alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §281e. Contracts and cooperative agreements with State of Idaho, and others

#### (a) Protection, preservation, maintenance, and operation; obligation of general fund of Treasury

In order to carry out the purpose of this subchapter, the Secretary of the Interior may contract and make cooperative agreements with the States of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, their political subdivisions or agencies, corporations, associations, the Nez Perce Tribe, or individuals, to protect, preserve, maintain, or operate any site, object, or property included within the Nez Perce National Historical Park, regardless of whether title thereto is in the United States: Provided, That no contract or cooperative agreement shall be made or entered into which will obligate the general fund of the Treasury unless or until Congress has appropriated money for such purpose.

#### (b) Erection and maintenance of tablets and markers

To facilitate the interpretation of the Nez Perce country the Secretary is authorized to erect and maintain tablets or markers in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act approved August 21, 1935, entitled "An Act to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes" (49 Stat. 666).1

#### (c) Consultation with Nez Perce Tribe officials

The Secretary shall consult with officials of the Nez Perce Tribe on the interpretation of the park and its history.

(Pub. L. 89–19, §6, May 15, 1965, 79 Stat. 111; Pub. L. 102–576, §2(5), (6), Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4771.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act approved August 21, 1935, entitled "An Act to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes" (49 Stat. 666), referred to in subsec. (b), is act Aug. 21, 1935, ch. 593, 49 Stat. 666, known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and also as the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, which enacted sections 461 to 467 of this title. The Act was repealed and restated as section 1866(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and sections 102303 and 102304 and chapter 3201 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–576, §2(5), substituted "States of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, their" for "State of Idaho, its".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–576, §2(6), added subsec. (c).

1 See References in Text note below.
(No. 80-CC-1581

#### Allied Mills, Inc., Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed August 21, 1981.*

Gagen & Schulte, for Claimant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Andrew R. Jarett, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Poch, J.

This cause coming to be heard on the joint stipulation (a copy of which is attached to this order) of the parties hereto to the entry of an award herein, and the Court being fully advised in the premises:

It is hereby ordered that the joint stipulation of the parties asking for the entry of an award in the amount of two thousand nine hundred sixty dollars and seventy five cents ($2,960.75) be, and the same is hereby granted, all matters in controversy having been fully settled, adjusted and compromised.

JOINT STIPULATION

Now comes the Respondent, by its attorney, Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General of Illinois, and the Claimant, Allied Mills, Inc., by its attorney, Franklin C. Gagen, and jointly stipulated as follows:

1. That this claim arises out of snow removal operations carried out between January 24 and February 7, 1979, by the State of Illinois, and acting through its employees and agents.

2. That Claimant owns an experimental research farm situated near the town of Libertyville, Illinois, lying *311generally south of Illinois Highway 60 on the north and west of Illinois Highway 21 (Milwaukee Avenue).

3. That at or about the east property line of Claimant’s property, there is a chain link fence lying parallel to Milwaukee Avenue, a distance of approximately one mile.

4. That during aforesaid snow removal operations, the State of Illinois, acting through its employees and agents, damaged the chain link fence.

5. That both parties agree that the incident caused the Claimant to suffer damages in the amount of $2,960.75.

6. That both parties agree to the granting of an award in the amount of $2,960.75 to Claimant and that said award will constitute full and final satisfaction of the claim herein.

7. That Claimant, in receiving the above award, agrees to relinquish and waive any right to additional damages from respondent incurred from the damage to the fence which is the subject of this claim.

8. That Claimant, by its acceptance of the above award, furthermore releases Respondent from any further liability arising on of or account of the aforesaid damage to the fence as alleged in paragraphs one through four.

9. That no other evidence, oral or written, will be presented to the Court in this claim.

10. That both parties waive hearing and the filing of briefs.

Wherefore, Respondent and Claimant hereby agree to the entry of an award in the amount of $2,960.75 (two thousand nine hundred sixty dollars and seventy five cents).
### §450z. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–429, §3(g), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1343

Section, act Oct. 27, 1941, ch. 459, 55 Stat. 745, provided for the prospecting and mining of surface lands within the monument area under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior.

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

#### Mining Rights Existing Prior to September 28, 1976

Section 3 of Pub. L. 94–429 provided in part that this section was repealed in order to close area to entry and location under the Mining Law of 1872, subject to valid existing rights.
#### § 94.13 Terms.

The first three provisions of 1 U.S.C. 1 (rules of construction) shall apply to this subpart.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raul Rodriguez, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 23]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression motion; Maxwell Wiley, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 21, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

The motion court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion without granting a hearing. Defendant’s vague assertions of innocent conduct did not address the underlying drug transaction or assert any other ground for suppression *(see People v Jones,*95 NY2d 721 [2001]; *People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d *321415 [1993]), and his assertion that he did so by implication is without merit. Defendant’s suggestion that the court’s ruling was not actually made on this ground, but on an improper basis, rests on speculation.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The ruling was generally favorable to defendant, and the number of convictions permitted was not excessive. The court’s ruling concerning impeachment or rebuttal use of an unnoticed postarrest statement by defendant was also an appropriate exercise of discretion.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
#### § 80.11 Effect of FCPA Opinion.

Except as specified in § 80.10, an FCPA Opinion will not bind or obligate any agency other than the Department of Justice. It will not affect the requesting issuer's or domestic concern's obligations to any other agency, or under any statutory or regulatory provision other than those specifically cited in the particular FCPA Opinion.
1) 

Hagarika gukwiragiza imigera igutera indwara 

ikongera ikandukira abandi! 

2) 

Ipfuke ku 

Munwa mu 

Gukorora

3) 

Ipfuke ku munwa no ku mazuru n’igitambara canke agakaratasi kobigenewe iyo uriko 

urakorora canke urasamura 

canke 

4) 

Korora canke asamura wifutse igihande ca ruguru c’ishati wambaye, ntupfuke umunwa 

n’ikiganza. 

5) 

Tera agakaratasi uhejeje gukoresha mu gaseke kagenewe gutabwamwo ibintu vy’umwanda. 

6) 

Karaba iminwe yawe

igihe cose uhejeje gukorora canke kwasamura.
7) 

Karaba umare amasegonda 20 uriko urakaraba ukoresha isabuni n’amazi ashushe 

canke 

8) 

Ihanaguze umuti ubigenewe urimwo umuti wo kwica imigera mibi. 

9) 

Minnesota Department of Health 

717 SE Delaware Street 

Minneapolis, MN 55414 

612-676-5414 or 1-877-676-5414 

www.health.state.mn.us 

10) 

Ikoraniro ya Minnesota Iraba Uko Imiti Itakaro
### §459h–2. Designation of hunting and fishing zones; regulation of maritime activities

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters within the seashore in accordance with applicable Federal and States laws: Provided, That he may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing will be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State agencies responsible for hunting and fishing activities.

#### (b) No authority to regulate maritime activities

Nothing in sections 459h to 459h–10 of this title 1 or any other provision of law shall affect any right of the State of Mississippi, or give the Secretary any authority, to regulate maritime activities, including nonseashore fishing activities (including shrimping), in any area that, on December 21, 2000, is outside the designated boundary of the seashore (including the buffer zone).

(Pub. L. 91–660, §3, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1968; Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(4) [div. B, title I, §137(c)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–232.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 459h to 459h–10 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this title", and was translated as reading "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–660, which enacted sections 459h to 459h–10 of this title, to reflect the probable intent of Congress, because Pub. L. 91–660 does not contain titles.

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–554 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

1 See References in Text note below.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mauern J. Ashford, Appellant, v Michael Rabideau, as Superintendent of Groveland Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 739]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Ronald A. Cicoria, A.J.), entered July 21, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70. The judgment denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be *1313and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for the reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present— Hurlbutt, A.PJ., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.
### §410y. Definitions

As used in this subchapter—

(a) "Park" means the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, as herein established.

(b) "Canal" means the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, including its towpath.

(c) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.

(d) "State" means any State, and includes the District of Columbia.

(e) "Local government" means any political subdivision of a State, including a county, municipality, city, town, township, or a school or other special district created pursuant to State law.

(f) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, private nonprofit organization, or club.

(g) "Landowner" means any person, local government, or State owning, or on reasonable grounds professing to own, lands or interests in lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the park.

(Pub. L. 91–664, §2, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1978.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 91–664, §1, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1978, provided: "That this Act [enacting this subchapter] shall be known as the 'Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act'."

#### Dedication to Justice William O. Douglas

Pub. L. 95–11, Mar. 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 21, provided: "That the canal and towpath of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park are hereby dedicated to Justice William O. Douglas in grateful recognition of his long outstanding service as a prominent American conservationist and for his efforts to preserve and protect the canal and towpath from development.

"Sec. 2. In order to carry out the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to provide such identification by signs, including, but not limited to changes in existing signs, materials, maps, markers, interpretive programs or other means as will appropriately inform the public of the contributions of Justice William O. Douglas.

"Sec. 3. The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized and directed to cause to be erected and maintained, within the exterior boundaries of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, an appropriate memorial to Justice William O. Douglas. Such memorial shall be of such design and be located at such place within the park as the Secretary shall determine.

"Sec. 4. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act."
### §4503c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 101–513, title VI, §607, as added Pub. L. 102–574, §2(a)(2), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4595, which required the Secretary of Agriculture to make annual reports to Congress, submitting the reports pursuant to section 1606(c) of this title, on the progress, needs, and long-range plans of the Institutes of Tropical Forestry in meeting the requirements of section 6706 of Title 7, Agriculture, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 45 of House Document No. 103–7.

A prior section 607 of Pub. L. 101–513, which amended sections 1641, 1643, 2101, and 2109 of this title, was renumbered section 611.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133714 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133714 

 COA: 274478 

Calhoun CC: 05-001794-FH 

MICHAEL W. KLINE,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
### §459h–6. Transfer of Horn Island and Petit Bois National Wildlife Refuges from National Wildlife Refuge System; administration

(a) There are hereby transferred from the National Wildlife Refuge System to the seashore the Horn Island and Petit Bois National Wildlife Refuges to be administered in accordance with the provisions of sections 459h to 459h–10 of this title.

(b) If any of the Federal land on Santa Rosa or Okaloosa Island, Florida, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense is ever excess to the needs of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer the excess land to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the terms and conditions acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of the Interior shall administer the transferred land as part of the seashore in accordance with the provisions of sections 459h to 459h–10 of this title.

(Pub. L. 91–660, §7, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1969; Pub. L. 109–163, div. B, title XXVIII, §2872(b), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3535.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–163 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Transfer of Excess Department of Defense Property on Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Island, Florida, to Gulf Islands National Seashore

Pub. L. 109–163, div. B, title XXVIII, §2872(a), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3534, provided that: "Congress finds the following:

"(1) Public Law 91–660 of the 91st Congress [16 U.S.C. 459h et seq.] established the Gulf Islands National Seashore in the States of Florida and Mississippi.

"(2) The original boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore encompassed certain Federal land used by the Air Force and the Navy, and the use of such land was still required by the Armed Forces when the seashore was established.

"(3) Senate Report 91–1514 of the 91th Congress addressed the relationship between these military lands and the Gulf Islands National Seashore as follows: 'While the military use of these lands is presently required, they remain virtually free of adverse development and they are included in the boundaries of the seashore so that they can be wholly or partially transferred to the Department of the Interior when they become excess to the needs of the Air Force.'.

"(4) Although section 2(a) of Public Law 91–660 (16 U.S.C. 459h–1(a)) authorized the eventual transfer of Federal land within the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore from the Department of Defense to the Secretary of the Interior, an amendment mandating the transfer of excess Department of Defense land on Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Island, Florida, to the Secretary of the Interior is required to ensure that the purposes of the Gulf Islands National Seashore are fulfilled."
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 7, 2015

No. 04-15-00083-CR

John COLEMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10029

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices 

# Order

March 29, 2013

145340

- 2 & (38)

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 145340

COA: 296829

MTT: 00

- 296021

BLAIR TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 145341

COA: 296830

MTT: 00

- 296028

EAST BAY TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

- Appellant.

__________________________ __________/

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 145342

COA: 296856

MTT: 00

- 296026

GARFIELD TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On March 7, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to

appeal the May 15, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the

motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED. The application is again considered, and it isI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk March 29, 2013

h0326 2

GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be brief ed: (1) whether a

township assessor has an independent obligation to determine the true cash value of all

property within the jurisdiction of a township (see MCL 211.2(2); MCL 211.10(1)), or

whether, in determining true cash value, a township assessor is o bligated to follow the

personal tax reporting form approved by the State Tax Commission (see MCL 211.19(2);

MCL 211.19(5)); and (2) whether these cases involve a mutual mistake of fact within the

meaning of MCL 211.53a.

The State Bar of Michigan Taxation Section and the Michigan Townships

Association are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in

the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission

to file briefs amicus curiae.
### §410bbb–3. Acquisition of property

#### (a) General authority

The Secretary may acquire lands and interests therein within the sites designated pursuant to section 410bbb–1(b)(1) and (3) of this title by donation or purchase with donated or appropriated funds or long term lease: Provided, That sites designated pursuant to section 410bbb–1(b)(3) of this title shall only be acquired with the consent of the owner thereof.

#### (b) State and local properties

Lands and interests in lands which are owned by the State of Louisiana, or any political subdivision thereof, may be acquired only by donation.

(Pub. L. 103–433, title XII, §1205, Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4522.)
§ 701.202 Procedure for requests for information. ( a ) A member of the public who requests records or materials from the Water Resources Council must provide a reasonable description of the records or materials sought so that such records or materials may be located without undue search or inquiry.
( b ) Requests which reasonably describe the records or materials sought should be directed to the Public Information Officer, Water Resources Council, Suite 800, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
( c ) To insure that requests for information are processed as expeditiously as possible, all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests should be clearly identified by the requester as such on the envelope and in the letter.
( d ) Records or materials will be available for inspection and copying in person during normal business hours or by mail.
( e ) Requests for records which originate in or concern matters which originate in another department or agency may be forwarded to the department or agency primarily concerned and the requester so notified.