alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 23

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

#### § 23.102 What terms do I need to know?

The following terms and their definitions apply to this subpart. All other terms have the meanings assigned in § 23.2.

*Agency* means a nonprofit, for-profit, or governmental organization and its employees, agents, or officials that performs, or provides services to biological parents, foster parents, or adoptive parents to assist in the administrative and social work necessary for foster, preadoptive, or adoptive placements.

*Indian organization* means any group, association, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity owned or controlled by Indians or a Tribe, or a majority of whose members are Indians.
# C_2006190EN.01003303.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission

(Case F-11/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Remuneration - Annual travel expenses - Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials originating from a French Overseas Department - Manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 190/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing the applicant the benefit of Article 8(1) to (3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations relating to the rules on reimbursement of annual travel expenses, in the version in force before 1 May 2004, and secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant considers to have suffered as a result of that refusal

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each of the parties shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 115 of 14.5.2006 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-123/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before March 28, 2011 to be assured of consideration.

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1205.                

*Type of Review:*                     Revision to a currently approved collection.                

*Title:*                     Form 8826—Disabled Access Credit.                

*Form:*                     8826.                

*Abstract:*                     Code section 44 allows eligible small businesses to claim a non-refundable income tax credit of 50% of the amount of eligible access expenditures for any tax year that exceed $250 but do not exceed $10,250. Form 8826 figures the credit and the tax limit.                

*Respondents:*                     Private sector: Businesses or other for-profits.                

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     89,027 hours.                

*Bureau Clearance Officer:*                     Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224; (202) 927-4374.                

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395-7873.                

Celina Elphage,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2011-4244 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
This document contains CBI and is not available online or from the USEPA 

Docket Center. 

Please contact the Document Control Officer listed in the Federal Register.
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 Defense

# AGENCY:

 U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army.

# ACTION:

 Notification of Extension of Scoping Period.

# SUMMARY:

                         The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army, on behalf of Alaskan Command (ALCOM), are issuing this notice to advise the public of the extension to submit scoping comments. The initial Notice of Intent published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 8, 2010 (                        **Federal Register**                         Vol. 75, No. 235, 76444), requested scoping comments no later than February 4, 2011. The Air Force and Army have extended the deadline for submitting scoping comments to March 4, 2011. All are encouraged to provide comments on the proposed actions either by mail, postmarked or electronically submitted no later than March 4, 2011, to ensure consideration in the draft EIS. All comments received during this scoping period will be considered in the preparation of the draft EIS.                    

*Point of Contact:*                         Please direct any written comments or requests for information to ALCOM Public Affairs, 9480 Pease Avenue, Suite 120, JBER, AK 99506, Phone: 907-552-2341, Fax: 907-552-5411 or submit them electronically at                         *http://www.jparceis.com.*                         You may also request handicap assistance or translation services for the public scoping meetings in advance through the ALCOM Public Affairs Office.                    

Bao-Anh Trinh,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2011-4220 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
#### Harvey Lawrence *vs.*The Housatonic Railroad Company.

In a suit brought by the plaintiff for a personal injury received through the negligence of the defendants, the defendants claimed that the injury was originally slight and was aggravated by his neglect to take care of himself and to follow the advice of his physician; and they prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if the plaintiff did not regard the advice of his physician they had a right to infer that the injury was thereby aggravated, and that the plaintiff could recover for nothing after his own imprudence. The court did not so instruct the jury, but directed them that, if they should find a verdict for the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover full compensation for all the mental and physical injury which they should find on the evidenc* that he had sustained by reason of the defendants’ negligence. On a motion of the defendants for a new trial, it was held that this course was proper.

Action on the case for a personal injury caused by the negligence of the defendants.

On the trial to the jury, the plaintiff claimed that, in consequence of the injury, he had suffered great pain ever since, and that the injury was incurable. The defendants in reply offered evidence to prove, and claimed that they had proved, that the injury sustained by the plaintiff was very slight in its nature, and calculated to affect him for a few days only, and that if he had suffered great pain from the time of the injury to the time of trial as claimed, it was in consequence of his neglect to take care of himself after receiving the hurt, and of his repeated neglect to follow the advice of his physician; and they prayed the court to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff did not regard the advice of his physician, they had a right to infer that the injury was thereby aggravated, and that the plaintiff could - not recover for any thing after or following his own imprudence. The court did not so instruct them; but charged the jury that, in case they should find a verdict for the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover of the defendants full compensation for all the mental and physical injury which they should find upon the evidence that he had sustained, by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants complained of in the declaration.

*391The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants moved for a new trial.

*Hubbard*and *Peet,*in support of the motion.

*G. C. Woodruff*and Granger, contra.

The court advised that no new trial be granted.
#### § 47.7 What are the expenditure limitations for Bureau-operated schools?

Each Bureau-operated school must spend all allotted funds in accordance with applicable Federal regulations and local education financial plans. If a Bureau-operated school and OIEP region or Agency support services staff disagree over expenditures, the Bureau-operated school must appeal to the Director for a decision.
### §7625. Ordnance property: officers of armed forces; civilian employees of Army; American National Red Cross; educational institutions; homes for veterans' orphans

(a) Any branch, office, or officer designated by the Secretary of the Army may sell articles of ordnance property to officers of other armed forces for their use in the service, in the same manner as those articles are sold to officers of the Army.

(b) Under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, ordnance stores may be sold to civilian employees of the Army and to the American National Red Cross.

(c) Articles of ordnance property may be sold to educational institutions and to State soldiers' and sailors' orphans' homes for maintaining the ordnance and ordnance stores issued to those institutions and homes.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 259, §4625; renumbered §7625, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(d), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1839.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4625(a) 4625(b)4625(c) | 34:540.50:70.50:71.50:63. | Mar. 3, 1909, ch. 252 (5th par. under "National Trophy and Medals for Rifle Contest"), 35 Stat. 750. |
| | | Mar. 3, 1909, ch. 252 (8th par. under "National Trophy and Medals for Rifle Contests"), 35 Stat. 751; June 28, 1950, ch. 383, §402(h), 64 Stat. 273. |
| | | May 11, 1908, ch. 163 (4th par. under "National Trophy and Medals for Rifle Contests"), 35 Stat. 125. |

4625(b)

4625(c)

50:70.

50:71.

50:63.

In subsection (a), the words "other armed forces" are substituted for the words "the Navy and Marine Corps", in 34:540 and 50:70, since those sales may be made to officers of the Coast Guard under section 114(c) of title 14.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7625, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 473, related to settlement of claims for damage to or loss of privately owned property, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 87–769, §1(2)(A), Oct. 9, 1962, 76 Stat. 768. See section 2736 of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 4625 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
### [§2546. Renumbered §3103]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2546 was renumbered section 2556 of this title.
# C_2006165EN.01002701.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 May 2006 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-42/06 R)

(Application for Interim measures - Act of the Parliament - Defence of immunity of a Member of Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Admissible)

(2006/C 165/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented: by W. de Saint Just, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by:H. Krück, C. Karamarcos and A. Padowska, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of the European Parliament's Decision of 13 December 2005 not to defend the immunity and privileges of Mr. Gollnisch.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
* 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.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40900 c/w No. 11-40901 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN NASKY OKONKWO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CR-59-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent John Nasky Okonkwo has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Okonkwo has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions ofthe record reflected therein, aswell as Okonkwo’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 28, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 11-40900 c/w No. 11-40901

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
#### § 134.2 Landowners financially unable to pay.

Considerable difficulty has been encountered in collecting charges under the regulations in this part owing to the fact that Indians have been financially unable to pay the charges, the result being that the construction charges have accrued against the lands and in cases where the land is sold for the benefit of the allottee or his heirs under the regulations, the purchaser is to pay the accrued and future irrigation charges which make it difficult in some instances, to sell the land at as favorable terms as might otherwise be secured.
### §8469. Band: composition

(a) The Naval Academy Band shall be composed of one leader, one second leader, and such enlisted members of the Navy as may be assigned.

(b) In determining years of service for the purpose of retirement, and in determining eligibility for reenlistment bonus, the members who are assigned as leader and second leader shall be treated as if they had not been so assigned.

(c) The enlisted members assigned to the Naval Academy Band shall be distributed in grade substantially the same as in the United States Navy Band.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 435, §6969; Pub. L. 87–649, §14c(52), Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 501; renumbered §8469, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(c)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6969 | 34 U.S.C. 1091a. | Feb. 14, 1931, ch. 184, 46 Stat. 1111; July 17, 1953, ch. 226, §2, 67 Stat. 181. |

In subsection (a) the words "of the Navy" are supplied since the requirement that the distribution in ratings be similar to that in the United States Navy Band indicates that the Naval Academy Band should not include members of the Marine Corps, and it is so interpreted.

In subsection (b) the words "an officer in the grade of warrant officer, W–1," are substituted for the words "a warrant officer" because the Warrant Officer Act of 1954 established the grade of warrant officer, W–1, in lieu of all the former warrant officer (as distinguished from commissioned warrant officer) grades. The second sentence covers that part of the second proviso which relates to pay and makes reference to the Career Compensation Act of 1949, since it is that Act which governs entitlement to basic pay and the computation of cumulative years of creditable service. Retirement rights and reenlistment bonuses referred to in the second proviso are covered in the third sentence of this subsection, giving recognition to the fact that the status of the members who are assigned as leader and second leader of the band remains unchanged in these respects.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6969 of this title as this section.

1962—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 87–649 repealed first and second sentences which related to pay and allowances for the leader and second leader of the Naval Academy Band, and to crediting of service for pay purposes. See sections 207 and 424 of Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1962 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 87–649 effective Nov. 1, 1962, see section 15 of Pub. L. 87–649, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14629]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID DoD-2013-OS-0072]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 19, 
2013.
    Title, Associated Form and OMB NUMBER: USMEPCOM MEPS Customer 
Satisfaction Survey; OMB Control Number 0704-0470.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 122,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 122,000.
    Average Burden Per Response: 10 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 20,333.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to aid the MEPS in evaluating effectiveness of current policies and 
core processes, identifying unmet customer needs, and allocating 
resources more efficiently.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of 
Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management 
Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, 
VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: June 10, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013-14629 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
### §2183. Educational assistance: former captives

(a) In order to respond to special circumstances, the Secretary concerned may pay (by advancement or reimbursement) a person who is a former captive for expenses incurred, while attending an educational or training institution, for—

(1) subsistence;

(2) tuition;

(3) fees;

(4) supplies;

(5) books;

(6) equipment; and

(7) other educational expenses.

(b) Except as provided in section 2184 of this title, payments shall be available under this section for a person who is a former captive for education or training that occurs—

(1) after the termination of the status of that person as a captive; and

(2) on or before—

(A) the end of any semester or quarter (as appropriate) that begins before the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date on which the status of that person as a captive terminates; or

(B) if the educational or training institution is not operated on a semester or quarter system, the earlier of the end of any course that began before such date or the end of the 16-week period following that date.

(c) Payments shall be available under this section only to the extent that such payments are not otherwise authorized by law.

(Added Pub. L. 99–399, title VIII, §806(d)(1), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 888.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to persons whose captive status begins after Jan. 21, 1981, see section 806(d)(3) of Pub. L. 99–399, set out as a note under 2181 of this title.