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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4524

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Old Spanish

Trail and the Northern Branch of the Old Spanish Trail for potential

inclusion into the National Trails System, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1994

Mr. MCINNIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

Old Spanish Trail and the Northern Branch of the Old

Spanish Trail for potential inclusion into the National

Trails System, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

5 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(36) Old Spanish Trail, beginning in Santa Fe, New

8 Mexico, proceeding through Colorado and ending in Los
2

•HR 4524 IH

1 Angeles, California; and the Northern Branch of the Old

2 Spanish Trail, beginning near Espanola, New Mexico, pro3 ceeding through Colorado, and ending near Crescent

4 Junction, Utah.’’.

Æ
```

[Federal Register: March 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 57)]
[Notices]               
[Page 14429]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25mr10-43]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE:  11 a.m., Friday April 30, 2010.

PLACE:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS:  Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-6710 Filed 3-23-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
§ 105-71.123 Period of availability of funds. ( a ) *General.* Where a funding period is specified, a grantee may charge to the award only costs resulting from obligations of the funding period unless carryover or unobligated balances are permitted, in which case the carryover balances may be charged for costs resulting from obligations of the subsequent funding period.
( b ) *Liquidation of obligations.* A grantee must liquidate all obligations incurred under the award not later than 90 days after the end of the funding period (or as specified in a program regulation) to coincide with the submission of the annual Financial Status Report (SF-269). The Federal agency may extend this deadline at the request of the grantee.
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-21941, 333-30815, 333-56757, 333-69055, and Form S-8 Nos.
333-85155 and 333-58427) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Plan, 1995 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, 1998 Supplemental Stock Plan,
and 2000 Stock Plan and Non-Plan Options of Connetics Corporation, of our report
dated January 14, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Connetics Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1999.


                                        /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo Alto, California
February 28, 2000
§ 24.711 Installment payments for licenses for frequency Block C. Installment payments. Each eligible licensee of frequency Block C may pay the remaining 90 percent of the net auction price for the license in installment payments pursuant to § 1.2110(f) of this chapter and under the following terms: ( a ) For an eligible licensee with gross revenues exceeding $75 million (calculated in accordance with § 1.2110(n) of this chapter and § 24.709(b)) in each of the two preceding years (calculated in accordance with § 1.2110(n) of this chapter), interest shall be imposed based on the rate for ten-year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, plus 3.5 percent; payments shall include both principal and interest amortized over the term of the license.
( b ) For an eligible licensee with gross revenues not exceeding $75 million (calculated in accordance with § 1.2110(b) of this chapter and § 24.709(b)) in each of the two preceding years, interest shall be imposed based on the rate for ten-year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, plus 2.5 percent; payments shall include interest only for the first year and payments of interest and principal amortized over the remaining nine years of the license term.
( c ) For an eligible licensee that qualifies as a small business or as a consortium of small businesses, interest shall be imposed based on the rate for ten-year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted; payments shall include interest only for the first six years and payments of interest and principal amortized over the remaining four years of the license term.
[67 FR 45371, July 9, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 42999, July 21, 2003]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.274 Certification of the record to the Commission for decision when the Commission is not the presiding officer; presiding officer unavailability. ( a ) When the Commission is not the presiding officer, and where the Commission finds upon the record that due and timely execution of its functions imperatively and unavoidably so requires, the Commission may direct that the record in a pending proceeding be certified to it for decision.
( b ) When a presiding officer becomes unavailable to the Commission after the taking of evidence has been concluded, the Commission shall direct that the record be certified to it for decision. In that event, the Commission shall designate a new presiding officer in accordance with § 1.241 for the limited purpose of certifying the record to the Commission.
( c ) In all other circumstances when the Commission is not the presiding officer, the presiding officer shall prepare and file an initial or recommended decision, which will be released in accordance with § 1.267.
( d ) When a presiding officer becomes unavailable to the Commission after the taking of evidence has commenced but before it has been concluded, the Commission shall designate another presiding officer in accordance with § 1.241 to continue the hearing proceeding. Oral testimony already introduced shall not be reheard unless observation of the demeanor of the witness is essential to the resolution of the case.
(Sec. 409, 48 Stat. 1096, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 409)
[85 FR 63179, Oct. 6, 2020]
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation.

** Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11109

JIMMIE CHARLES CROW, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

CHARLES TOMBONE, Warden, and FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, SEAGOVILLE, TEXAS, Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-1980-G) June 9, 1997

Before WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges and LITTLE, District Judge. *
PER CURIAM: **2

Jimmy Crow, Jr., federal prisoner # 07225-062, appeals an order dismissing his “Petition for Writ of Mandamus or in the Alternative a Writ of Certiorari.” The procedure relative to magi strate referral used in this

case was not unconstitutional. S ee Koetting v. Thompson , 995 F.2d 37, 39 (5th Cir. 1993).
Crow has fai led to carry his burden of establishing his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. See In re American Marine Holding Co., 14 F.3d 276, 277 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent that
he contends t hat his petition for a writ of mandamus should be liberally construed as an appeal fromthe denial of his § 2241 motion, this argument is also unavailing. See id.
AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1849 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in § 1.1850, no qualified individual with a disability shall, because the Commission's facilities are inaccessible to, or unusable, by individuals with disabilities, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Commission.
( b ) Individuals shall request accessibility to the Commission's programs and facilities by contacting the Commission's Section 504 Officer. Such contact may be made in the manner indicated in the FCC Section 504 Handbook. The Commission will make every effort to provide accommodations requiring the assistance of other persons (e.g., American Sign Language interpreters, communication access realtime translation (CART) providers, transcribers, captioners, and readers) if the request is made to the Commission's Section 504 Officer a minimum of five business days in advance of the program. If such requests are made fewer than five business days prior to an event, the Commission will make every effort to secure accommodation services, although it may be less likely that the Commission will be able to secure such services.
No. 11-8254.

#### Glaser *v.*ENZO Biochem, Inc., et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EIA

Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID



### 1356 Ghent 1

1 6/8/2010 8:15 6/8/2010 2 6/8/2010 12:09 6/8/2010 3 6/8/2010 16:06 6/8/2010 Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End DateMeasured Value (ppm) Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used

11:29 

### 0.219 Dry Method 26A 15:27 

### [<0.105] Dry Method 26A 19:20 

### [<0.104] Dry Method 26A Method 26A Method 26A Method 26A Test End Time Chlorine Emission Test ResultsData Flag (ADL,

BDL, DDL) Test Method

Comments 

### ADL 0.000601 3682.96 5083.95 

### 14.92 BDL [<0.00029] 3763.85 5113.38 

### 14.46 BDL [<0.00030] 3759.6 5083.48 

### 15.06 Calculated Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) Steam Output

(1000 lb/hr) Total Heat

Input (mmBtu/hr) Flue Gas

Moisture (%)Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method 

### 11.3 7.2 1323799 127 464880 

### bituminous lb/hour 

### Other 11.4 7.3 1353712 128 471950 

### bituminous lb/hour 

### Other 10.7 7.9 1329926 128 451730 

### bituminous lb/hour 

### Other Flue Gas CO 2(%) Flue Gas

O 2(%) Flue Gas

Flow Rate (dscfm) Flue Gas

Temperature (F) Fuel #1Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure Measurement

Method Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel #2 Fuel #3Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure Measurement

Method 

### Fuel Input Rate is derived from coal feeder readings.

Fuel Input Rate is derived from coal feeder readings. Detection Limit Calculations attached to the 1356_Unit_1_ERT.mbd file. Fuel Input Rate is derived from coal feeder readings. Detection Limit Calculations attached to the 1356_Unit_1_ERT.mbd file. Other Supporting Information Fuel #4

### Fuel Input Rate is derived from coal feeder readings. Fuel Input Rate is derived from coal feeder readings. Detection Limit Calculations attached to the 1356_Unit_1_ERT.mbd file. Fuel Input Rate is derived from coal feeder readings. Detection Limit Calculations attached to the 1356_Unit_1_ERT.mbd file.
#### § 60-300.3 [Reserved]
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–707

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT

TO THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE

JUNE 28, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 540]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 540, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives the provisions of clause 6(a) of rule XIII

(requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it

is reported from the Rules Committee) against resolutions reported

from the Rules Committee on or before the legislative day of Friday, June 30, 2000, providing for consideration or disposition of a

conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4425) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, or any

amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

Æ
# Úřední věstník C 34A/31.

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 34A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 6131. ledna 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 34A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 6131. ledna 2018

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Opravy |
| 2018/C 34 A/01 | Oprava oznámení o otevřených výběrových řízeních EPSO/AD/354/17 – Právníci-lingvisté (AD 7) lotyšského jazyka (LV) — EPSO/AD/355/17 – Právníci-lingvisté (AD 7) maltského jazyka (MT) ( Úř. věst. C 418 A, 7.12.2017 ) | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

Opravy

2018/C 34 A/01

Oprava oznámení o otevřených výběrových řízeních EPSO/AD/354/17 – Právníci-lingvisté (AD 7) lotyšského jazyka (LV) — EPSO/AD/355/17 – Právníci-lingvisté (AD 7) maltského jazyka (MT) ( Úř. věst. C 418 A, 7.12.2017 )

( Úř. věst. C 418 A, 7.12.2017 )

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Opravy

| 31.1.2018 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2018

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 34/1

---

Oprava oznámení o otevřených výběrových řízeních

EPSO/AD/354/17 – Právníci-lingvisté (AD 7) lotyšského jazyka (LV)

EPSO/AD/355/17 – Právníci-lingvisté (AD 7) maltského jazyka (MT)

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 418 A ze dne 7. prosince 2017
  )

(2018/C 034 A/01)

Strana 1

místo:

„Lhůta pro registraci: do 16. ledna 2018, 12:00 hodin (poledne) středoevropského času“,

má být:

má být:

„Lhůta pro registraci: do 30. ledna 2018, 12:00 hodin (poledne) středoevropského času“.

Strana 5

Strana 5

místo:

místo:

„KDY A KDE SE MOHU PŘIHLÁSIT?

Přihlášku podejte elektronicky prostřednictvím internetových stránek úřadu EPSO (http://jobs.eu-careers.eu), a to:

do 16. ledna 2018, 12:00 hodin (poledne) středoevropského času.“,

má být:

má být:

„KDY A KDE SE MOHU PŘIHLÁSIT?

Přihlášku podejte elektronicky prostřednictvím internetových stránek úřadu EPSO (http://jobs.eu-careers.eu), a to:

do 30. ledna 2018, 12:00 hodin (poledne) středoevropského času.“

---
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-1580: Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Renesas Electronics Corp. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FMk0SLZnjq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1580-lone-star-silicon-innovations-v-renesas-electronics-corp-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1580: Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Renesas Electronics Corp.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1580-lone-star-silicon-innovations-v-renesas-electronics-corp-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=FMk0SLZnjq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1580: Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Renesas Electronics Corp.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"FMk0SLZnjq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\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<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Renesas Electronics Corp. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1580 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
#### § 101.1305 Private internal service.

A private internal service is a service where entities utilize frequencies purely for internal business purposes or public safety communications and not on a for-hire or for-profit basis.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8211** 

HERMAN GADESON, a/k/a Herman Gadsen , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. REYNOLDS, Warden; JON OZMINT, Director; ROBERT WARD, Divisional Director all in their official and i ndividual capacities , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 2:08

- cv - 03702

- CMC )

Submitted : August 19, 2010 Decided: Aug ust 26, 2010

Before MOTZ , GREGORY, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Herman Gadeson, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, SCOTT & PAYNE LAW FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Herman Gadeson appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b )(1)(B) ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2010 ). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gadeson that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the r ecommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gadeson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### § 128-48.150 Determination of type of property.

If a bureau is unable to determine whether the personal property in its custody is abandoned or voluntarily abandoned, the bureau shall contact the regional office of the General Services Administration for the region in which the property is located for such a determination.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30322

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

VERSUS

JIM LEWIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-3200-G)

October 21, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Jim Lewis, #23220-034, appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Lewis argues that: (1) the Government knowingly used perjured

testimony; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
2

miscalculation of his criminal history score; (3) the district

court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; and (4)

the district court erred in finding that his contentions that the

district court erred in refusing to award a decrease for acceptance

of responsibility and in calculating his criminal history score

were procedurally barred because he failed to show cause and

prejudice for failing to raise the issues on direct appeal.

Lewis argues, for the first time on appeal, that the

Government knowingly used perjured testimony and that counsel was

ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s alleged

miscalculation of his criminal history score. We decline to review

these arguments because there is no clear error. Highlands Ins. v.

National Union Fire Ins., 27 F.3d 1027 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying

the standard of United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995) to

civil cases), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995).

The district court did not err in refusing to conduct an

evidentiary hearing because the record is sufficient for

determination of Lewis’s contentions. See United States v.

Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S.

1104 (1991).

Lewis’s claims that the district court erred in refusing to

award a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in

allegedly miscalculating his criminal history score are not

cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding because the district court’s
3

application of the Sentencing Guidelines does not raise a

constitutional issue. United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368

(5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.