alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 689.9 Dispositions. ( a ) After receiving a report from an external investigation by an awardee institution or another Federal agency, OIG will assess the accuracy and completeness of the report and whether the investigating entity followed reasonable procedures. It will either recommend adoption of the findings in whole or in part or, normally within 30 days, initiate a new investigation.
( b ) When any satisfactory external investigation or an NSF investigation fails to confirm alleged misconduct— ( 1 ) OIG will notify the subject of the investigation and, if appropriate, those who reported the suspected or alleged misconduct. This notification may include the investigation report.
( 2 ) Any interim administrative restrictions that were imposed will be lifted.
( c ) When any satisfactory investigation confirms misconduct. ( 1 ) In cases in which debarment is considered by OIG to be an appropriate disposition, the case will be referred to the debarring official pursuant to 2 CFR part 180 and the procedures of 2 CFR part 180 will be followed, but: ( i ) The debarring official will be either the Deputy Director, or an official designated by the Deputy Director.
( ii ) Except in unusual circumstances, the investigation report and recommended disposition will be included among the materials provided to the subject of the investigation as part of the notice of proposed debarment.
( iii ) The notice of the debarring official's decision will include instructions on how to pursue an appeal to the Director.
( 2 ) In all other cases— ( i ) Except in unusual circumstances, the investigation report will be provided by OIG to the subject of the investigation, who will be invited to submit comments or rebuttal. Comments or rebuttal submitted within the period allowed, normally 30 days, will receive full consideration and may lead to revision of the report or of a recommended disposition.
( ii ) Normally within 45 days after completing an NSF investigation or receiving the report from a satisfactory external investigation, OIG will submit to the Deputy Director the investigation report, any comments or rebuttal from the subject of the investigation, and a recommended disposition. The recommended disposition will propose any final actions to be taken by NSF. Section 689.3 lists possible final actions and considerations to be used in determining them.
( iii ) The Deputy Director will review the investigation report and OIG's recommended disposition. Before issuing a disposition the Deputy Director may initiate further hearings or investigation. Normally within 120 days after receiving OIG's recommendations or after completion of any further proceedings, the Deputy Director will send the affected individual or institution a written disposition, specifying actions to be taken. The decision will include instructions on how to pursue an appeal to the Director.
[67 FR 11937, Mar. 18, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 4944, Feb. 2, 2007]
§ 120.312 Power sources on vessels of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length carrying more than 600 passengers or with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers. A vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length carrying more than 600 passengers or with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers must have: ( a ) Two generator sets;
( b ) An electrical power system that complies with the requirements of §§ 111.10-4, 111.10-5, and 111.10-9, in subchapter J of this chapter;
( c ) A final emergency power source, as defined by § 112.01-20 in subchapter J of this chapter, with sufficient capacity to power the loads listed in § 112.15-5 in subchapter J of this chapter for three hours; and
( d ) The final emergency power source located outside the machinery space.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 928, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by 62 FR 51352, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2011-0618, 76 FR 60754, Sept. 30, 2011]
Filed 10/29/21 In re A.A. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re A.A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

2d Juv. No. B312695

(Super. Ct. No. PJ53569)

(Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.A.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

A.A. became a ward of the juvenile court in March of 2021 

following a gang-related stabbing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)1

The juvenile court ordered appellant to a suitable placement and 

he entered Boys Republic Youth Services in Pomona. A.A. 

struggled at the facility. He frequently challenged other minors 

to fight, ignored basic instructions, stole items from the kitchen, 

1

 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
2

and degraded and intimidated the facility’s staff. He appeared 

under the influence of marijuana on most days and was observed 

smoking a vape pen in the bathroom. When his mother visited 

the facility, he discouraged her from participating in family 

therapy. A staff member also described him spraying her in the 

eyes and mouth with aerosol air freshener. 

Probation recommended terminating A.A.’s suitable

placement based on violations of his terms of probation. (§ 777.) 

Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court adopted 

probation’s recommendation and ordered A.A. to a camp 

community placement program. A.A. appeals this order. 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel 

examined the record and filed an opening brief requesting the 

court independently review this case under People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 

Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [Wende procedure applies in juvenile 

delinquency appeals].) We advised appellant on September 8, 

2021 that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or 

issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received. 

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that 

appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities 

and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at 

p. 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)

The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.
3

Morton Rochman, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
#### § 111.12-5 Construction and testing of generators.

Each generator must meet the applicable requirements for construction and testing in section 4-8-3 of the ABS Marine Vessel Rules (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter) except that each one for a mobile offshore drilling unit must meet the requirements in section 6-1-7 of the ABS MOU Rules (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).

[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16360, Mar. 16, 2023]
§ 77.3 Conditions that may give rise to remedial actions. If the Department determines that any of the following conditions is present in a recipient organization's administration of a letter of credit, it may take remedial actions against the organization: ( a ) A recipient organization draws Federal funds through its letter of credit in excess of the aggregate grant award or contract authority currently available to it.
( b ) A recipient organization draws Federal funds for a particular program in excess of currently available grant award or contract authority for that program, even though the organization may not have exceeded its aggregate grant award or contract authority.
( c ) A recipient organization fails to file timely all reports and other data required by the Department in connection with its grant awards, contracts, or letter of credit.
( d ) A recipient organization accumulates, through its letter of credit or otherwise, excess amounts of Federal funds relative to its actual and immediate disbursement requirements.
( e ) A recipient organization's cash management system fails to comply with generally accepted accounting principles or Departmental regulations or demonstrates irregularities, misrepresentations, fraud, or abuse in its operation.
Exhibit 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     The undersigned, a member of the Board of Directors and/or as Officer of CE
CASECNAN  WATER AND  ENERGY  COMPANY,  INC.,  a  corporation  registered  in the
Republic of the Philippines  (the  "Company"),  hereby  constitutes and appoints
Douglas L.  Anderson and Steven A. McArthur and each of them as his/her true and
lawful   attorney-in-fact  and  agent,  with  full  power  of  substitution  and
resubstitution,  for and in his/her stead, in any and all capacities, to sign on
his/her  behalf the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ending
December  31, 2000 and to execute any  amendments  thereto and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and all other documents in connection therewith, with
the United  States  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  and  applicable  stock
exchanges,  with the full power and  authority  to do and perform each and every
act and thing  necessary or advisable to all intents and purposes as he might or
could  do  in  person,   hereby   ratifying   and   confirming   all  that  said
attorney-in-fact and agent or his/her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do
or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated as of March 29, 2001.

/s/ David L. Sokol
DAVID L. SOKOL


/s/ Patrick J. Goodman              /s/ David A. Baldwin
PATRICK J. GOODMAN                  DAVID A. BALDWIN


/s/ Marivic Espiritu                /s/ Jose Jaime Cruz
MARIVIC ESPIRITU                    JOSE JAIME CRUZ


/s/ Rachel Hernandez                /s/ Jose R. Sandejas
RACHEL HERNANDEZ                    JOSE R. SANDEJAS
#### Nance *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Upon the trial of one indicted for perjury, where a witness testified positively to the commission of the offense, and corroborating circumstances were relied on in connection with his testimony as a basis for conviction, such “corroborative evidence need not be in and of itself so strong as to support a verdict of guilty, but it must be sufficient to connect the accused with the perpetration of the offense and lead to the inference of his guilt, and more than sufficient to raise a suspicion against him.” *Chapman*v. *State,*112 *Ga.*56(2); *Dixon*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*186.

‘2. Where the court has correctly charged the law on the subject of reasonable doubt concerning the whole case, it is not incumbent upon him to divide the case or the evidence into different propositions, and give a charge on the subject of a reasonable doubt in regard to one or more of them severally. *Smith*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*213.

3. Where an indictment chai’ged the accused with having committed perjury in his testimony before the grand jury upon the investigation of *96a charge against a person accused of illegally selling whisky, there was1no error in admitting in evidence the indictment or special presentment found in the case upon which he was there examined, charging the illegal, 'sale of whisky, upon the consideration of which by the grand jury the perjured testimony was alleged to have been' given.

Submitted July 16,

Decided July 27, 1906.

Indictment for perjury: Before Judge Freeman. Coweta superior court. May 31, 1906.

*W. L.' Stallings*and *A. H. Freeman,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Terrell, solicitor-general,*contra.

*4.*The evidence of corroborating circumstances in this ease, together with, the direct testimony of a witness, was sufficient to authorize a conviction of perjury.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Wendy A. Hocking, at (202) 268-4800.

Wendy A. Hocking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-1489 Filed 3-22-07; 4:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
#### Winn *v.*The State.

Submitted July 16,

Decided August 9, 1906.

Certiorari. Before Judge Felton. Bibb superior court. June *12;*1906.

*Marion W. Karris,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Brunson, solicitor-general,*contra.

Xumpkin, J.

1. In *Roach*v. *Sulter,*54 *Ga.*458, it was held that when a bill of exceptions was filed to the judgment of the city court of Savannah, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and was dismissed by this court, the party complaining might still file a certiorari to the superior court within three months from the dismissal of the case in this court. That decision was rendered by a full bench, and has never been overruled. Nor is there any request to overrule it. It controls this case on the point stated.

2. As to the charge complained of, the ease of *Samuels*v. *State,*103 *Ga. 3,*is controlling.

3. The evidence supported the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
#### CHARLES ALSTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided June 12, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodtne.

For the appellant, *Henry H. Pryting.*

For the respondent, *Samuel S. Stern.*

Pee Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages to an Oldsmobile touring car and compensation for personal injuries. The case was tried by the judge of the District Court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for $225. The defendant files three specifications of determinations, with which it is dissatisfied in point of *law—first*and *second,*error by the trial court in refusing to nonsuit the plaintiff *552on the ground of lack of proof of negligence, and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; *third,*error in entering judgment for the plaintiff.

The questions involved under the evidence in the record are pure questions of fact, determined by the trial judge.

Some of the important facts are these: The Oldsmobile touring ear injured in which the plaintiff was riding with his companion, David Champion, the plaintiff in No. 406, the present May term of the court, was being towed easterly on Grand street, Jersey City, by another car. Grand street runs east and west. In the middle of the street' are two sets of trolley tracks operated by the defendant company. There was an obstruction on the right-hand side of the street, so that the cars could not pass between the sidewalk on the right-hand side and the eastbound track. The driver of the first automobile pulled to his left to go around the obstruction. After the first car had gotten by the obstruction, the driver of that car turned to his right again. The second car, in which the plaintiff and his companion were riding, and which was being towed by an eight-foot tow rope, as it was in the act of swinging around the obstruction, *i. e.,*a manhole, was struck between the doors on the left-hand side of the left-hand bumper of the defendant’s trolley car (record, page 27, lines 1-10). This is the crux of the case. The plaintiff has two witnesses to testify to this fact, the defendant had three witnesses to testify to the fact that the automobile hit the trolley car. The trolley car was going west in the opposite direction (record, page 27, line 20). There was evidence to justify the trial court’s finding, so the judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )
) A17-08
Proposed Final Audit Report on the )
Ambulatory Surgery Center Association —)
PAC (ASCAPAC) )
CERTIFICATION

I, Laura E. Sinram, Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election
Commission, do hereby certify that on August 22, 2019, the Commission
decided by a vote of 4-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on the
Ambulatory Surgery Center Association PAC (ASCAPAC), as recommended in
the Memorandum from the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Division
dated August 19, 2019.

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted

affirmatively for the decision.

Attest:
glaalia Cire E. Cntand)
Date Laura E. Sinram

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the
Commission
150°0'0"W

150°0'0"W

151°0'0"W

151°0'0"W

61°0'0"N

61°0'0"N

60°0'0"N

60°0'0"N

Figure 15. Alternative C

Fire Management

Produced in the Division of Realty

and Natural Resources

Anchorage, Alaska

Current to: February 28, 2008

Kenai

NWR

Anchorage

Map

Extent

0 3.75 7.5 15

Miles

08-0054 JGB

Note: This map does not address ownership of navigable waters.

0 5 10 20

Kilometers

C o o k

I n l e t

B a y

K a c h e m a k

Seldovia

Homer

Kenai

Soldotna

Sterling

Cooper

Landing

Seward

Ninilchik

Salamatof

Hope

Tyonek T u r n a g a i n A r m

Chickaloon Bay

Tustumena Lake

Skilak Lake

Gulf of Alaska

Prescribed Fire Allowed

Wildland Fire Allowed

Intensive

Moderate

Minimal

Wilderness

State/Private

Refuge Boundary
#### § 11.551 Endorsements for service on offshore supply vessels.

Each endorsement for service on OSVs as chief engineer (OSV) or engineer (OSV) authorizes service on OSVs as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(19) and as interpreted under 46 U.S.C. 14104(b), subject to any restrictions placed on the MMC.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,458-01

EX PARTE JUSTIN LEVI BURNS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 13-10-11786-CR-(1) IN THE 9th DISTRICT COURT

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of continuous sexual

abuse of a child and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. 

The trial court has determined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We find

that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of
2

conviction in Cause No. 13-10-11786-CR-(1) from the 9th District Court of Montgomery County. 

Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he

may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of

this opinion, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent

and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to

represent Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been

imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the

trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: August 24, 2016

Do not publish
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1937 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to retain and redistribute 

certain amounts collected as fines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2009 

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. 

ENGEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to retain 

and redistribute certain amounts collected as fines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. USE OF FUNDS. 

4 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall retain 

5 amounts collected for safety-related fines, and shall dis6 tribute those amounts to counties for maintaining radio7 logical emergency preparedness plans required in connec8 tion with the nuclear facility with respect to which the 

9 fines were collected. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
§ 115.640 Pre-Survey meeting. ( a ) You must conduct a pre-survey meeting to discuss the details of the AHE procedure with the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI). If you exclusively use divers to examine the underwater hull plating, the third party examiner must attend the meeting and you must present the results of the preliminary examination. If you use an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) as the predominate means to examine the vessel's hull plating, then a representative of the ROV operating company must attend the pre-survey meeting and address the underwater ROV's capabilities and limitations related to your vessel's hull design and configuration.
( b ) A vessel owner, operator, or designated agent must request this meeting in writing at least 30 days in advance of the examination date.
( c ) The pre-survey meeting may be conducted by teleconference, if agreed to in advance by the OCMI.
[USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21081, Apr. 29, 2002, as amended by USCG-2000-6858, 69 FR 47383, Aug. 5, 2004]
#### § 122.203 Notice of hazardous conditions.

Whenever there is a hazardous condition, as defined by § 114.400 of this chapter, on board the vessel, the owner, master, agent, or person in charge shall immediately notify the Captain of the Port of the port or place of destination and the Captain of the Port of the port or place in which the vessel is located of the hazardous condition.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2004 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4282 Beach Street in Akron, Michigan, as 

the ‘‘Akron Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

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


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2004 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. AKRON VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 4282 Beach Street in Akron, 

4 Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Akron 

5 Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Akron Veterans Me10 morial Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS