alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 51—HOMICIDE**

Sec.
1111.
Murder.
1112.
Manslaughter.
1113.
Attempt to commit murder or manslaughter.
1114.
Protection of officers and employees of the United States.
1115.
Misconduct or neglect of ship officers.
1116.
Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons.
1117.
Conspiracy to murder.
1118.
Murder by a Federal prisoner.
1119.
Foreign murder of United States nationals.
1120.
Murder by escaped prisoners.
1121.
Killing persons aiding Federal investigations or State correctional officers.
1122.
Protection against the human immunodeficiency virus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §601(a)(6), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498, added item 1122.

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §§60005(b), 60009(b)(2), 60012(b), 60015(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 1972–1974, added items 1118 to 1121.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–467, §3, Oct. 8, 1976, 90 Stat. 1998, substituted "official guests, or internationally protected persons" for "or official guests" in item 1116.

**1972**—Pub. L. 92–539, title I, §102, Oct. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 1071, added items 1116 and 1117.
#### James P. Campbell v. Eugene K. Campbell.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 21.30 Time for filing application. ( a ) In order to be considered for an award under this part, an applicant may file its application when it prevails in an adversary adjudication—or in a significant and discrete substantive portion of an adversary adjudication—but no later than 30 days after the Department's final disposition of the adversary adjudication.
( b ) In the case of a review or reconsideration of a decision in which an applicant has prevailed or believes it has prevailed, the adjudicative officer shall stay the proceedings on the application pending final disposition of the underlying issue.
( c ) For purposes of this part, final disposition of the adversary adjudication means the latest of— ( 1 ) The date on which an initial decision or other recommended disposition of the merits of the proceeding by an adjudicative officer becomes administratively final;
( 2 ) The date of an order disposing of any petitions for reconsideration of the final order in the adversary adjudication;
( 3 ) If no petition for reconsideration is filed, the last date on which that type of petition could have been filed; or
( 4 ) The date of a final order or any other final resolution of a proceeding—such as a settlement or voluntary dismissal—that is not subject to a petition for reconsideration.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504 (a)(2) and (c)(1))
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John H. Eaton, Respondent, against Webster Motors of Glens Falls, Inc., et al., Appellants.

All concur.
130 STAT. 972 PUBLIC LAW 114–238—OCT. 7, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5944: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Sept. 20, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–238 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to certain grant assurances, 

and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. GRANT ASSURANCES. 

Section 47107 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(t) RENEWAL OF CERTAIN LEASES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection (a)(13), an 

airport owner or operator who renews a covered lease shall 

not be treated as violating a written assurance requirement 

under this section as a result of such renewal. 

‘‘(2) COVERED LEASE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term 

‘covered lease’ means a lease— 

‘‘(A) originally entered into before the date of enactment of this subsection; 

‘‘(B) under which a nominal lease rate is provided; 

‘‘(C) under which the lessee is a Federal or State 

government entity; and 

‘‘(D) that supports the operation of military aircraft 

by the Air Force or Air National Guard— 

‘‘(i) at the airport; or 

‘‘(ii) remotely from the airport.’’. 

Approved October 7, 2016. 

Oct. 7, 2016 

[H.R. 5944] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUBLIC LAW
From: Stoneman, Chris

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 5:08 PM

To: Charlie Lippert

Cc: Gupta, Kaushal; BECKHAM, LISA

Subject: RE: Question on the TmNSR on Sawmills

Hi Charlie –

Thanks for your email and question.

I would recommend the sawmill permit for sure if your sawmill changes 

locations after September 2, 

2014 and after we’ve issued it. I would work with Kaushal Gupta (312-886-

6803) out of our regional 

office to work out the details. 

Of course, in the meantime the sawmill permit is draft so we welcome any 

comments you may have.

Chris Stoneman

From: Charlie Lippert [mailto:Charlie.Lippert@millelacsband.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:05 PM 

To: Stoneman, Chris 

Subject: Question on the TmNSR on Sawmills

Thank you to Brandy for prodding the walk thru of the Tribal Minor-source 

New Source Review general 

permit for sawmills.

This appears to be for sawmill that is a stationary source.

At Mille Lacs, we have large portable sawmills that may be described as 

either temporary stationary 

sources or a mobile source that is not frequently mobile. Our sawmills 

are always operated on our tribal 

lands, and usually in one place only for one season, but since our major 

windstorm in the Spring of 2012 

resulting in a blow-down area, all our sawmill operations have been at 

the blow-down site. We are 

expecting all our sawmill operations to remain at the blow-down site 

until Winter 2017 before we again 

have our sawmills resume their round-robin of operations as before that

major windstorm. 

Would we use this Sawmill Permit or would we instead use the SparkIgnition Permit? Clarification on 

applicability would be helpful in this matter.

Charlie L.

========== 

Charles J. Lippert, Air Quality Technician 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, DNRE 

43408 Oodena Drive 

Onamia, MN USA 56359-2236 
T: 1-320-532-4704 

F: 1-320-532-7514 

M: 1-651-271-4391 

E: Charlie.Lippert@millelacsband.com 

X: charliel.millelacsojibwe@gmail.com
#### § 300.33 Public agency.

*Public agency* includes the SEA, LEAs, ESAs, nonprofit public charter schools that are not otherwise included as LEAs or ESAs and are not a school of an LEA or ESA, and any other political subdivisions of the State that are responsible for providing education to children with disabilities.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11))
#### James K. MORRIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF FIRCREST; Fircrest Police Department; John Villamor, individually and in his official capacity as a Fircrest police officer, Defendants— Appellees.

No. 00-36037. D.C. No. CV-99-05430-FDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*587Submitted May 9, 2002.*

Decided May 13, 2002.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding.

Before RYMER, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

James Morris appeals the summary judgment entered against him. We affirm for reasons stated by the district court. Neither the City of Fir crest nor the Fir-crest Police Department caused the alleged violation of Morris’s constitutional rights. *See City of Canton v. Harris,*489 U.S. 378, 385, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). Officer Villamor is entitled to qualified immunity because he could reasonably have believed that he had probable cause to cite Morris for harassment. *See Saucier v. Katz,*533 U.S. 194, 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); *Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley,*988 F.2d 868, 873 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID GORDON DYSON, Defendant.

NO. DC-90-131

On May 30, 1990, the Defendant was sentenced to eight (8) years with five (5) years suspended with conditions for Deceptive Practices; credit given for 63 days time served plus $638.33 restitution.

On December 6, 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 himself. 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 *48the 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 did not wish to proceed.

DATED this 6th day of December, 1990.

The Petitioner withdrew his application from Sentence Review.
(No. 77-CC-1030

#### Anthony Rock, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 11, 1978.*

*665Polos, C.J.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

Claimant contends that during the course of his transfer between cells at the Pontiac Correctional Center one Officer Zitnik collected his property, and that when it was delivered to his new cell three of Claimant’s own oil paintings, and certain other items, were missing.

This Court held in *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*deciding that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical posession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions.

While bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and involuntary bailments have been recognized:

> “A constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession thereof.” 4A Illinois Law and Practice 550, Bailments, citing *Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc., v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, et al., 57 Ill. App.2d 90, 207 NE2d 84.*

In *Chesterfield,*the Court quotes from *Woodson v. Hare, 24 Ala. 301, 13 So2d. 172, at 174,*as follows;

> *666“An actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where, otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law, generally treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.”

The loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence.

At the trial of this cause the State presented no testimony to explain the disappearance of Claimant’s property, and presented no testimony of its freedom from negligence.

Claimant valued his oil paintings at $125.00, and his other items of property had a value of $21.93.

It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $146.93.
### Geology of the Shotgun Butte area, Fremont County, Wyoming

By: William Richard KeeferM. L. Troyer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1157

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### §742d–1. Studies of effects in use of chemicals

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized and directed to undertake comprehensive continuing studies on the effects of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, upon the fish and wildlife resources of the United States, for the purpose of determining the amounts, percentages, and formulations of such chemicals that are lethal to or injurious to fish and wildlife and the amounts, percentages, mixtures, or formulations that can be used safely, and thereby prevent losses of fish and wildlife from such spraying, dusting, or other treatment.

(Pub. L. 85–582, §1, Aug. 1, 1958, 72 Stat. 479; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §2(a)(2)(i), eff. Dec. 2, 1970, 35 F.R. 15623, 84 Stat. 2086.)

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

#### Appropriations

Section 2 of Pub. L. 85–582, Aug. 1, 1958, 72 Stat. 479, as amended by Pub. L. 86–279, Sept. 16, 1959, 73 Stat. 563; Pub. L. 89–232, Oct. 1, 1965, 79 Stat. 902; Pub. L. 90–394, July 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 338, provided that: "In order to carry out the provisions of this Act [this section], there is authorized to be appropriated $3,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for each of the two fiscal years immediately following such year. Such sums shall remain available until expended."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency" substituted in text for "Secretary of the Interior" pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, which abolished the Federal Water Quality Administration in Department of the Interior and transferred to Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency all functions vested in Secretary of the Interior by this section.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23(b)





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by references in the Hunt Manufacturing Co. 1996
Savings Plan Forms S-8 Registration Statements (Registration Nos. 33-6359 and
33-57103) of our report dated June 2, 1997 on our audits of the financial
statements of the Hunt Manufacturing Co. Savings Plan as of December 31, 1996
and 1995 and for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994 which report
is included in this Form 10-K/A which is Amendment No. 1 to Hunt Manufacturing
Co.'s 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K.





/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
----------------------------
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.






2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 20, 1997
§ 361.135 What are the requirements for modification of the Unified State Plan? ( a ) In addition to the required modification review set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor may submit a modification of its Unified State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the plan.
( b ) Modifications are required, at a minimum: ( 1 ) At the end of the first 2-year period of any 4-year State Plan, wherein the State WDB must review the Unified State Plan, and the Governor must submit modifications to the plan to reflect changes in labor market and economic conditions or other factors affecting the implementation of the Unified State Plan;
( 2 ) When changes in Federal or State law or policy substantially affect the strategies, goals, and priorities upon which the Unified State Plan is based;
( 3 ) When there are changes in the statewide vision, strategies, policies, State negotiated levels of performance as described in § 361.170(b), the methodology used to determine local allocation of funds, reorganizations that change the working relationship with system employees, changes in organizational responsibilities, changes to the membership structure of the State WDB or alternative entity, and similar substantial changes to the State's workforce development system.
( c ) Modifications to the Unified State Plan are subject to the same public review and comment requirements in § 361.130(d) that apply to the development of the original Unified State Plan.
( d ) Unified State Plan modifications must be approved by the Secretaries of Labor and Education, based on the approval standards applicable to the original Unified State Plan under § 361.130. This approval must come after the approval of the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration for modification of any portion of the plan described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 1 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 2 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 3 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 4 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 5 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 6 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 7 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 8 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 9 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 10 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 11 of 12
Case 19-31673-KLP Doc 10-4 Filed 04/12/19 Entered 04/12/19 14:20:03 Desc 

 Recorded Deed of Trust Page 12 of 12
#### Elias N. Mallouk v. American Exchange National Bank.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 361.615 May an entity currently serving as one-stop operator compete to be a one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this subpart? ( a ) Local WDBs may compete for and be selected as one-stop operators, as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of interest policies and procedures are in place. These policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
( b ) State and local agencies may compete for and be selected as one-stop operators by the Local WDB, as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of interest policies and procedures are in place. These policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
( c ) In the case of single-area States where the State WDB serves as the Local WDB, the State agency is eligible to compete for and be selected as operator as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of interest policies are in place and followed for the competition. These policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in 20 CFR 679.430 for demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflicts of interest.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7496]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Summer Research Experience 
Program.
    Date: April 20, 2011.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference).
    Contact Person: Anne Krey, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#caa1b8afb3ab8aa7aba3a6e4a4a3a2e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e253c2b372f0e232f27226020272660292138">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 24, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-7496 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>