alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 542.11 Responsibility. ( a ) The Community Corrections Manager (CCM), Warden, Regional Director, and General Counsel are responsible for the implementation and operation of the Administrative Remedy Program at the Community Corrections Center (CCC), institution, regional and Central Office levels, respectively, and shall: ( 1 ) Establish procedures for receiving, recording, reviewing, investigating, and responding to Administrative Remedy Requests (Requests) or Appeals (Appeals) submitted by an inmate;
( 2 ) Acknowledge receipt of a Request or Appeal by returning a receipt to the inmate;
( 3 ) Conduct an investigation into each Request or Appeal;
( 4 ) Respond to and sign all Requests or Appeals filed at their levels. At the regional level, signatory authority may be delegated to the Deputy Regional Director. At the Central Office level, signatory authority may be delegated to the National Inmate Appeals Administrator. Signatory authority extends to staff designated as acting in the capacities specified in this § 542.11, but may not be further delegated without the written approval of the General Counsel.
( b ) Inmates have the responsibility to use this Program in good faith and in an honest and straightforward manner.
§ 16.23 General disclosure authority in Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is a party. ( a ) Every attorney in the Department of Justice in charge of any case or matter in which the United States is a party is authorized, after consultation with the “originating component” as defined in § 16.24(a) of this part, to reveal and furnish to any person, including an actual or prospective witness, a grand jury, counsel, or a court, either during or preparatory to a proceeding, such testimony, and relevant unclassified material, documents, or information secured by any attorney, or investigator of the Department of Justice, as such attorney shall deem necessary or desirable to the discharge of the attorney's official duties: *Provided,* Such an attorney shall consider, with respect to any disclosure, the factors set forth in § 16.26(a) of this part: *And further provided,* An attorney shall not reveal or furnish any material, documents, testimony or information when, in the attorney's judgment, any of the factors specified in § 16.26(b) exists, without the express prior approval by the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the division responsible for the case or proceeding, the Director of the Executive Office for United States Trustees (hereinafter referred to as “the EOUST”), or such persons' designees.
( b ) An attorney may seek higher level review at any stage of a proceeding, including prior to the issuance of a court order, when the attorney determines that a factor specified in § 16.26(b) exists or foresees that higher level approval will be required before disclosure of the information or testimony in question. Upon referral of a matter under this subsection, the responsible Assistant Attorney General, the Director of EOUST, or their designees shall follow procedures set forth in § 16.24 of this part.
( c ) If oral testimony is sought by a demand in a case or matter in which the United States is a party, an affidavit, or, if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or by the party's attorney setting forth a summary of the testimony sought must be furnished to the Department attorney handling the case or matter.
No. 21517.

#### Kenneth Leroy Mollenkopf *v.*The People of the State of Colorado.

(412 P.2d 227)

Decided March 14, 1966.

Rehearing denied April 4,1966.

B. E. Schalow, for plaintiff in error.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, John P. Moore, Assistant, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Frantz

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mollenkopf was convicted of the crime of felonious escape under C.R.S. 1963, 40-7-53 (C.R.S. ’53, 40-7-54). He seeks a reversal by writ of error, alleging as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash the information and its refusal of his tendered instruction on the People’s burden in establishing his identity as one previously convicted of a felony.

This is a companion case to *Schwickrath v. People,*159 Colo. 390, 411 P.2d 961, but does not contain the assignments of error relative to proof of mental condition and instruction on the theory of attempted escape.

On the authority of *Schwickrath, supra; Gallegos v. People,*159 Colo. 379, 411 P.2d 956; and *Silva v. People,*158 Colo. 326, 407 P.2d 38, the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Day not participating.
§ 808.13 Notice of violation. When the Executive Director or his/her designee issues a Notice of Violation (NOV) to an alleged violator, such NOV will: ( a ) List the violations that are alleged to have occurred.
( b ) State a date by which the alleged violator shall respond to the NOV.
§ 51.39 Supplemental information and related submissions. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Supplemental information.* When a submitting authority, at its own instance, provides information during the 60-day period that the Attorney General determines materially supplements a pending submission, the 60-day period for the pending submission will be recalculated from the Attorney General's receipt of the supplemental information.
( 2 ) *Related submissions.* When the Attorney General receives related submissions during the 60-day period for a submission that cannot be independently considered, the 60-day period for the first submission shall be recalculated from the Attorney General's receipt of the last related submission.
( b ) The Attorney General will notify the submitting authority in writing when the 60-day period for a submission is recalculated due to the Attorney General's receipt of supplemental information or a related submission.
( c ) Notice of the Attorney General's receipt of supplemental information or a related submission will be given to interested parties registered under § 51.32.
[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21247, Apr. 15, 2011]
### §282b. Cooperative agreements with State of Washington and others; erection and maintenance of tablets or markers

The Secretary of the Interior may enter into cooperative agreements with the State of Washington, political subdivisions thereof, corporations, associations, or individuals, for the preservation of nationally significant historic sites and structures and for the interpretation of significant events which occurred on San Juan Island, in Puget Sound, and on the nearby mainland, and he may erect and maintain tablets or markers at appropriate sites in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).1

(Pub. L. 89–565, §3, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 737.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), referred to in text, 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, 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.

1 See References in Text note below.
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7 

Authorizing the printing of the 26th edition of the pocket version of the 

Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of the 26th edition of the pocket 

version of the Constitution of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. POCKET VERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 

4 THE UNITED STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The 26th edition of the pocket 

6 version of the Constitution of the United States shall be 

7 printed as a Senate document under the direction of the 

8 Joint Committee on Printing. 

9 (b) ADDITIONAL COPIES.—In addition to the usual 

10 number, there shall be printed the lesser of— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 7 ATS 

1 (1) 480,500 copies of the document, of which 

2 255,500 copies shall be for the use of the House of 

3 Representatives, 200,000 copies shall be for the use 

4 of the Senate, and 25,000 copies shall be for the use 

5 of the Joint Committee on Printing; or 

6 (2) such number of copies of the document as 

7 does not exceed a total production and printing cost 

8 of $226,250, with distribution to be allocated in the 

9 same proportion as described in paragraph (1), ex10 cept that in no case shall the number of copies be 

11 less than 1 per Member of Congress. 

12 (c) DISTRIBUTION.—The copies of the document 

13 printed for the use of the House of Representatives and 

14 the Senate under subsection (a) shall be distributed in ac15 cordance with— 

16 (1) a distribution plan approved by the chair 

17 and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

18 House Administration of the House of Representa19 tives, in the case of the copies printed for the use 

20 of the House of Representatives; and 

21 (2) a distribution plan approved by the chair 

22 and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

23 Rules and Administration of the Senate, in the case 

24 of the copies printed for the use of the Senate. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### § 42.604 Standards for investigation, reviews and hearings.

In any investigation, compliance review, hearing or other proceeding, agencies shall consider title VII case law and EEOC Guidelines, 29 CFR parts 1604 through 1607, unless inapplicable, in determining whether a recipient of Federal financial assistance has engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
§ 3b.2 Definitions. In this part: ( a ) *Agency,* as defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(1) as “* * * each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, * * *”, includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency [5 U.S.C. 552(e)];
( b ) *Individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
( c ) *Maintain* includes, maintain, collect, use, or disseminate;
( d ) *Record* means any item, collection or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph;
( e ) *System of records* means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;
( f ) *Statistical record* means a record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determination about an identifiable individual, except as provided by section 8 of title 13 of the United States Code;
( g ) *Routine use* means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected; and
( h ) *Disclosure* means either the transmittal of a copy of a record or the granting of access to a record, by oral, written, electronic or mechanical communication.
• Separate yourself from others

• Rest & hydrate

• Social distance

• Wear a face covering

• Wash your hands 6 ft

If you test positive, stay home

If you test negative, prevent getting sick by

What Your Test Results Mean

cdc.gov/coronavirus

CS 318104-A 07/08/2020
§ 545.22 Institution work and performance pay committee. ( a ) The Warden at each Bureau of Prisons institution is to establish an Institution Inmate Work and Performance Pay Committee to administer the institution's work and performance pay program. The Committee is to be comprised of an Associate Warden, the Inmate Performance Pay Coordinator, and any other member(s) the Warden considers appropriate.
( b ) The Committee is responsible for approving the following aspects of the institution's inmate work and performance pay program: ( 1 ) Number of inmates on each work detail;
( 2 ) Number of pay grades in each detail;
( 3 ) Job descriptions;
( 4 ) Performance standards;
( 5 ) Budgeting for special act awards; and
( 6 ) Bonus pay/special bonus pay procedures.
§ 63.3 References. ( a ) Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, Water Resources Council, which is incorporated in these guidelines.
( b ) Water Resources Council Floodplain Management Guidelines, Water Resources Council, 1978 (43 FR 6030).
( c ) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.*) and NFIP criteria (44 CFR part 59 *et seq.*).
( d ) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234, 87 Stat. 975).
( e ) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (43 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.*) (NEPA).
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In re: Charlotte Gaines Edwards Case No. 15-34209-KLP

Debtor Chapter 13

WITHDRAWAL

Comes now, counsel for Debtor and submits this withdrawal to remove from the docket 

document no. 11 which was filed unnecessarily.

Date: 8/28/2015August 28, 2015 By: /s/ Deanna H. Hathaway (VSB #44150)

Deanna H. Hathaway (VSB #44150)

Hathaway Adair, P.C.

710 N. Hamilton Ave

Ste 210 

Richmond, VA 23221

Phone: (804) 257-9944

Case 15-34209-KLP Doc 13 Filed 08/28/15 Entered 08/28/15 11:34:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 55.17 Targeting.

The term “targeting” is commonly used in discussions of the requirements of section 4(f)(4) and section 203(c). “Targeting” refers to a system in which the minority language materials or assistance required by the Act are provided to fewer than all persons or registered voters. It is the view of the Attorney General that a targeting system will normally fulfill the Act's minority language requirements if it is designed and implemented in such a way that language minority group members who need minority language materials and assistance receive them.

[Order No. 655-76, 41 FR 29998, July 20, 1976, as amended by Order No. 1752-93, 58 FR 35373, July 1, 1993]
* 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 December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50746 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO CAMPOS-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-252-ALL-FM

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Antonio CamposCruz raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### §403k–2. Addition of lands to Great Smoky Mountains National Park

So much of the twenty-five-acre tract of land in Forney's Creek Township, Swain County, North Carolina, lying north of Lake Cheoah, proposed to be donated to the United States by the Carolina Aluminum Company, as now lies outside of the park boundaries authorized by sections 403 and 403a to 403c of this title, shall upon acceptance by the Secretary of the Interior, become a part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and shall be subject to all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to said park.

(July 26, 1950, ch. 492, §3, 64 Stat. 378.)
### §410ff–4. Federal or federally assisted undertakings with respect to lands and waters within, adjacent to, or related to park

The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking with respect to the lands and waters within or adjacent or related to the park, and the head of any Federal agency having authority to license or permit any undertaking with respect to such lands and waters, shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on such undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license or permit, as the case may be, afford the Secretary a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking and shall give due consideration to any comments made by the Secretary and to the effect of such undertaking on the purposes for which the park is established.

(Pub. L. 96–199, title II, §205, Mar. 5, 1980, 94 Stat. 76.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6228
ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. E. BYERS, Lieutenant; D. T. CALL; DONALD M. HOFFMAN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-818-AM) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Alexander Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) 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. Williams v. Byers , No. CA-96-818-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 1996). 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
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00420

- CR No. 02

- 18

- 00421

- CR No. 02

- 18

- 00422

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No s . 1469469D, 1475883D, 1475881D

Before M eier, Gabriel, and Kerr, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### L AMON 

### J OSHUA 

### B ATER 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Lamon Joshua Bater filed a pro se notice of appeal “from the denial of his objections to his conditions of probation,” which the “trial court has
ordered

. . . to con tinue unchanged without a written order.” On September 26, 2018,
we notified Bater of our concern that we lack jurisdic tion over this appeal because the
trial court had not signed a written order denying his requested relief, see State v. Wachtendforf

, 47 5 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), and because we have no jurisdic tion to review an order denying a motion to modify the conditions of deferred adjudication community supervision, see Basaldua v. State , 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Davis v. State , 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Bater responded to our notice, but instead of explaining why we have jurisdiction, he argued
that we should issue a writ of mandamus against the trial court

— but no mandamus petition is before us

— or tha t we should “enter a judgment finding that [he] is not subject to sex offender counseling”

— but that would effectively adjudicate the very issue that he raises on appeal

. 1 W e dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3

. Per Curiam

1 Bater also asked us to accept the case “as habeas review,” but he must first file
an application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. A nn. art. 11.072, § 2(a) (West 2015).

2 Because we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, we take no action on Bater’s motion for stay and motio n for bail pending appeal.3

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: November 15 , 2018
§ 18.7 Discovery. ( a ) ( 1 ) At any time after the initiation of the proceeding, the hearing officer may order, by subpoena if necessary, the taking of a deposition and the production of relevant documents by the deponent. Such order may be entered upon a showing that the deposition is necessary for discovery purposes, and that such discovery could not be accomplished by voluntary methods. Such an order may also be entered in extraordinary circumstances to preserve relevant evidence upon a showing that there is substantial reason to believe that such evidence could not be presented through a witness at the hearing. The decisive factors for a determination under this subsection, however, shall be fairness to all parties and the requirements of due process. Depositions may be taken orally or upon written questions before any person who has the power to administer oaths.
( 2 ) Each deponent shall be duly sworn, and any adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine. Objections to questions or documents shall be in short form, stating the grounds upon which objections are made. The questions propounded and the answers thereto, together with all objections made (but not including argument or debate), shall be reduced to writing and certified by the officer before whom the deposition was taken. Thereafter, the officer shall forward the deposition and one (1) copy thereof to the party at whose instance the deposition was taken and shall forward one (1) copy to the representative of the other party.
( 3 ) A deposition may be admitted into evidence as against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or who had due notice thereof, if the hearing officer finds that there are sufficient reasons for admission and that the admission of the evidence would be fair to all parties and comport with the requirements of due process.
( b ) ( 1 ) At any time after the initiation of the appeal, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served, or by an authorized representative of the party if the party served is a corporate or governmental entity. The party served shall furnish all information which is available to it.
( 2 ) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath by the party addressed or by an authorized representative. The time and manner of returning the interrogatory shall be prescribed by the hearing officer.