alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 636.209 What items must be included in a phase-two solicitation? ( a ) You must include the requirements for technical proposals and price proposals in the phase-two solicitation. All factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance must be stated clearly in the solicitation. Use your own procedures for the solicitation as long as it complies the requirements of this part.
( b ) ( 1 ) At your discretion, you may allow proposers to submit alternative technical concepts (ATCs) in their proposals if: ( i ) The ATCs: ( A ) Provide an equal or better solution; and
( B ) Do not conflict with criteria agreed upon in the environmental decisionmaking process; and
( ii ) The RFP document clearly describes your: ( A ) Requirements for ATC content, submission, and review;
( B ) Procedures for confidential meetings (if used); and
( C ) Methods for evaluating ATCs in the proposal review process.
( 2 ) You must maintain the confidentiality of ATCs, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to maintain compliance with Federal or State permitting and other legal requirements necessary for the delivery of the project. When disclosure is necessary, you must revise the RFP documents by releasing the minimal amount of information necessary to ensure: ( i ) Compliance with Federal or State permitting and other legal requirements; and
( ii ) All proposers are aware of the revised RFP requirements.
[67 FR 75926, Dec. 10, 2002, as amended at 79 FR 8266, Feb. 12, 2014]
#### § 85.2 [Reserved]
Limited Power of Attorney - Securities Law Compliance


The undersigned, as an officer or director of Solectron Corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitutes and appoints Philip Fok,
Michael Grady, or Victoria Miranda the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent to complete and execute such Forms 3, 4
and 5 and other forms as such attorney-in-fact shall, in his or her
discretion, determine to be required or advisable pursuant to Section
16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended) and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or any successor laws and
regulations, as a consequence of the undersigned's ownership,
acquisition or disposition of securities of the Corporation, and to
do all acts necessary in order to file such forms with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, any securities exchange or national
association, the Corporation and such other person or agency as the
attorney-in-fact shall deem appropriate. The undersigned hereby
ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


This Limited Power of Attorney is executed at Fremont, CA, as of the
date set forth below.



				Signature:	S/ Craig London

				Type or Print Name:		Craig London

				Dated: 	April 22, 2003






Witness:

Signature:	S/ Ann T. Nguyen


Type or Print Name:	Ann T. Nguyen


Dated: April 22, 2003
###### Editorial Note on Part 1003

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1003 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and at 68 FR 10350, Mar. 5, 2003.

#### § 1003.39 Finality of decision.

Except when certified to the Board, the decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is taken whichever occurs first.

[52 FR 2936, Jan. 29, 1987. Redesignated and amended at 57 FR 11571, 11573, Apr. 6, 1992]
### §460ww–2. Miscellaneous

#### (a) Lands and waters

The Secretary may acquire lands or interests in lands within the boundaries of the recreation area by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange. When any tract of land is only partly within such boundaries, the Secretary may acquire all or any portion of the land outside of such boundaries in order to minimize the payment of severance costs.

#### (b) Jurisdiction

Lands, waters and interests therein within the recreation area which are administered by any other agency of the United States and which are not identified under section 460ww–1 of this title as directly related to the Summersville project and essential to the operation of that project shall be transferred without reimbursement to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary.

#### (c) Protection of existing project

Nothing in this Act shall impair or affect the requirements of section 1102 of Public Law 99–662 or otherwise affect the authorities of any department or agency of the United States to carry out the project purposes of the Summersville project, including recreation. In releasing water from such project, in order to protect public health and safety and to provide for enjoyment of the resources within the recreation area, other departments and agencies of the United States shall cooperate with the Secretary to facilitate and enhance whitewater recreational use and other recreational use of the recreation area.

(Pub. L. 100–534, title II, §203, Oct. 26, 1988, 102 Stat. 2704.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 100–534, Oct. 26, 1988, 102 Stat. 2699, known as the West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act of 1987, which enacted this subchapter and sections 410eeee–12 to 410eeee–15 of this title, amended sections 410eeee–1 and 1274 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 410eeee–1 and 1274 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note set out under section 410eeee–1 of this title and Tables.

Section 1102 of Public Law 99–662, referred to in subsec. (c), is section 1102 of Pub. L. 99–662, title XI, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4225, which is not classified to the Code.
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. LELAND FRED DOCKEN, Defendant.

NO. 1122 DECISION

DATED this 8th day of March, 1990.

On September 14, 1984, the Defendant was sentenced to one hundred (100) years for Deliberate Homicide. He was given credit for 147 days served and designated as a dangerous offender.

On March 8, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Mark T. Errebo, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence imposed shall be affirmed.

The reason for the decision is based upon Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Board, that the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct.
§ 772.15 Federal participation. ( a ) *Type I and Type II projects.* Federal funds may be used for noise abatement measures when: ( 1 ) Traffic noise impacts have been identified; and
( 2 ) Abatement measures have been determined to be feasible and reasonable pursuant to § 772.13(d) of this chapter.
( b ) *For Type II projects.* ( 1 ) No funds made available out of the Highway Trust Fund may be used to construct Type II noise barriers, as defined by this regulation, if such noise barriers were not part of a project approved by the FHWA before the November 28, 1995.
( 2 ) Federal funds are available for Type II noise barriers along lands that were developed or were under substantial construction before approval of the acquisition of the rights-of-ways for, or construction of, the existing highway.
( 3 ) FHWA will not approve noise abatement measures for locations where such measures were previously determined not to be feasible and reasonable for a Type I project.
( c ) *Noise abatement measures.* The following noise abatement measures may be considered for incorporation into a Type I or Type II project to reduce traffic noise impacts. The costs of such measures may be included in Federal-aid participating project costs with the Federal share being the same as that for the system on which the project is located. ( 1 ) Construction of noise barriers, including acquisition of property rights, either within or outside the highway right-of-way. Landscaping is not a viable noise abatement measure.
( 2 ) Traffic management measures including, but not limited to, traffic control devices and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, time-use restrictions for certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, and exclusive lane designations.
( 3 ) Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments.
( 4 ) Acquisition of real property or interests therein (predominantly unimproved property) to serve as a buffer zone to preempt development which would be adversely impacted by traffic noise. This measure may be included in Type I projects only.
( 5 ) Noise insulation of Activity Category D land use facilities listed in Table 1. Post-installation maintenance and operational costs for noise insulation are not eligible for Federal-aid funding.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BILLY MACK BUFF, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-12-SH) Submitted: October 29, 1996 Decided: January 13, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Mack Buff, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Mil ler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for relief from a fine imposed as part of his sentence on his criminal conviction. The motion is properly construed as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.1214. We have reviewed the record and find that Appellant's nonconstitutional claims which were not raised on direct appeal may not be asserted on collateral review. Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465,477 n.10 (1976). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. United States v. Buff , No. CR-93-12-SH (W.D.N.C. July 10, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in thematerials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §460v–4. Lands withdrawn from location, entry, and patent under United States mining laws; removal of minerals; receipts, disposition

The lands within the recreation area, subject to valid existing rights, are hereby withdrawn from location, entry, and patent under the United States mining laws. The Secretary of the Interior, under such regulations as he deems appropriate, may permit the removal of the nonleasable minerals from lands or interests in lands within the recreation area in the manner prescribed by section 387 of title 43, and he may permit the removal of leasable minerals from lands or interests in lands within the recreation area in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of February 24, 1920,1 as amended [30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], or the Acquired Lands Mineral Leasing Act of August 7, 1947 [30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.], if he finds that such disposition would not have significant adverse effects on the purposes of the Colorado River storage project and the Secretary of Agriculture finds that such disposition would not have significant adverse effects on the purposes of the recreation area: Provided, That any lease or permit respecting such minerals in the recreation area shall be issued only with the consent of the Secretary of Agriculture and subject to such conditions as he may prescribe.

All receipts derived from permits and leases issued under the authority of this section for removal of nonleasable minerals shall be paid into the same funds or accounts in the Treasury of the United States and shall be distributed in the same manner as provided for receipts from national forests. Any receipts derived from permits or leases issued on lands in the recreation area under the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, or the Act of August 7, 1947, shall be disposed of as provided in the applicable Act.

(Pub. L. 90–540, §5, Oct. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 904.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Acquired Lands Mineral Leasing Act of August 7, 1947, referred to in text, is act Aug. 7, 1947, ch. 513, 61 Stat. 913, which is classified generally to chapter 7 (§351 et seq.) of Title 30. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 351 of Title 30 and Tables.

1 So in original. Probably should be "February 25, 1920,".
### §460mmm–1. Definitions

In this subchapter:

#### (1) Conservation Area

The term "Conservation Area" means the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area established by section 460mmm–2(a) of this title.

#### (2) Council

The term "Council" means the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area Advisory Council established under section 460mmm–6 of this title.

#### (3) Management plan

The term "management plan" means the management plan developed for the Conservation Area under section 460mmm–4(h) of this title.

#### (4) Map

The term "Map" means the map entitled "Proposed Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area" and dated July 18, 2000.

#### (5) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

#### (6) Wilderness

The term "Wilderness" means the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness so designated in section 460mmm–3 of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–353, §3, Oct. 24, 2000, 114 Stat. 1374; Pub. L. 108–400, §1(b), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2254.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pars. (1), (2). Pub. L. 108–400 substituted "McInnis" for "Colorado".

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

#### Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–400 effective Jan. 1, 2005, see section 1(g) of Pub. L. 108–400, set out as a note under section 460mmm of this title.
### §469i. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–483, §1(4), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1083

Section, Pub. L. 88–655, §6, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1088, authorized appropriations of up to $800,000 for carrying out provisions of sections 469d to 469i of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7319

TIMOTHY MCNEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. HUTCHINSON, Acting Warden; C. NEVILS; MR. GLENN; MS. LANHAM; 

MS. NECOMB; MR. TAYLOR; MS. JOHNSON; MS. V. MARTIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-03431-JFA)

Submitted: March 21, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy McNeal, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Jennifer L. Mallory, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7319 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy McNeal appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, and dismissing his complaint, which 

raised Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment claims against several prison employees under 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. See McNeal v. Hutchinson, No. 2:21-cv-03431-JFA (D.S.C. Nov. 2, 

2022). We further deny McNeal’s motion for default. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7319 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
### §525. Rights-of-way for wagon roads or railroads

In the form provided by existing law the Secretary of the Interior may file and approve surveys and plats of any right of way for a wagon road, railroad, or other highway over and across any national forest when in his judgment the public interests will not be injuriously affected thereby.

(Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 427, §1, 30 Stat. 1233.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

As originally enacted, this section contained following the word "forest" the words "or reservoir site". See sections 665 and 958 of Title 43, Public Lands, which represent the phase of the section here omitted.

"National forest" substituted in text for "forest reserve" on authority of act Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2907, 34 Stat. 1269, which provided that forest reserves shall hereafter be known as national forests.

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

#### Repeal; Savings Provision

Section repealed by Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §706(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2793, effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as applicable to the issuance of rights-of-way over, upon, under, and through the public lands and lands in the National Forest System. Such repeal not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of Title 43, Public Lands.
### §408j. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §39, 62 Stat. 992, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section, act Mar. 6, 1942, ch. 150, §2, 56 Stat. 133, related to inclusion of park in a judicial district. See section 102 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and section 3231 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
Figure 2: Salt vel Treatment Area

-Tetito Natierial Forest = Salt River Treatment. (aren No SWFL
Supervisor's Office 4 © Migrant SWFL
UTM Zone 12 NAD83

| __evae Critical Habitat © ~~ Resident SVFL

0 1.2525 5 75 10
a eee Miles

28 Sep 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          37,237
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                      7,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,498
<PP&E>                                          55,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,105
<BONDS>                                         13,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           393
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,289
<SALES>                                        384,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               384,473
<CGS>                                          382,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  382,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                       868
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    766
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 21


                                 HANDY & HARMAN

                      SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996



Alloy Ring Service, Inc.

Camdel Metals Corporation

Continental Industries, Inc.

Daniel Radiator Corporation

ele Corporation

H&H Ltd.

H&H Productions, Inc. (Formerly Greenback Industries, Inc.)

Handy & Harman Automotive Group, Inc.
(Handy & Harman Radiator Corporation and Handy & Harman
Automotive Group, Inc. merger)

Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corporation

Handy & Harman Europe Ltd.

Handy & Harman of Canada, Limited

Handy & Harman International, Ltd.

Handy & Harman Peru, Inc.

Handy & Harman Tube Company, Inc.

Indiana Tube Corporation

KJ-VMI Realty, Inc. (Formerly Valley Metals Inc.)

Lucas-Milhaupt, Inc.

Maryland Specialty Wire, Inc.

Micro-Tube Fabricators, Inc.

Pal-Rath Realty, Inc. (Formerly Rathbone Corporation)

Platina Laboratories, Inc.

Rigby-Maryland (Stainless), Ltd.

Sheffield Street Corporation
(Formerly American Chemical & Refining Company, Incorporated)

SWM, Inc.
(Formerly South Windsor Metallurgical, Inc.)

Sumco Inc.

Willing B Wire Corporation

     In addition to the wholly-owned subsidiaries listed above, the company has
a 5% interest in Mizuno Handy Harman, Ltd. and a 50% interest in Handy & Harman
(Asia), S.A. Handy & Harman (Asia), S.A. owns 100% of Handy & Harman (HK)
Limited and 75% of Handy & Harman Manufacturing (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. The
Company owns 12-1/2% of Handy & Harman Manufacturing (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

     The Company, through Handy & Harman Peru, has a 70% interest in the
Electro-Connection Finishers Joint venture.

     The Company also has a 1% interest in Ravel Inc., formerly named R.V.L.
Investments, Inc.
#### Burton N. PUGACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 01-9242.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 14, 2002.

*31Burton N. Pugach, Rego Park, NY, pro se.

Carol Fischer, Ass’t Sol. Gen., N.Y., NY, for Appellee Disciplinary Committee.

A. Orli Spanier, Ass’t Corp. Counsel, N.Y., NY, for Appellee Brown.

Present FEINBERG, KEARSE and B.D. PARKER, Jr., Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff *pro se*and by counsel for defendants.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed.

Plaintiffs claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his disbarment is barred under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine, is untimely, and lacks merit substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Trager’s Memorandum and Order dated August 22, 2001. Plaintiffs claim of unauthorized computer access in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 is without merit in light of the statutory exception for the “lawfully authorized investigative ... activity of a law enforcement agency.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(f).

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.