alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 169 (Thursday, August 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51891-51892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7356]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative 
Studies Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative Studies 
Scientific Merit Review Board will be held on September 19-20, 2006, at 
the Crystal City Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, 
Virginia. The session is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. 
on both days.
    The Board advises the Chief Research and Development Officer 
through the Director of the Clinical Science Research and Development 
Service on the relevance and feasibility of proposed

[[Page 51892]]

projects and the scientific validity and propriety of technical 
details, including protection of human subjects.
    The session will be open to the public from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on 
September 19 for the discussion of administrative matters and the 
general status of the program. The sessions will be closed from 8:30 
a.m. to 3 p.m. on September 19 and for the entire day on September 20 
for the Board's review of research and development applications.
    During the closed portions of the meeting, discussion and 
recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting 
the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research 
information (the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
compromise significantly the implementation of proposed agency action 
regarding such research projects). As provided by subsection 10(d) of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing portions of 
these meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
    Those who plan to attend should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Deputy 
Director, Cooperative Studies Program (125), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, a5 (202) 254-
0183.

    Dated: August 23, 2006.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-7356 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
{"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":"18-2055: BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. US [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cTDqcgfesV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-16-2019-18-2055-bechtel-national-inc-v-us-opinion-precedential-18-2055-opinion-7-16-2019\/\">18-2055: BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. US [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-16-2019-18-2055-bechtel-national-inc-v-us-opinion-precedential-18-2055-opinion-7-16-2019\/embed\/#?secret=cTDqcgfesV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-2055: BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. US [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"cTDqcgfesV\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC. v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-2055 Origin: CFC Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

s1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141288

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141288 COA: 296225 Jackson CC: 08-003973-FH EDWARD RICHARD BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                           1,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,443
<PP&E>                                           3,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,973
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,866
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,576
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (374)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (374)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,276)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,650)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.57)


</TABLE>
§ 9.18 Emergency Call Center service. ( a ) Providers of Mobile-Satellite Service to end-user customers (47 CFR part 25, subparts A through D) must provide Emergency Call Center service to the extent that they offer real-time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network and use an in-network switching facility which enables the provider to reuse frequencies and/or accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. Emergency Call Center personnel must determine the emergency caller's phone number and location and then transfer or otherwise redirect the call to an appropriate public safety answering point. Providers of Mobile-Satellite Services that use earth terminals that are not capable of use while in motion are exempt from providing Emergency Call Center service for such terminals.
( b ) Each Mobile-Satellite Service carrier that is subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section must maintain records of all 911 calls received at its emergency call center. By October 15, of each year, Mobile-Satellite Service carriers providing service in the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz bands must submit a report to the Commission regarding their call center data, current as of September 30 of that year. By June 30, of each year, Mobile-Satellite Service carriers providing service in bands other than 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz must submit a report to the Commission regarding their call center data, current as of May 31 of that year. These reports must include, at a minimum, the following: ( 1 ) The name and address of the carrier, the address of the carrier's emergency call center, and emergency call center contact information;
( 2 ) The aggregate number of calls received by the call center each month during the relevant reporting period;
( 3 ) An indication of how many calls received by the call center each month during the relevant reporting period required forwarding to a public safety answering point and how many did not require forwarding to a public safety answering point.
§ 76.1602 Customer service—general information. ( a ) A cable franchise authority may enforce the customer service standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this section against cable operators. The franchise authority must provide affected cable operators 90 days written notice of its intent to enforce standards.
( b ) The cable operator shall provide written information on each of the following areas at the time of installation of service, at least annually to all subscribers, and at any time upon request: ( 1 ) Products and services offered;
( 2 ) Prices and options for programming services and conditions of subscription to programming and other services;
( 3 ) Installation and service maintenance policies;
( 4 ) Instructions on how to use the cable service;
( 5 ) Channel positions of programming carried on the system; and
( 6 ) Billing and complaint procedures, including the address and telephone number of the local franchise authority's cable office.
( 7 ) Effective May 1, 2011, any assessed fees for rental of navigation devices and single and additional CableCARDs; and,
( 8 ) Effective May 1, 2011, if such provider includes equipment in the price of a bundled offer of one or more services, the fees reasonably allocable to: ( i ) The rental of single and additional CableCARDs; and
( ii ) The rental of operator-supplied navigation devices.
( c ) Subscribers shall be advised of the procedures for resolution of complaints about the quality of the television signal delivered by the cable system operator, including the address of the responsible officer of the local franchising authority.
[65 FR 53617, Sept. 5, 2000, as amended at 76 FR 40279, July 8, 2011; 83 FR 7631, Feb. 22, 2018]
§ 64.6307 Line item charges. Providers of voice service are prohibited from adding any additional line item charges to consumer or small business customer subscribers for the effective call authentication technology required by §§ 64.6301 and 64.6303. ( a ) For purposes of this section, “consumer subscribers” means residential mass-market subscribers.
( b ) For purposes of this section, “small business customer subscribers” means subscribers that are business entities that meet the size standards established in 13 CFR part 121, subpart A.
[85 FR 73397, Nov. 17, 2020]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5099

To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991

to provide a loan to the Madera-Chowchilla Power Authority.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1994

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

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief

Act of 1991 to provide a loan to the Madera-Chowchilla

Power Authority.

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

3 SECTION 1. DROUGHT RELIEF FOR MADERA–CHOWCHILLA

4 POWER AUTHORITY HYDROELECTRIC

5 PROJECTS.

6 Section 103 of the Reclamation States Emergency

7 Drought Relief Act of 1991 (106 Stat. 55; 43 U.S.C.

8 2213) is amended—

9 (1) by inserting in the first sentence after ‘‘re10 sulting from drought conditions.’’ the following:
2

HR 5099 IH

1 ‘‘The Secretary is further authorized to make a loan

2 to the Madera-Chowchilla Power Authority to assist

3 in the repayment of financial obligations associated

4 with hydroelectric facilities that have been adversely

5 affected by drought conditions.’’; and

6 (2) by striking ‘‘loan.’’ at the end of the second

7 proviso and inserting ‘‘loan, except that loans spe8 cifically for the Madera-Chowchilla Power Authority

9 associated with hydroelectric facilities impacted by

10 drought shall be under such terms and conditions as

11 the Secretary deems appropriate.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5059 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5059

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel FINESSE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 1994

   Mr. Goss introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel FINESSE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel FINESSE (State of 
Florida official number 7148 HA).
                                 <all>
```
- VA 77
IB

House Calendar No. 233

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4939

[Report No. 103–764]

To designate the United States courthouse located at 201 South Vine Street

in Urbana, Illinois, as the ‘‘Frederick S. Green United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 11, 1994

Mr. EWING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Public Works and Transportation

SEPTEMBER 29, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 201

South Vine Street in Urbana, Illinois, as the ‘‘Frederick

S. Green United States Courthouse’’.

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 United States courthouse located at 201 South

5 Vine Street in Urbana, Illinois, shall be known and des-
2

•HR 4939 RH

1 ignated as the ‘‘Frederick S. Green United States Court2 house’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

6 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

7 to be a reference to the ‘‘Frederick S. Green United States

8 Courthouse’’.

House Calendar No. 233

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4939

[Report No. 103–764]

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located

house’’.the ‘‘Frederick S. Green United States Courtat 201 South Vine Street in Urbana, Illinois, as

SEPTEMBER 29, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1000
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,793
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  67
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              67
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                     67
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0


</TABLE>
In re William Frederick COLWELL and Ruby Colwell, Debtors. William Frederick Colwell, Ruby Colwell, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. Royal International Trading Co rporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 98-5626 Non-Argument Calendar. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1999. Appeal from the United States District Court for the S outhern District of Florida. (No. 97-8500-CIV-ASG), Alan S. Gold, Judge. Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA, Circu it Judge, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Colwells jointly filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Although Florida law does not recognize legal separations the Colwells had been separated fo r 31/2 years before filing the petition. Prior to the bankruptcy petition each had acquired a separate home and had obtained a separate homestead exemption on that home. Florida has chosen to opt out of federal exemptions and elected to apply its own. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1); Fla. Stat. §§ 222.21 and 222.20; 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 522.08 at 522-44, n. 8a. The Colwells asserted to the bankruptcy court that Article X, § 4 of the Florida constitution required that they be granted separate homestead exemptions. Royal Inte rnational excepted. In 1998 the bankruptcy court sustained the exception, stating that it could find no case law to support dual homestead exemptions for married individuals residing on two distinct , non-contiguous parcels of property. See In re Colwell, 208 B.R. 85 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1997). The Colwells appealed to the United States District Court, S.D. Florida, which reversed the bankruptcy court. Roya l appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

### 2 Pursuant to Erie Railwaythe bankruptcy court must interpret and apply the Florida exemption law in the same manner as a Florida state court. Florida state court decisions establish that as a matter of the public policy of the state, giving a liberal constructi on as required, a homestead exemption can be established to each of two people who are married but legitimately liv ing apart in separate residences, if they otherwise meet the requirements of the exception, and, by "l egitimately" they mean that there is no fraudulent or otherwise egregious act by the be neficiary of the exemption. Law v. Law, 738 So.2d 522 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1999); In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028 (11th Cir.1996) (closely analyzing Florida law and using Florida state court cases to determine the applicabilityof the Florida homestead exemption); Myers v. Lehrer, 671 So.2d 864, 866 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1996); Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla.1988); Isaacson v. Isaacson, 504 So.2d 1309 (Fla.App. 1st Dist.1987); see also Radin v. Radin, 593 So.2d 1231 (Fla.App.3d Dist.1992). There is a presumption that the exemption applies. See Snyder v. Davis, 699 So.2d 999, 1002 (Fla.1997). The district court conc luded that the living arrangements of the Colwells were not shown to be the subject of fraud and that Royal had not brought forth evidence to overcome the presumption favoring the exception. There was no error.
AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY-030-1310-DB] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of retraction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) inadvertently published a Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 (FR 71 45576). BLM will publish this Notice of Availability at a later date.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David Simons, Project Lead, BLM Rawlins Field Office, 1300 N. Third Street, Rawlins, WY 82301.

Dated: August 9, 2006.

Robert A. Bennett,

State Director.

[FR Doc. 06-7369 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-M