alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015110EN.01004101.xml

| 29.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 110/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 110/41

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/655 of 23 April 2015 pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a polydimethylsiloxane-based formulation placed on the market to control mosquitoes

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 107 of 25 April 2015
  )

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 75, in the title, and date of signature:

for:

‘
  23 April 2015
  ’,

read:

‘
  24 April 2015
  ’.

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1892 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the flying of the 

flag at half-staff in the event of the death of a first responder in 

the line of duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2017 

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. WALZ, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. ESTY, and Mr. GRIJALVA) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the 

flying of the flag at half-staff in the event of the death 

of a first responder in the line of duty. 

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 ‘‘Honoring Hometown 

5 Heroes Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1892 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING THE FLAG TO BE FLOWN AT HALF2 STAFF IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A 

3 FIRST RESPONDER SERVING IN THE LINE OF 

4 DUTY. 

5 (a) AMENDMENT.—The sixth sentence of section 

6 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘possession of the 

8 United States’’ and inserting a comma; 

9 (2) by inserting ‘‘or the death of a first re10 sponder working in any State, territory, or posses11 sion who dies while serving in the line of duty,’’ 

12 after ‘‘while serving on active duty,’’; 

13 (3) by striking ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘former officials of 

14 the District of Columbia’’ and inserting a comma; 

15 and 

16 (4) by inserting before the period the following: 

17 ‘‘, and first responders working in the District of 

18 Columbia’’. 

19 (b) FIRST RESPONDER DEFINED.—Such subsection 

20 is further amended— 

21 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘, United 

22 States Code; and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

23 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 

24 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

25 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

26 paragraph: 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1892 IH

1 ‘‘(4) the term ‘first responder’ means a ‘public 

2 safety officer’ as defined in section 1204 of the Om3 nibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

4 (42 U.S.C. 3796b).’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this Act shall apply with respect to deaths of first respond7 ers occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this 

8 Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Opinion issued August 29, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00457-CV

———————————

KAWTHER KATEEB, Appellant

V.

SUGARLAND /FORT BEND REAL ESTATE, INC. D/B/A RE/MAX 

SOUTHWEST INC., HPW INVESTMENTS, INC., AIDA YOUNIS SAMAD 

AND IQBAL IKE SAMAD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-DCV-243453

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellees, Sugarland /Fort Bend Real Estate, Inc. d/b/a RE/MAX Southwest 

Inc., HPW Investments, Inc., Aida Younis Samad and Iqbal Ike Samad, filed a joint 

letter-motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that all parties have reached a settlement 
2

as to all claims and that appellant wishes to dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). Although appellees’ joint letter-motion does not contain a certificate of 

conference and ten days has not yet passed, we conclude that good cause exists to

suspend the normal operation of Rules 10.1 and 10.3 and construe appellees’ lettermotion as an unopposed appellant’s motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2,

10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a)(1). No other party has filed a notice of appeal and no 

opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c).

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

May 4, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-11203

Summary Calendar

ARLEIGH A. MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:01-CV-2108-H)

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Arleigh A. Miller (hereinafter Plaintiff) filed suit in

October, 2001, against Donald H. Rumsfeld (hereinafter Defendant)

in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Defense

and Operator of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) by2

whom Plaintiff was employed. Plaintiff asserts that she was

discriminated against on the basis of age and retaliated against

for asserting her age discrimination claim in violation of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”).

In March, 2003, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which

the district court granted in October, 2003, by a ten page

memorandum opinion and order. Plaintiff timely filed this appeal.

We have carefully examined the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by

the district court in its memorandum opinion and order filed on

October 14, 2003, we affirm the final judgment entered by the

district court in favor of Defendant entered on October 14, 2003.

AFFIRMED.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1678 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2017 

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

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act concerning the statute of limitations for actions to recover disaster or emergency assistance payments, and for other purposes. 

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


SRADOVICH on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1678 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 705 of the Robert T. 

3 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 5205) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a)(1)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘Notwithstanding section 3716(e) of title 31, 

8 United States Code, and except’’; and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘report for the disaster or 

10 emergency’’ and inserting ‘‘report for project 

11 completion as certified by the grantee’’; and 

12 (2) in subsection (b)— 

13 (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘report 

14 for the disaster or emergency’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘report for project completion as certified by 

16 the grantee’’; and 

17 (B) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘for 

18 project completion as certified by the grantee’’ 

19 after ‘‘final expenditure report’’. 

20 (b) APPLICABILITY.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to disaster or 

22 emergency assistance provided to a State or local 

23 government on or after January 1, 2004— 

24 (A) no administrative action may be taken 

25 to recover a payment of such assistance after 

26 the date of enactment of this Act if the action 


SRADOVICH on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1678 RFS 

1 is prohibited under section 705(a)(1) of the 

2 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer3 gency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5205(a)(1)), 

4 as amended by subsection (a); and 

5 (B) any administrative action to recover a 

6 payment of such assistance that is pending on 

7 such date of enactment shall be terminated if 

8 the action is prohibited under section 705(a)(1) 

9 of that Act, as amended by subsection (a). 

10 (2) LIMITATION.—This section, including the 

11 amendments made by this section, may not be con12 strued to invalidate or otherwise affect any adminis13 tration action completed before the date of enact14 ment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SRADOVICH on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 86-234.

No. 86-286.

#### McNally *v.*United States; and Gray *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 1005.] Motion of petitioners for. divided argument denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Holds Public Meeting to Discuss Plans for Shipping Trojan Reactor Vessel to  Hanford

----

----

RIV: 98-32

July 22, 1998

**NRC HOLDS PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS PLANS FOR SHIPPING TROJAN REACTOR VESSEL TO HANFORD**

**Interested citizens and media invited to attend**

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with the public on Thursday, July 30, from 7-10 p.m. to discuss proposed plans to ship the reactor vessel from the closed Trojan nuclear power plant to a commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal site at Hanford, Washington, for burial.

The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel in Kelso, Washington. All interested citizens are invited to attend and participate in the discussion. A sign-up period will begin at 6:30 p.m. for anyone wishing to make comments to the NRC during the meeting.

At the meeting the NRC will describe the regulatory procedures for reviewing the request from Portland General Electric to ship the Trojan reactor vessel with irradiated internals by barge to the U.S. Ecology disposal site at Hanford.

Also, PGE officials will describe plans for the preparation, transport and disposal of the reactor vessel. The company has proposed this method of disposal to reduce the number of shipments required from a maximum of 54 under alternative methods to one, and to reduce radiation exposure of workers on the project by half.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### Joseph Mercier *vs.*Charles Smith et al.

Oxford County.

Decided March 6, 1922.

*Albert Beliveau and Frederick R. Dyer,*for plaintiff.

*George A. Hutchins, Matthew McCarthy, Benjamin L. Berman and Jacob H. Berman,*for defendants.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $3,000 for alleged assault by the defendants, husband and wife, by shooting him with a rifle, the bullet penetrating his side. The evidence was contradictory, much of the defendants’ self contradictory, and upon a careful examination the court is not of opinion that the jury manifestly erred in accepting the plaintiff’s version.

The damages are large but not so extravagant as to require reduction by the court, when the serious nature of the assault and the proper awarding of punitive damages are considered. Motion overruled.
Order entered December 20 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 22
- 00394
- CR
SEDRIC DEJUAN BRAXTON , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 1 9 5th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 21
- 99731
- N
O RDER Before the Court is the State ’ s December 8, 2022 motion to abate this appeal, noting that the trial court’s judgment is not on the correct form. The State asks the Court to abate this appeal so that the trial court can enter its judgment using the correct form, and reflect that appel lant ’ s post

- adjudication community supervision was re voked.
We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER the trial court to hold a hearin g , WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, to determine whetherthe trial court’s April 18, 2022 judgment is incorrect and should be corrected. If the trial court determines the judgment is incorrect, the trial court SHALL enter a corrected judgment. If necessary, the trial court may (1) review the reporter’s record from the June 28, 2021 juvenile transfer hearing and the April 18, 2022 , revocation hearing and (2) make findings o f fact. If the trial court enters a corrected judgment and/or findings o f fact, the court shall cause them to be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record with this Court WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date of the trial court’s hearing.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send c opies of this order to the Honorable Hector
Garza , Presiding Judge, 195t h Judicial District Court; to Velma Loza , official court reporter, 195th Judicial District Court; to Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and to counsel for all parties.
We ABATE this appeal so the trial court may hold a hearing. The appeal will b e reinstated when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed, or the Court deems it appropriate to do so.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 86-921.

No. 86-956.

#### Bagley *v.*IBP, Inc.; and IBP, Inc. *v.*Bagley.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 2d 632.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# New Reactors: Striving for Enhanced Safety (NUREG/BR-0356)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0356 (PDF - 3.05 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** November 2011

Office of New Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

## Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created by Congress in 1974 as an independent agency. The NRC regulates the Nation's civilian use of nuclear materials, including nuclear power plants, to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment.

All 104 operating nuclear power plants in the United States were subject to a rigorous licensing process, described in Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." The NRC approved construction of these plants between 1964 and 1978 and granted the most recent operating license in 1996. These plants continue to operate safely today and are constantly monitored through inspections and licensing reviews.

Following the licensing of these reactors, the NRC implemented a strategy for licensing the next generation of nuclear power plants, linking the foundation of safety provided by the NRC's regulations with the industry's desire for continuous improvement. This brochure describes key NRC policies, rules, and guidance that contribute to enhanced safety for new reactors being proposed today.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 13743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8207]

Department of State FY11 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice of the release of the Department of State FY11 Service 
Contract Inventory.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State has publically released its Service 
Contract Inventory for FY12 and its analysis of the FY11 inventory. 
They are available here: http://csm.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=135&menu_id=71.
    Section 743 of Division C of the FY 2010 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, Public Law 111-117, requires Department of State, 
and other civilian agencies, to submit an annual inventory of service 
contracts. A service contract inventory is a tool to assess an agency 
in its ability to contract services in support of its mission and 
operation and whether the contractors' skills are being utilized in an 
appropriate manner.

DATES: The FY12 inventory and FY11 analysis is available on the 
Department's Web site as of February 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Linder, Director (Acting), A/
CSM, 703-875-5114, LinderCE@state.gov.

    Dated: February 22, 2013.
Carla E. Linder,
Director (Acting), A/CSM, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-04716 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
Order filed June 20, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00348-CV

___________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF DAVID ALLEN GARZA AND 

BRITTANY GARZA

On Appeal from the 300th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 320200300

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter 

for the 300th District Court informed this court that appellant had not made 

arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On May 6, 2019, the clerk of 

this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do 

not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided 

this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). 

Appellant filed no reply. 
Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within thirty 

days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court 

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Februar y25,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w JerseyAve , S

E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Docl<e t DOT-OST-2010-0034 22 2 Towe rDriv e Lafayette , L A 70508-212 4 (P ) 337-266-A40 1 (F ) 337-J66-441 0 (E ) airport@lftairport.co m



### >

• < Dea rMr . Secretary : Thani t yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o expres s m ysupport fo rth e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunit yan d propose d join t busines s agreemen t file d b yAmerica n Airline s an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y- firs t bysolidif/in g U.S . -Japa n Ope n Skies , the n byservin g a s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . m 

### > 7 0 • n O : o

- H n O Afte ra thoroug h review , I encourag e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e ai r transportatio n services . Approva l fo rAA/JA L allianc e wil l have a positiv e impac t o n ai rtrave l byofferin g customers mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensur e tha t customer s continu e t o benefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d bythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . I urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sinc e > • < m

- I Gregof yMyRobert s A.A.E . Directo ro f Aviatio n Lafayett e Regiona l Airpor t o z 

### >

7 3 O

www.iftairport.co m
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Transmeridian Exploration, Inc.**

List of Subsidiaries

December 31, 2002

 

 
| **Name**                               |   | **Jurisdiction**        |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                   |   |                    |
| Transmeridian  Exploration, Inc        |   | Delaware                |
|                                   |   |                    |
| TMEI  Operating, Inc.                  |   | Texas                   |
|                                   |   |                    |
| Transmeridian  Exploration, Inc. (BVI) |   | British  Virgin Islands |
|                                   |   |                    |
| Transmeridian  (Kazakhstan), Inc.      |   | British  Virgin Islands |
|                                   |   |                    |
| SOJSC Caspi  Neft TME                  |   | Republic of  Kazakhstan |
|                                   |   |                    |
| SOJSC  Transmeridian Caspian Petroleum |   | Republic of  Kazakhstan |

 

 

Notes:

 

1)     All subsidiaries are 100% owned, directlyor indirectly

2)     “SOJSC” stands for Subsidiary Open JointStock Company

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Regulatory Approaches for Addressing Reprocessing Facility Risks: An Assessment (NUREG/CR-7168)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete documents
        - NUREG/CR-7168 (PDF – 1.85 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2011**Date Published:** February 2015

**Prepared by:** G. Martinez-Guridi, V. Mubayi, R. A. Bari, and *F. Gonzalez

Brookhaven National Laboratory Nuclear Science and Technology Department P.O. Box 5000 Upton, NY 11973

*U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code V6091

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report addresses methods for assessing the risks posed by a reprocessing facility, which have not previously been quantified relative to other fuel-cycle facilities. Reprocessing facilities can have higher potential source terms than other fuel-cycle facilities, which heighten the risk relative to the other facilities. This report explores the potential hazards that these facilities pose to the public, workers, and the environment by discussing literature on the regulation of these facilities and reviewing the experience of current operating facilities worldwide. It offers an overview of actual events and their consequences at these facilities. It also contains supporting information for assessing the feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of undertaking detailed versus simplified quantitative risk assessments, for the range of events associated with large reprocessing facilities. The report gleans insights on regulating reprocessing hazards and risks from reports such as NUREG-1909 [Croff et al. 2008], and a white paper from the Nuclear Energy Institute [NEI 2008].

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021