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

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-80,485]

                    By application dated February 25, 2012, the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of RR Donnelley, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Manpower and Kelly Services, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania (subject firm). The Department's Notice of determination was issued on February 3, 2012 and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 21, 2012 (77 FR 9973).                

The workers engage in activities related to the production of hard and soft cover books. The initial determination was based on the findings that worker separations were not attributable to increased imports by the subject firm or its declining customers of articles like or directly competitive with hard and soft cover books or a shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm in the production of articles like or directly competitive with hard and soft cover books.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners supplied new information regarding the subject firm's operations overseas and possible import competition.

The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements to apply for TAA.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of March, 2012.

Del Min Amy Chen,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2012-5925 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Camille FORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7613.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 2003.

Decided June 2, 2003.

*402Camille Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Camille Ford appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reopen her previous § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Ford,*Nos. CR-94-163; CA-98-1206 (E.D.Va. Sept. 20, 2002). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #13031 and #13032]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of North Carolina dated 03/12/2012. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         03/03/2012. *Effective Date:*
                         03/12/2012. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/11/2012. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/12/2012.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Cherokee. *Contiguous Counties:* North Carolina: Clay, Graham, Macon.
                    ( print page 16314) Georgia: Fannin, Union. Tennessee: Monroe, Polk. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.750Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.000Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.125Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13031C and for economic injury is 130320. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: March 12, 2012. Karen G. Mills, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2012-6682 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 232 

To prohibit the importation of certain low-level radioactive waste into the 

United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. ALEXANDER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To prohibit the importation of certain low-level radioactive 

waste into the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Radioactive Import 

5 Deterrence Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Chapter 8 of the Atomic Energy 

8 Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2111 et seq.) is amended by add9 ing at the end the following new section: 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 232 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 85. IMPORTATION OF LOW-LEVEL RADIO2 ACTIVE WASTE. 

3 ‘‘a. Except as provided in subsection b. or c., the 

4 Commission shall not issue a license authorizing the im5 portation into the United States of— 

6 ‘‘(1) low-level radioactive waste (as defined in 

7 section 2 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b)); or 

9 ‘‘(2) specific radioactive waste streams exempt10 ed from regulation by the Commission under section 

11 10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

12 (42 U.S.C. 2021j). 

13 ‘‘b. Subsection a. shall not apply to— 

14 ‘‘(1) low-level radioactive waste being returned 

15 to a United States Government or military facility 

16 which is authorized to possess the material; or 

17 ‘‘(2) low-level radioactive waste resulting from 

18 the use in a foreign country of nuclear material ob19 tained by the foreign user from an entity in the 

20 United States that is being returned to the United 

21 States for management and disposal. 

22 ‘‘c. The President may waive the prohibition under 

23 this section and authorize the grant of a specific license 

24 to import materials prohibited under subsection a., under 

25 the rules of the Commission, only after a finding that such 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 232 IS

1 importation would meet an important national or inter2 national policy goal, such as the use of waste for research 

3 purposes. Such a waiver must specify the policy goal to 

4 be achieved, how it is to be achieved, and the amount of 

5 material to be imported. 

6 ‘‘d. A license not permitted under this section that 

7 was issued before the date of enactment of this section 

8 may continue in effect according to its terms, but may 

9 not be extended or amended with respect to the amount 

10 of material permitted to be imported.’’. 

11 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.—The table 

12 of contents for the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended 

13 by inserting at the end of the items relating to chapter 

14 8 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 85. Importation of low-level radioactive waste.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 144TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on August 5, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Rene Guerrero, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-15-00400-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2015CR3173

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on October 6, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

_____ 2014

_____ - NM -

____ 042

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
**Exhibit 10.21**

**2008 Director Compensation Package**

On May 29, 2008, the Board of Directors ofRadiant Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) approved a new compensation package for the non-employee members of the Board of Directors and its committees. On December 2, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Company revised certain portionsof the compensation package. 

Each non-employee director of the Company will be paid an annual retainer of $35,000. A $15,000 annual retainer will be paidto the Audit Committee Chairman, a $10,000 annual retainer will be paid to the Compensation Committee Chairman and a $5,000 annual retainer will be paid to the Chairman of any other committee. An annual retainer of $10,000 will be paid to the AuditCommittee members and an annual retainer of $5,000 will be paid to the Compensation Committee members. All annual cash retainers shall be paid quarterly. In addition, each non-employee director will be paid a year-end cash award of $40,000.

Each non-employee director of the Company will receive an annual grant of 9,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock and options topurchase 6,250 shares of the Company’s common stock on the last business day of each fiscal year of the Company. The restricted common stock and options vest over a period of six months from the date of grant. The options have an exercise priceequal to the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant and expire, unless previously exercised or terminated, seven years from the date of grant. 

In addition, all new non-employee directors of the Company receive a one-time grant of an option to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of thestock on the date of grant, which options vest over a period of three years. All such options expire, unless previously exercised or terminated, seven years from the date of grant.
50495.

#### GREENE v. THE STATE.

Submitted April 9, 1975

Decided April 28, 1975.

Stolz, Judge.

"The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s request for disclosure of the identity of the informer, who was a witness to the transaction which resulted in the defendant’s arrest. 'The scope of the informer’s privilege is in the discretion of the trial judge.’ *Welch v. State,*130 Ga. App. 18, 20 (202 SE2d 223) and cits. 'The fact that the informant is a witness [to the transaction] is not controlling where such evidence is not necessary to obtain a conviction.’ *Estevez v. State,*130 Ga. App. 215, 216 (2) (202 SE2d 686) and cits.” *Scott v. State,*133 Ga. App. 466 (3) (211 SE2d 415).

In the case sub judice the informer’s limited role in the transaction, that of ascertaining that contraband was available for purchase at the location and standing by while the agent ordered and paid for the contraband, fell short of such an active part in the offense as to make him a material witness thereto and a "decoy,” whose disclosure would be required. *See Butler v. State,*127 Ga. App. 539, 540 (194 SE2d 261) and cits., cited in *Welch v. State,*supra, p. 19. Furthermore, as in the *Welch*case, the informer was not the only material witness to the illegal sale. Approximately five persons were in the room in which the illegal sale occurred, some or all of whom being closer to the parties to the transaction than the informer, who stood in the doorway to the room.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.*

*659
      *John E. Wiggins, Clifton M. Patty, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Earl B. Self, District Attorney, Jon B. Wood, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 132

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of

3 the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the Sen4 ate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thurs5 day, July 27, 2000, Friday, July 28, 2000, or on Satur6 day, July 29, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this

7 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des8 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tues9 day, September 5, 2000, or until noon on Wednesday,

10 September 6, 2000, or until such time on either day as

11 may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee

12 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the

13 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur14 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

15 occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the

16 legislative day of Thursday, July 27, 2000, or Friday, July

17 28, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent

18 resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand

19 adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 6,
2

SCON 132 ES

1 2000, or until noon on the second day after Members are

2 notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concur3 rent resolution, whichever occurs first.

4 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the

5 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

6 with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority

7 Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen8 ate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

9 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the Senate July 27, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 132

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess

of the Senate and conditional adjournment of theHouse of Representatives.
#### Dianne E. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-3533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 16, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Gary 0. Welch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge departed from the recommended guideline range in this case without entering a written departure order. As conceded by the appellee, this was reversible error. *State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985).

Therefore, the sentence herein is set aside and the matter remanded for resen-tencing. Any departure from the guidelines must be based on proper reasons and must be stated in writing.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and HALL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit32.1

Certification of Principal Executive OfficerPursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, WarrenB. Kanders, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theAnnual Report of Armor Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-k for the year endedDecember  31,  2006, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat information contained in such Annual Report on Form  10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Armor Holdings, Inc.

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

Date: February  26,2007

|  | By:        /s/ Warren B.Kanders             Name:   Warren B.KandersTitle:      Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2285 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 1,8 Naphthalimide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 1,8 

Naphthalimide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1,8 NAPHTHALIMIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.21 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 1,8 Naphthalimide) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2285 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Joseph Calomino, Appellant, v Lincoln Plaza Tenants Corp. et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered June 14, 1990, which *inter alia*granted defendants Marvin Chamlin and Lincoln Plaza *369Tenants Corp.’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff asserts that defendants are liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 (6) for a back injury purportedly sustained when he was measuring the floor area dimensions of a kitchen. Plaintiff allegedly struck his back on a portion of a waist high exposed gas pipe from where a stove had been removed earlier. Defendant Chamlin was the proprietary lessee/shareholder of the subject apartment in the cooperative building owned by defendant Lincoln Plaza Tenants Corp. Defendant Chamlin had retained the services of defendant Jim Fox, a general contractor, to perform various construction work in the apartment, who removed the stove and, in turn, subcontracted out the kitchen tile work to plaintiff.

On the record before this Court, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence demonstrating either that a violation of the Labor Law was a contributing factor to plaintiff’s back injury, or that any negligence on the part of defendants Chamlin or Lincoln Plaza Tenants Corp. caused the injury. Therefore, defendants were entitled to summary judgment. *(Herman v Lancaster Homes,*145 AD2d 926, *lv denied*74 NY2d 601.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
#### Floyd Kenneth BELLARD v. CITY OF EUNICE.

No. 88-C-0557.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 1988.

In re Eunice, City of; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA87-0001; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 861138-A.

Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 797.

Not considered; not timely filed.
#### Charles Edward HARBIN v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 91-KP-0833.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 23, 1993.

Charles Edward Harbin, pro se.

Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Pat S. Flynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appel-lee.

Appeal No. 19912 from Judgment dated July 18, 1991, Eugene M. Bogen, Ruling Judge, Washington County Circuit Court.

*617Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and BANKS and ROBERT L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **Certification
        by the Chief Executive Officer**
 **of**
 **Boardwalk
        GP, LLC**
 **pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
 **(as
        adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**
 
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the
        undersigned chief executive officer of Boardwalk GP, LLC hereby certifies,
        to
        such officer’s knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
        ended June 30, 2007, (the "Report") of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (the
        “Partnership”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the
        Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Partnership.
 
 July
        31,
        2007
 */s/
        Rolf A.
        Gafvert*
 Rolf
        A.
        Gafvert
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 (principal
        executive officer)