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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4871

To provide for the study of certain prehistoric resources in the States of

Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 1, 1994

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

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To provide for the study of certain prehistoric resources

in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds and declares the following:

5 (1) The States of Colorado, Wyoming, and

6 Utah, commonly known as ‘‘The Golden Triangle’’

7 comprise one of the world’s richest sources of dino8 saur bones and other prehistoric artifacts.

9 (2) These sites and artifacts compose a rich na10 tional resource for scientific study and recreation.
2

•HR 4871 IH

1 (3) Many of these artifacts are located on lands

2 managed by the various agencies of the United

3 States Department of the Interior, including the Na4 tional Park Service and the Bureau of Land Man5 agement; and the United States Forest Service of

6 the United States Department of Agriculture.

7 (4) While many of these sites have been studied

8 individually, to date no comprehensive report on the

9 Golden Triangle has been compiled.

10 (5) A unified study, cutting across agency and

11 departmental lines, is needed to provide for coherent

12 interpretation, management and budgeting at these

13 sites in the future.

14 SEC. 2. THEME STUDY.

15 (a) STUDY.—In order to provide guidance to future

16 management and legislation of western regional pre17 historic resources, the Secretary of the Interior, in co18 operation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief

19 of the United States Forest Service, shall conduct a study

20 of locations and events associated with the historical

21 theme of United States Western Region Prehistory. The

22 purpose of such study shall be to identify the locations

23 of sites associated with the aforementioned theme in the

24 States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. The study shall

25 make recommendations for the preservation and interpre-
3

•HR 4871 IH

1 tation of the designated sites. Wherever possible, the study

2 should draw upon previously existing interdepartmental

3 reports and studies.

4 (b) REPORT.—Governmental entities controlling loca5 tions identified under subsection (a) are hereby requested

6 to preserve them from destruction during the study and

7 congressional review period insofar as is possible. A com8 prehensive report based on the study under subsection (a),

9 including potential action alternatives, shall be submitted

10 to the Committee on Natural Resources of the United

11 States House of Representatives no later than 6 months

12 after the date of enactment of this Act.

13 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

14 There is authorized to be appropriated not more than

15 $15,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Æ
#### George E. Hayter, Gertrude Hayter, his wife, and B. A. Cassady, as Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, *Appellants,*vs. The American Agricultural Chemical Company, a corporation, *Appellee.*

143 So. 300.

Division B.

Order entered September 6, 1932.

*Gaines <& Futch,*for Appellants;

*Mack & Julian,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

cause coming on to be heard upon the motion of the appellant to modify the order made and entered by the Honorable H. C. Petteway, one of the Judges of the Circuit Court in and for Polk County, fixing the amount, terms and conditions of a supersedeas bond to be given to make effective the supersedeas herein awarded by a Justice of this Court and praying for a direction to the Judge of the Circuit Court concerning the amount, terms and conditions of a supersedeas bond to be required in lieu of that heretofore fixed, and same having been argued by counsel,

It is ordered by the Court that the matter of fixing *648the terms and conditions of the supersedeas bond to be given herein to make the supersedeas herein granted effective be referred back to the Circuit Court for Polk County with directions to permit the appellant, George E. ITayter, to give a good and sufficient supersedeas bond in such amount as the Court may fix, conditioned to pay the plaintiff, The American Agricultural Chemical Company, a corporation, all costs and damages which the said American Agricultural Chemical Company may sustain in the event the o'rder appealed from should be affirmed, including the payment to said American Agricultural Chemical Company, the appellee, of all amounts of money which may be paid over to said George E. Hayter as a result of the operation of the order of supersedeas, together with interest thereon at legal rate during the time said moneys were kept and enjoyed by the said George E. Hayter, to'gether with the costs of the appeal should the decision and order of the Circuit Court so 'appealed from be affirmed by the Supreme Court, said supersedeas bond to be executed by either two or more good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the Judge of the Circuit Court, or the Clerk thereof, as the Judge may direct, or by sohie surety company authorized to do business in the State of Florida, acceptable to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, as surety for the amount of such bond as may be fixed by the Circuit Judge. See Stegeman v. Emery, 137 Sou. Rep. 88, as authority for the procedure herein follo'wed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
§ 69.807 Regulatory relief. ( a ) Price cap local exchange carrier TDM transport, end user channel terminations in markets deemed competitive, and end user channel terminations in grandfathered markets for a price cap local exchange carrier that was granted Phase II pricing flexibility prior to June 2017, are granted the following regulatory relief: ( 1 ) Elimination of the rate structure requirements contained in subpart B of this part;
( 2 ) Elimination of price cap regulation; and
( 3 ) Elimination of tariffing requirements as specified in § 61.201 of this chapter.
( b ) Price cap local exchange carrier end user channel terminations in markets deemed non-competitive are granted the following regulatory relief: ( 1 ) Ability to offer volume and term discounts;
( 2 ) Ability to enter into contract-based tariffs, provided that: ( i ) Contract-based tariff services are made generally available to all similarly situated customers;
( ii ) The price cap local exchange carrier excludes all contract-based tariff offerings from price cap regulation pursuant to § 61.42(f) of this chapter;
( 3 ) Ability to file tariff revisions on at least one day's notice, notwithstanding the notice requirements for tariff filings specified in § 61.58 of this chapter.
( c ) A price cap local exchange carrier that was granted Phase II pricing flexibility prior to June 2017 in a grandfathered market must retain its business data services rates at levels no higher than those in effect as of April 20, 2017, pending the detariffing of those services pursuant to § 61.201 of this chapter.
[82 FR 25711, June 2, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 38579, Aug. 7, 2019]
792 A.2d 396

#### IN THE MATTER OF MILTON DIAMOND, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 6, 2002.

ORDER

This matter having been presented to the Court on the motion filed by respondent, MILTON DIAMOND of FREEHOLD, to adjourn the hearing before District IX Ethics Committee docketed as District. Docket No. IX-00-015E, based on respondent’s physical inability to participate in the proceedings or to assist in his defense, and good cause appearing;

IT is ORDERED that MILTON DIAMOND of FREEHOLD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1954, is hereby transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to *Rule*1:20-12(e), effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the ethics proceedings currently pending before the District IX Ethics Committee are hereby stayed pending the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period he is on disability inactive status and that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 governing attorneys transferred to disability inactive status.
§ 54.2011 Administrator of the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program. ( a ) The Universal Service Administrative Company is appointed the Administrator of the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program and shall be responsible for administering the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program.
( b ) The Administrator shall be responsible for reviewing applications for funding, recommending funding commitments, issuing funding commitment decision letters, reviewing invoices and recommending payment of funds, as well as other administration-related duties.
( c ) The Administrator may not make policy, interpret unclear provisions of statutes or rules, or interpret the intent of Congress. Where statutes or the Commission's rules in this subpart are unclear, or do not address a particular situation, the Administrator shall seek guidance from the Commission.
( d ) The Administrator may advocate positions before the Commission and its staff only on administrative matters relating to the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program.
( e ) The Administrator shall create and maintain a website, as defined in § 54.5, on which applications for services will be posted on behalf of schools and libraries.
( f ) The Administrator shall provide the Commission full access to the data collected pursuant to the administration of the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program.
( g ) The Administrator shall provide performance measurements pertaining to the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program as requested by the Commission by order or otherwise.
( h ) The Administrator shall have the authority to audit all entities reporting data to the Administrator regarding the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program. When the Commission, the Administrator, or any independent auditor hired by the Commission or the Administrator conducts audits of the participants of the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program, such audits shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
( i ) The Administrator shall establish procedures to verify support amounts provided by the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program and may suspend or delay support amounts if a party fails to provide adequate verification of the support amounts provided upon reasonable request from the Administrator or the Commission.
( j ) The Administrator shall make available to whomever the Commission directs, free of charge, any and all intellectual property, including, but not limited to, all records and information generated by or resulting from its role in administering the support mechanisms, if its participation in administering the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program ends. If its participation in administering the Schools and Libraries Cybersecurity Pilot Program ends, the Administrator shall be subject to close-out audits at the end of its term.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements News
 Texas A&M University Cybersecurity Center Second Place (Tie)
 Paper info,.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### § 73.4055 Cigarette advertising.

See 15 U.S.C. 1335; 15 U.S.C. 4402(c).

[89 FR 7262, Feb. 1, 2024]
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4595

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AN ACT

To designate the building located at 4021 Laclede in St.

Louis, Missouri, for the period of time during which

it houses operations of the United States Postal Service,

as the ‘‘Marian Oldham Post Office’’.

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 The building located at 4021 Laclede in St. Louis,

5 Missouri, shall, for the period of time during which it

6 houses operations of the United States Postal Service, be

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Marian Oldham Post Of8 fice’’.
2

HR 4595 RFS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

4 referred to in section 1 shall, with respect to the period

5 referred to in section 1, be deemed to be a reference to

6 the Marian Oldham Post Office.

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
###### Editorial Note on Part 74

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.779 Electronic delivery of notices to LPTV stations.

In accordance with § 76.1600 of this title, beginning July 31, 2020, each licensee of a low power television station or noncommercial educational translator station that is entitled to notices under § 76.64(k), § 76.1601, § 76.1607, or § 76.1617 of this title shall receive such notices via email to the licensee's email address (not a contact representative's email address, if different from the licensee's email address) as displayed publicly in the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS), or the primary station's carriage-related email address if the noncommercial educational translator station does not have its own email address listed in LMS. Licensees are responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of this information.

[85 FR 16004, Mar. 20, 2020]
{"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":"22-1316: THERMOLIFE INTERNATIONAL LLC v. HUMAN POWER OF N COMPANY [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3xqKSgPYsz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-30-2022-22-1316-thermolife-international-llc-v-human-power-of-n-company-order-22-1316-order-9-30-2022_2011831\/\">22-1316: THERMOLIFE INTERNATIONAL LLC v. HUMAN POWER OF N COMPANY [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-30-2022-22-1316-thermolife-international-llc-v-human-power-of-n-company-order-22-1316-order-9-30-2022_2011831\/embed\/#?secret=3xqKSgPYsz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1316: THERMOLIFE INTERNATIONAL LLC v. HUMAN POWER OF N COMPANY [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"3xqKSgPYsz\" 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":"ORDER Posted: THERMOLIFE INTERNATIONAL LLC v. HUMAN POWER OF N COMPANY [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1316 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 76.124 Requirements for invocation of protection.

For a television broadcast station licensee or distributor of syndicated programming to be eligible to invoke the provisions of § 76.122 or § 76.123 of this subpart, it must have a contract or other written indicia that it holds network program non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity rights for the exhibition of the program in question. Contracts entered on or after November 29, 2000, must contain the following words: “the licensee [or substitute name] shall, by the terms of this contract, be entitled to invoke the protection against duplication of programming imported under the Statutory Copyright License, as provided in § 76.122 or § 76.123 of the FCC rules [or 'as provided in the FCC's satellite network non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity rules'].” Contracts entered into prior to November 29, 2000, must contain the foregoing language plus a clear and specific reference to the licensee's authority to exercise exclusivity rights as to the specific programming against signal carriage by the satellite carrier in question, or by satellite carriage in general in a protected, geographic or specified zone. In the absence of such a specific reference in contracts entered into prior to November 29, 2000, the provisions of these rules may be invoked only if the contract is amended to include the specific language referenced in this section or a specific written acknowledgment is obtained from the party from whom the broadcast exhibition rights were obtained that the existing contract was intended, or should now be construed by agreement of the parties, to include such rights. A general acknowledgment by a supplier of exhibition rights that specific contract language was intended to convey rights under these rules will be accepted with respect to all contracts containing that specific language. Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of exclusive rights to a broadcaster where such rights are not agreed to by the parties.
No. 11-9603.

#### Smith *v.*Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### SWARTZEL v. WOODS, Housing Expediter.

No. 11208.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1951.

A. K. Meek, Dayton, Ohio, for appellant.

Ed. Dupree, Gen. Counsel, Leon J. Libeu, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William A. Moran, Spec. Litigation Atty., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In an action for injunction and restitution to tenants, filed by the Housing Expediter, the District Court found that appellant was the owner and operator of certain rooming houses in Dayton, Ohio, and that he demanded and received rents in excess of the maximum legal rent. Judgment of restitution for the use and benefit of the tenants overcharged was rendered, and the usual injunction was issued.

Appellant concedes that if the accommodations owned by him are rooming houses the judgment is correct. He contends that he operates apartment houses; that he attempted to register under the controlled housing rent regulation which applies to apartments and similar accommodations; that the area rent director wrongfully refused to process his registrations; and that the provisions of the price regulations on rooming houses do not apply to him.

This contention has no merit. The District Court found as a fact that the houses involved were rooming houses. This finding is supported by the testimony of a witness that he occupied one partly furnished room and that there was but one bathroom in a building used by fifteen tenants. The landlord’s practice of charging rates that varied, depending upon the number of occupants is a characteristic of the operation of rooming houses rather than apartments, as also the statement of extras submitted with the registrations for appellant’s accommodations, reading as follows:

“Lite over 60-W, 500, Radio 250, E. Iron 500, Parking, $1.50, extra person, $4.00, *802E. Heater, $3.00, E. Plate, $3.00, pets $3.00 and E. blankets extra.”

These practices clearly support the conclusion of the District Court. Such accommodations could not be considered “facilities commonly regarded in the community as necessary for a self-contained dwelling unit, and of a class of accommodations customarily rented without variations in rent,” that is, apartments. 12 Fed.Reg. 4302, Rent Regulations under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, § 825.5.

Judgment affirmed.