alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9055]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
USC, as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel E-Technology Tools for Extending the Reach of 
Prevention Interventions in Rural and Remote Locations (5567)
    Date: April 30, 2012.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Nadine Rogers, Ph.D.,
    Scientific Review Officer,
    Office of Extramural Affairs,
    National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive 
Blvd., Room 4229, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, 301-402-2105, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f4d50585a4d4c510d7f51565b5e1151565711585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="41332e262433322f73012f2825206f2f28296f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel Rapid Portable Devices to Measure Drug Use (1206).
    Date: May 1, 2012.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of 
Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 
Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-
9550, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-9055 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8427]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0013; FRL-9290-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; System 
Cap Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 18, 2010 (75 FR 70654), EPA published a proposed 
rule to disapprove severable portions of two revisions to the Texas 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Texas on May 
1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, that create and amend the System Cap 
Trading (SCT) Program at Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 
101--General Air Quality, Subchapter H--Emissions Banking and Trading, 
Division 5, sections 101.380, 101.382, 101.383, and 101.385. We 
proposed disapproval because the SCT Program lacks several necessary 
components for emissions trading programs as outlined in EPA's Economic 
Incentive Program Guidance. Subsequent to our proposed disapproval, EPA 
received a letter dated March 4, 2011, from the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) stating that the May 1, 2001, and August 
16, 2007, SCT Program SIP submissions have been withdrawn from our 
consideration as revisions to the Texas SIP. Therefore, EPA is 
withdrawing our proposed disapproval and finds that no further action 
is necessary on the SCT Program. The State's action also withdraws from 
EPA's review the SCT Program component of the January 22, 2010 Consent 
Decree between EPA and the BCCA Appeal Group, Texas Association of 
Business, and Texas Oil and Gas Association. This withdrawal is being 
taken under section 110 and parts C and D of the Federal Clean Air Act.

DATES: The proposed rule published on November 18, 2010 (75 FR 70654), 
is withdrawn as of April 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits 
Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue 
(6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is 
(214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at 
wiley.adina@epa.gov.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2011-8427 Filed 4-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1091 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1091

 To clarify certain land descriptions under the Northern Arizona Land 
        Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2019

Mr. O'Halleran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify certain land descriptions under the Northern Arizona Land 
        Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION RELATING TO A CERTAIN LAND DESCRIPTION UNDER 
              THE NORTHERN ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND VERDE RIVER BASIN 
              PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2005.

    Section 104(a)(5) of the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde 
River Basin Partnership Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-110; 119 Stat. 
2356) is amended by inserting before the period at the end ``, which, 
notwithstanding section 102(a)(4)(B), includes the N 1/2 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 
SW 1/4 , the N 1/2 N 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 , and the N 1/2 N 1/2 SW 1/4 SE 
1/4 , sec. 34, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, Gila and Salt River 
Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona, comprising approximately 25 
acres''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 3.5**

**AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATEDLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT OFCOPANO ENERGY, L.L.C.**

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATEDLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT OF COPANO ENERGY, L.L.C. (this “*Amendment*”), dated as of August 24, 2005, is enteredinto and effectuated by the Board of Directors (the “*Board*”)of Copano Energy, L.L.C. (the “*Company*”)pursuant to authority granted to it in Section 11.1 of the Second Amendedand Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Copano Energy, L.L.C.,dated as of November 15, 2004, as amended (the “*LimitedLiability Company Agreement*”). Capitalized terms used but notdefined herein are used as defined in the Limited Liability Company Agreement.

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is desirableand in the best interest of the Company to amend the Limited Liability CompanyAgreement to provide that any Member shall be eligible to be designated by theBoard as the Tax Matters Partner (as defined in the Code) of the Company (the “ProposedAmendment”);

WHEREAS, Section 11.1(c)(iv) of the LimitedLiability Company Agreement provides that the Board, without the approval ofany Member, may amend any provision of the Limited Liability Company Agreementto reflect a change that the Board of Directors determines does not adverselyaffect the Members (including any particular class of Interests as compared toother classes of Interests) in any material respect;

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the ProposedAmendment does not adversely affect the Members (including any particular classof Interests as compared to other classes of Interests) in any materialrespect;

NOW, THEREFORE, itis hereby agreed as follows:

A.    *Amendment*.   Section 9.3 of the Limited LiabilityCompany Agreement is hereby amended by amending and restating the firstsentence to read as follows:

“Subject to theprovisions hereof, the Board of Directors shall designate one Member as the TaxMatters Partner (as defined in the Code).”

B.     *Agreement in Effect*.   Except as hereby amended, theLimited Liability Company Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

C.     *Applicable Law*.   This Amendment shall be construed inaccordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Delaware, withoutregard to principles of conflicts of laws.

D.    *Invalidity of Provisions*.   If any provision of thisAmendment is or becomes invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, thevalidity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions containedherein shall not be effected thereby.

INWITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the ate first writtenabove.
|        | **COPANO  ENERGY, L.L.C.** |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   | By:                        | /s/ JOHN R. ECKEL, JR. |   |
|   |                       | John R. Eckel, Jr. |
|   |                       | *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RODNEY LEGGETT, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 162 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 5th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is DENIED
.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 November 9, 2007
    
    /s/ Matthew J. Assiff

Matthew J. Assiff
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 108 

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2020 

Mr. AMASH submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 

of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 108 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Total expenditures for a year shall not 

3 exceed the average annual revenue collected in the three 

4 prior years, adjusted in proportion to changes in popu5 lation and inflation. Total expenditures shall include all 

6 expenditures of the United States except those for pay7 ment of debt, and revenue shall include all revenue of the 

8 United States except that derived from borrowing. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress may by a roll call vote of two10 thirds of each House declare an emergency and provide 

11 by law for specific expenditures in excess of the limit in 

12 section 1. The declaration shall specify reasons for the 

13 emergency designation and may authorize expenditures in 

14 excess of the limit in section 1 for up to one year. 

15 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to enforce 

16 this article by appropriate legislation. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 4. This article shall take effect in the first 

18 year beginning at least 90 days following ratification, ex19 cept that expenditures may exceed the limit in section 1 

20 by the following portion of the prior year’s expenditures 

21 exceeding that limit (excepting emergency expenditures 

22 provided for by section 2): nine-tenths in the first year, 

23 eight-ninths in the second, seven-eighths in the third, six24 sevenths in the fourth, five-sixths in the fifth, four-fifths 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HJ 108 IH 

1 in the sixth, three-fourths in the seventh, two-thirds in the 

2 eighth, and one-half in the ninth.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Dennis L. BADEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 4968.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Oct. 31, 1980.

David C. Backstrom, Deputy Public Defender, Fairbanks, and Brian Shortell, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

*1128Paul E. Olson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, and Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The supplemental judgment of the superior court revoking the defendant’s probation and revising his sentence is AFFIRMED on the authority of *State v. Sears,*553 P.2d 907 (Alaska 1976), and *Gonzales v. State,*586 P.2d 178 (Alaska 1978).

CONNOR, J., dissents, joined by DIMOND, Senior Justice.

CONNOR, Justice,

with whom DIMOND, Senior Justice, joins, dissenting.

I dissent from the’ holding in this case for the reasons given in my dissenting opinion in *State*v. *Sears,*553 P.2d 907, 915 (Alaska 1976).
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 15, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00252-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.J.M., A Child 

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 417-56378-2013 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By 

postcard dated March 4, 2015, we notified appellant the $195 filing fee was due. We directed 

appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated March 4, 2015, we notified 

appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant to file 

the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might 

result in dismissal of this appeal. By letter dated March 30, 2015, we informed appellant the 

clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements 

to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant had been found to be 

entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would 

result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. In response, appellant filed letters 
 –2– 

dated May 5, 2015 and May 11, 2015 in which appellant explained that she was unable to pay 

the fee for the preparation of the records in this case. Appellant did not file an affidavit of 

indigency with this Court, and to date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing 

statement, or provided written documentation that she has been found entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs in the trial court. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

150252F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.J.M., A Child 

 05-15-00252-CV 

 On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 417-56378-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Daniel Stewart Madoni recover his costs of this appeal 

from appellant Mary Margaret Madoni. 

Judgment entered June 15, 2015.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

In the Interest of M.P., a child. ) 

 ) 

 Appellant. ) Case No. 2D15-2065 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed September 25, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier 

County; Joseph G. Foster, Judge. 

C. Carolina Maluje and Anna E. 

Galeano Guzman of Law Offices of 

C. Carolina Maluje, P.A., Miami Lakes, 

for Appellant. 

Stephanie C. Zimmerman, Bradenton, 

and Dwight O. Slater, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee Department of Children and 

Families. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Affirmed. See O.I.C.L. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 169 So. 3d 1244, 

1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming the denial of a private petition for dependency 

based on the ground, among others, that the child who was being cared for by an uncle 

did not qualify as dependent); Dep't of Children & Families v. Dixon, 938 So. 2d 992 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding, based on a concession of error, that the "trial court was 
- 2 -

without jurisdiction to conduct an adjudicatory hearing because the children turned 18 

before the date of the hearing"); In re M.C.S., 372 P.3d 360, 363 (Colo. App. 2014) 

(dismissing a petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that "a juvenile 

court has subject-matter jurisdiction only to adjudicate children younger than eighteen" 

and observing that the court is "not at liberty to expand either the definition of 'child' or 

the court's jurisdictional reach"). 

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 54 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 54

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 recognizing and securing the fundamental right to life, liberty, and 
     property, which includes housing, health care, education, and 
                               nutrition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2019

Ms. Adams submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 recognizing and securing the fundamental right to life, liberty, and 
     property, which includes housing, health care, education, and 
                               nutrition.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The right of any person to affordable housing, cost-effective 
health care, quality education, and adequate nutrition shall not be 
denied or abridged by the United States or any State, and the Congress 
shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate 
legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-63 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 17, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

National Beef Black Canyon Angus Beef Program

G-63 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Phenotypic or genotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live

Animal Specification;

b. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1

;

c. U.S. Choice or Select and have a minimum marbling score of Slight 301; 

d. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1;

e. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in

relation to their length1F

2

;

f. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height2F

3

; 

and

g. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

3 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat)

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-63 Specification 

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 17, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service. 

___________________________________ 

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program