alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# DOD Releases List of People's Republic of China (PRC) Military Companies in Accordance With Section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021

U.S. Department of Defense

Today, the Department of Defense released an update to the names of "Chinese military companies" operating directly or indirectly in the United States in accordance with the statutory requirement of Section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.

Updating the Section 1260H list of "Chinese military companies" is an important continuing effort in highlighting and countering the PRC's Military-Civil Fusion strategy. The PRC's Military-Civil Fusion strategy supports the modernization goals of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) by ensuring it can acquire advanced technologies and expertise developed by PRC companies, universities, and research programs that appear to be civilian entities. Section 1260H directs the Department to begin identifying, among other things, Military-Civil Fusion contributors operating directly or indirectly in the United States.

The Department will continue to update the list with additional entities as appropriate. The United States Government reserves the right to take additional actions on these entities under authorities other than section 1260H. The list is available here.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
### §1074j. Sub-acute care program

(a) Establishment.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish an effective, efficient, and integrated sub-acute care benefits program under this chapter (hereinafter referred to in this section as the "program"). Except as otherwise provided in this section, the types of health care authorized under the program shall be the same as those provided under section 1079 of this title. The Secretary, after consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section.

(b) Benefits.—(1) The program shall include a uniform skilled nursing facility benefit that shall be provided in the manner and under the conditions described in section 1861 (h) and (i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x (h) and (i)), except that the limitation on the number of days of coverage under section 1812 (a) and (b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395d (a) and (b)) shall not be applicable under the program. Skilled nursing facility care for each spell of illness shall continue to be provided for as long as medically necessary and appropriate.

(2) In this subsection:

(A) The term "skilled nursing facility" has the meaning given such term in section 1819(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–3(a)).

(B) The term "spell of illness" has the meaning given such term in section 1861(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(a)).

(3) The program shall include a comprehensive, part-time or intermittent home health care benefit that shall be provided in the manner and under the conditions described in section 1861(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)).

(4) The Secretary of Defense may take such actions as are necessary to ensure that there is an effective transition in the furnishing of part-time or intermittent home health care benefits for covered beneficiaries who were receiving such benefits before the establishment of the program under this section. The actions taken under this paragraph may include the continuation of such benefits on an extended basis for such time as the Secretary determines appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title VII, §701(a)(1), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1158; amended Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title VII, §713, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1985.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 108–375 added par. (4).
#### Edward Greenfield, Respondent, v. Oswin J. Mills, Appellant.

Motion "denied. Present—Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
### §12687. Reserves under confinement by sentence of court-martial: separation after six months confinement

Except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a Reserve sentenced by a court-martial to a period of confinement for more than six months may be separated from that Reserve's armed force at any time after the sentence to confinement has become final under chapter 47 of this title and the Reserve has served in confinement for a period of six months.

(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title V, §563(a)(2)(A), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 325.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4060                     900
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                          4100                    4100
<OTHER-SE>                                      (8160)                  (5000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3160                     900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3160)                   (900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3160)                   (900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3160)                   (900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)                  (0.00)
        



</TABLE>
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 17, 2016 520521

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. NAKIA CHANEY, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOMINIC DAGOSTINO, as Schenectady County Sheriff, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 19, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.

__________ Nakia Chaney, Johnstown, appellant pro se.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Caruso, J.) entered January 15, 2015 in Schenectady County, which dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing. Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding claiming to be illegally detained at the Schenectady County Correctional Facility. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's application based upon petitioner's failure to satisfy the pleading requirements, including his failure to verify the petition and to attach to it the mandate under which he was detained or an explanation for why that mandate could not be obtained (see CPLR 7002 [c]). This appeal followed, and we affirm. Having reviewed the record, we agree with Supreme Court, which is bound by the record before it, that the petition is-2- 520521

defective for failing to strictly comply with the requirements of CPLR 7002 (c) (see People ex rel. Reynoso v McGinnis, 282 AD2d 788, 788 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 718 [2001]; People ex rel. Fisher v Stinson, 232 AD2d 697, 697 [1996], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 915 [1996]) inasmuch as the petition was not verified (see CPLR 7002 [c]; People ex rel. Kearney v Bartlett, 131 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2015]; People ex rel. Walsh v Sabourin, 305 AD2d 759, 759 [2003]) and failed to attach or annex to it the mandate under which petitioner is detained or an explanation for why a copy of that mandate could not be obtained (see CPLR 7002 [c] [1]; People ex rel. Medina v Senkowski, 265 AD2d 779, 779 [1999]). Nor did petitioner's request to amend or supplement his petition include a copy of the mandate or an explanation for his failure to produce it. The remaining issues advanced by petitioner are inappropriate in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding because they could have been advanced on either his direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion (see People ex rel. Allen v Maribel, 107 AD3d 831, 832 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 853 [2013]; People ex rel. Backman v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1316, 1316 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013], cert denied ___ US ___, 134 S Ct 84 [2013]). McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2082

___________________________ Shane William Johnson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Unknown Grisham, C/O; Unknown Shultz, Lt. of Jail; Unknown Kelly, Nurse

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: September 16, 2020 Filed: October 20, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Shane Johnson appeals the preservice dismissal of his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This court previously affirmed the dismissal of Johnson’s claims against Lieutenant Schultz and Nurse Kelley. After careful review of the remaining claims against Correctional Officer Grisham, we cannot say, at this stage of the proceedings, that the allegations against Grisham have no arguable basisin law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Accordingly, we

reverse the preservice dismissal of the claims against Grisham, and remand to the district court for issuance of service of process against Grisham, resolution of the motion to compel and for further proceedings as appropriate.

______________________________

-2-
### **CHAPTER 921—ACTIVE DUTY**

Sec.
9191.
Non-regular officers: status.
9203.
Retired commissioned officers: status.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(d)(3)(A), (e)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1833, redesignated chapter 841 of this title as this chapter and items 8491 and 8503 as 9191 and 9203, respectively.

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1674(b)(4), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3016, struck out items 8495 "Air National Guard of United States: status", 8496 "Air National Guard of United States: commissioned officers; duty in National Guard Bureau", 8497 "Air National Guard of United States: members; status in which ordered into Federal service", 8498 "Air National Guard of United States: mobilization; maintenance of organization", 8499 "Air National Guard in Federal service: status", 8500 "Air National Guard in Federal service: call", 8501 "Air National Guard in Federal service: period of service; apportionment", and 8502 "Air National Guard in Federal service: physical examination".

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §504(13), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2917, struck out items 8494 "Commissioned officers: grade in which ordered to active duty" and 8504 "Retired commissioned officers: status".

**1968**—Pub. L. 90–235, §1(a)(4), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 753, struck out item 8492 "Members: service extension during war".

**1967**—Pub. L. 90–130, §1(29)(B), Nov. 8, 1967, 81 Stat. 382, struck out ": limitations; grade" after "Retired members" in item 8504.

**1958**—Pub. L. 85–861, §1(181)(B), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1533, added item 8494.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 09-1198 September Term, 2012

EPA-70FR71612

Filed On: August 30, 2013

Natural Resources Defense Council and State

of New Jersey,

Petitioners

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent

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

State of New York, et al.,

Intervenors

BEFORE: Henderson, Griffith, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for remand and partial vacatur, the responses

thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted. The CAIR-RACT determination is

hereby remanded to the Environmental Protection Agency without vacatur. We decline

at this time to impose a deadline for the proceedings on remand. The CAIR-RACT

presumption is hereby vacated and remanded to the agency. Vacatur of the

presumption is appropriate in light of NRDC v. EPA, 517 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

USCA Case #09-1198 Document #1454351 Filed: 08/30/2013 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7831
EDWARD LONNIE MCCARROLL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES B. HUNT; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; EDWARD DEVITO; SHELLY S. HOLT; ERNEST B. FULLWOOD; WILLIAM J. BONEY, JR.; JOSEPH MCQUEEN, JR., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-916-5-F) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Lonnie McCarroll, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCarroll v. Hunt , No. CA-95-916-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 115.103 Payments by other Federal agencies.

Moneys received from the Veterans Administration or other Government agency pursuant to the Act of February 25, 1933 (47 Stat. 907; 25 U.S.C. 14), may be accepted and administered for the benefit of adult Indians under legal disability or minors for whom no legal guardian or fiduciary has been appointed.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 944

To convert a temporary Federal judgeship in the district of Hawaii to a

permanent judgeship, to authorize an additional permanent judgeship

in the district of Hawaii, extend statutory authority for magistrate positions in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1999

Mr. UNDERWOOD for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, and Mrs. MINK of Hawaii)

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

Judiciary

A BILL

To convert a temporary Federal judgeship in the district

of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship, to authorize an

additional permanent judgeship in the district of Hawaii,

extend statutory authority for magistrate positions in

Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, 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,
2

•HR 944 IH

1 SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS FOR THE DISTRICT OF

2 HAWAII.

3 (a) CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO

4 PERMANENT JUDGESHIP.—The existing district judgeship

5 for the district of Hawaii authorized by section 203(c)(2)

6 of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law

7 101–650, 28 U.S.C. 133 note) shall, as of the date of the

8 enactment of this Act, be authorized under section 133

9 of title 28, United States Code, and the incumbent in that

10 office shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28,

11 United States Code (as amended by this section).

12 (b) ADDITIONAL PERMANENT DISTRICT JUDGE13 SHIP.—The President shall appoint, by and with the ad14 vice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge

15 for the district of Hawaii.

16 (c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—

17 The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United

18 States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to

19 Hawaii and inserting the following:

‘‘Hawaii ...................................................................................................... 5’’.
3

•HR 944 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR MAG2 ISTRATE POSITIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN

3 THE DISTRICT COURTS OF GUAM AND THE

4 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

5 Section 631 of title 28, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a) by striking the first two

8 sentences and inserting the following: ‘‘The judges

9 of each United States district court and the district

10 courts of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North11 ern Mariana Islands shall appoint United States

12 magistrates in such numbers and to serve at such lo13 cations within the judicial districts as the Judicial

14 Conference may determine under this chapter. In

15 the case of a magistrate appointed by the district

16 court of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern

17 Mariana Islands, this chapter shall apply as though

18 the court appointing such a magistrate were a

19 United States district court.’’; and

20 (2) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting in the first

21 sentence after ‘‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,’’ the

22 following: ‘‘the Territory of Guam, the Common23 wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,’’.

Æ
#### Anita Crompton v. William Crompton.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
#### § 102.140 Employment.

No qualified individual with handicaps shall, on the basis of handicap, be subject to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
#### Ex Parte E. W. Lunceford.

No. 23014.

Delivered November 8, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*580
      *Milton K. Norton,*of Dallas, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator was held by virtue of a request upon the part of the Governor of California made to the Governor of this State for the extradition of relator, which request was by our Governor granted, and one Fred H. Doane, as an agent of the State of California, was finally granted custody of relator under our Governor’s warrant of arrest.

Relator filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus before District Judge Henry King at Dallas, which'writ was granted, and a hearing had thereon, the district judge remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff of Dallas County, to be delivered by him to the California agent. Relator appeals from such judgment.

There is but one question presented to us herein, and that is a question of fact. Relator and two other witnesses testify that relator was in the City of Dallas, Texas, at the time set forth in the complaint as the date of the alleged offense of grand theft from the witness Mrs. Mary S. Wolf, and therefore he could not have been the guilty person, nor was he a fugitive from justice from California at the time of his arrest in Texas. Mrs. Woolf positively identifies relator as the person accused of theft of $814.00 in money from her in California on such date, and says that he was present therein at such time. Thus there arose a conflict in the testimony.

The trial court heard these witnesses, and evidently gave credence to the lady’s testimony relative to relator’s presence in Los Angeles, California, at her place of business at the time of the alleged theft. We think this was the prerogative of the trial court. See Ex parte Morris, 101 S. W. (2d) 259; Ex parte Woodland, 177 S. W. (2d) 62, and we see no'reason to disturb his finding. ■

.The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.