flights and the operating regional carriers. T hese slots would be reflected primarily as the mainline rather than the regional carrier.

1 80 FR 1273, January 8, 2015. 2 Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1073

- 0026. 3 Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1073

- 0027. 4 Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1073

- 0029.
#### § 102-118.235 Must my agency keep physical control and accountability of the GBL and GTR forms or GBL and GTR numbers?

Yes, your agency is responsible for the physical control and accountability of the GBL and GTR stock and must have procedures in place and available for inspection by GSA. Your agency must consider these Government transportation documents to be the same as money.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 10, 2000.
    Time: 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mary Sue Krause, MEDS, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extamural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6138, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-6470.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Emphasis 
Panel.
    Date: July 31, 2000.
    Time: 10:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: David I. Sommers, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6144, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-6470.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: June 23, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-16619 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 4564

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
BENJAMIN ROBERT SMITH , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00030

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : July 23, 2021 Decided: July 29, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant . Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin Robert Smith entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) , and he was sentenced to 113 months in prison

. As authorized by his conditional guilty plea, Smith’s challenges on appeal the district court ’s order denying his motion to dismiss the § 924(c) charge, which was predicated on a substantive Hobbs Act robbery offense. According to Smith, Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a proper predicate for the § 924(c) charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)’s “ force clause ” and, after Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015) (holding that “ residual clause ” of Armed Car eer Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague), Hobbs Act robbery cannot support the § 924(c) charge under § 924(c)(3)’s “ residual clause

. ” * We affirm.
We review a district court ’ s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment de novo where, as here, it depends solely on a question of law. United States v. Said , 798 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2015). Although Smith is correct that the “ residual clause ” of § 924(c)(3) is
unconstitutiona lly vague, United States v. Davis , __ U.S.

__ , __, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), Smith’s argument otherwise is foreclosed by binding precedent, see United States
v. Mathis , 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that Hobbs Act robbery categorically

* This appeal has been in abeyance pending our decision in United States v. Ali , Appeal No. 15

- 4433, which issued on March 19, 2021. See United States v. Ali , 991 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 2021).3 qua lifies as “ crime of violence ” under the “ force clause ” of § 924(c)(3) ). We therefore find
no error in the district court’s denial of Smith’s motion to dismiss the § 924(c) charge. Accordingly, w e affirm the criminal judgment. W e dispense with oral argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4188

To amend section 1738A of title 28, United States Code, relating to child

custody determinations and child support orders, to modify the requirements for court jurisdiction.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 13, 1994

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. PENNY, Mr. PICKETT,

Mr. FROST, Mr. HEFNER, Mr. KING, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr. BOEHNER,

Mr. PETERSON of Florida, and Mr. REYNOLDS) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 1738A of title 28, United States Code,

relating to child custody determinations and child support orders, to modify the requirements for court jurisdiction.

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 ‘‘Enhanced Access to

5 Support Enforcement Act of 1994’’.
2

HR 4188 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1738A of title 28, United

3 States Code, is amended—

4 (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘or child sup5 port order’’ after ‘‘child custody determination’’;

6 (2) in subsection (b)—

7 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2)

8 through (8) as paragraphs (3) through (9), re9 spectively; and

10 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the

11 following new paragraph:

12 ‘‘(2) ‘child support order’ means a judgment,

13 decree, or order of a court requiring the payment of

14 money, whether in periodic amounts or lump sum,

15 for the support of a child and includes permanent

16 and temporary orders, initial orders and modifica17 tions, on-going support and arrearages;’’;

18 (3) in subsection (c)—

19 (A) in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘or

20 child support order’’ after ‘‘child custody deter21 mination’’; and

22 (B) in paragraph (2)(D)(i) by inserting

23 ‘‘or support’’ after ‘‘determine the custody’’;

24 (4) in subsection (d), by striking out ‘‘the re25 quirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section contin26 ues to be met and’’; and
3

HR 4188 IH

1 (5) in subsection (f)(2), by inserting ‘‘as de2 scribed under subsection (d) of this section,’’ after

3 ‘‘no longer has jurisdiction,’’.

4 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

5 (1) The heading for section 1738A of title 28, United

6 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘SEC. 1738A. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO CHILD

8 CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS AND CHILD SUP9 PORT ORDERS.’’.

10 (2) The table of sections for chapter 115 of title 28,

11 United States Code, is amended by striking out the item

12 relating to section 1738A and inserting in lieu thereof:

‘‘1738A. Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations and child

support orders.’’.

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

14 this section shall be effective on and after the date of the

15 enactment of this Act.

Æ
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4322 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4322

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To amend the Small Business Act to increase the authorization for the 
          development company program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOANS.

    Section 20(i)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``$8,458,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$8,758,000,000''; and
            (2) by striking ``$1,200,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$1,500,000,000''.

SEC. 2. DISASTER LOAN PERSONNEL.

    Section 5(b)(8) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634(b)(8)) is 
amended by striking the semicolon and inserting the following: ``: 
Provided, That the Administrator may extend the six-month limitation 
for an additional six months if the Administrator determines the 
extension is necessary to continue efficient disaster loan making 
activities;''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     





103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4322

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Small Business Act to increase the authorization for the 
          development company program, and for other purposes.`