alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank M. Case, Jr., Appellant, v. Eugene Walter and Walter Hackett, Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 9th day of August, 1918, directing that the issues raised by the separate defense and counterclaim be tried at Special Term and the remaining issues at Trial Term, and granting stay pending trial of issues at Special Term.

Per Curiam:

The order appealed from should be modified by providing that the issues raised by the counterclaim in the amended answer of the defendant Walter be tried at Special Term after the issue raised by the allegations of the answer as a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action is tried at Trial Term, and that the trial at Special Term be stayed until the determination of the trial at Trial Term. As so modified the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Order to be settled on notice.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 484 

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to regulate hydraulic fracturing operations on Federal lands, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Mr. SOTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to regulate hydraulic fracturing 

operations on Federal lands, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF BLM TO REGULATE HYDRAULIC 

4 FRACTURING OPERATIONS. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY OF BLM TO REGULATE HYDRAULIC

6 FRACTURING OPERATIONS.—The Mineral Leasing Act 

7 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended— 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 484 IH

1 (1) by redesignating section 44 as section 45; 

2 and 

3 (2) by adding after section 43 the following: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 44. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OPERATIONS. 

5 ‘‘(a) REGULATORY AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of 

6 the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau 

7 of Land Management, shall regulate hydraulic fracturing 

8 operations on Federal lands under the administration of 

9 such Secretary with respect to the purposes of this Act. 

10 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENTS ON OPERATORS.—The Sec11 retary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the 

12 Bureau of Land Management, shall require as a condition 

13 of receiving a permit or other authorization under this sec14 tion an operator to— 

15 ‘‘(1) conduct baseline water testing; and 

16 ‘‘(2) disclose to the public on an internet web17 site the chemicals used by such operator to conduct 

18 hydraulic fracturing operations. 

19 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OP20 ERATIONS.—The term ‘hydraulic fracturing operations’— 

21 ‘‘(1) means those operations conducted in an 

22 individual wellbore designed to increase the flow of 

23 hydrocarbons from the rock formation to the 

24 wellbore through modifying the permeability of resVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:32 Jan 25, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H484.IH H484

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 484 IH

1 ervoir rock by applying fluids under pressure to frac2 ture it; and 

3 ‘‘(2) does not include enhanced secondary re4 covery such as water flooding, tertiary recovery, re5 covery through steam injection, or other types of 

6 well stimulation operations such as acidizing.’’. 

7 (b) DEFINITION OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION.— 

8 Section 1421(d)(1)(B) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

9 (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(B) Excludes the underground injection 

11 of natural gas for purposes of storage.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
§ 602.35 Responding to the Advisory Committee's recommendation. ( a ) Within ten business days following the Advisory Committee meeting, the agency and Department staff may submit written comments to the senior Department official on the Advisory Committee's recommendation. The agency must simultaneously submit a copy of its written comments, if any, to Department staff. Department staff must simultaneously submit a copy of its written comments, if any, to the agency.
( b ) Comments must be limited to— ( 1 ) Any Advisory Committee recommendation that the agency or Department staff believes is not supported by the record;
( 2 ) Any incomplete Advisory Committee recommendation based on the agency's application; and
( 3 ) The inclusion of any recommendation or draft proposed decision for the senior Department official's consideration.
( c ) ( 1 ) Neither the Department staff nor the agency may submit additional documentationwith its comments unless the Advisory Committee's recognition recommendation proposes finding the agency noncompliant with, or ineffective in its application of, a criterion or criteria for recognition not identified in the final Department staff analysis provided to the Advisory Committee.
( 2 ) Within ten business days of receipt by the Department staff of an agency's comments or new evidence, if applicable, or of receipt by the agency of the Department staff's comments, Department staff, the agency, or both, as applicable, may submit a response to the senior Department official. Simultaneously with submission, the agency must provide a copy of any response to the Department staff. Simultaneously with submission, Department staff must provide a copy of any response to the agency. No additional comments or new documentation may be submitted after the responses described in this paragraph are submitted.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)
[74 FR 55430, Oct. 27, 2009, as amended at 84 FR 58929, Nov. 1, 2019]
### §3266. Regulations

(a) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations governing the apprehension, detention, delivery, and removal of persons under this chapter and the facilitation of proceedings under section 3265. Such regulations shall be uniform throughout the Department of Defense.

(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations requiring that, to the maximum extent practicable, notice shall be provided to any person employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States who is not a national of the United States that such person is potentially subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States under this chapter.

(2) A failure to provide notice in accordance with the regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall not defeat the jurisdiction of a court of the United States or provide a defense in any judicial proceeding arising under this chapter.

(c) The regulations prescribed under this section, and any amendments to those regulations, shall not take effect before the date that is 90 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits a report containing those regulations or amendments (as the case may be) to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

(Added Pub. L. 106–523, §2(a), Nov. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 2491.)
### §2156. Production of defective national-defense material, national-defense premises, or national-defense utilities

(a) Whoever, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of the United States, willfully makes, constructs, or attempts to make or construct in a defective manner, any national-defense material, national-defense premises or national-defense utilities, or any tool, implement, machine, utensil, or receptacle used or employed in making, producing, manufacturing, or repairing any such national-defense material, national-defense premises or national-defense utilities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 800; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1261, title I, §105, 68 Stat. 1218; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §601(f)(12), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3500.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on section 106 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense (Apr. 20, 1918, ch. 59, §6, as added Nov. 30, 1940, ch. 926, 54 Stat. 1221).

Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.

Words "upon conviction thereof" were omitted as unnecessary, since punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is secured.

Minor changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted ", or" for "or" in section catchline.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, inserted conspiracy provisions.
### §3241. Jurisdiction of offenses under certain sections

The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have jurisdiction of offenses under the laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, committed within the territorial jurisdiction of such courts, and jurisdiction, concurrently with the district courts of the United States, of offenses against the laws of the United States committed upon the high seas.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 827; Pub. L. 85–508, §12(i), July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4004(e), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1812.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§39, 574; sections 23, 101, 1406 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions; section 39 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense (June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §4, 31 Stat. 322; Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 387, §3, 37 Stat. 512; June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XIII, §2, 40 Stat. 231; Mar. 2, 1921, ch. 110, 41 Stat. 1203; June 22, 1936, ch. 699, §28, 49 Stat. 1814).

Section consolidates portions of sections 39 and 574 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with jurisdictional provisions of sections 23, 101, and 1406 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and section 39 of title 50 U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes of phraseology necessary to effect consolidation.

The revised section simplifies and clarifies the Federal jurisdiction of the district courts of the Territories and Possessions. The enumeration of sections in section 574 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was omitted as incomplete and misleading and the general language of the revised section was made applicable to the Canal Zone.

The phrase "the several courts of the first instance in the Philippine Islands" in section 574 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was omitted as obsolete in view of the independence of the Commonwealth of the Philippines effective July 4, 1946.

The last sentence of section 574 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with reference to the powers of district attorneys was omitted as unnecessary and otherwise covered by sections 403 and 404 of title 22, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Definition of United States in section 39 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is incorporated in section 5 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–273 struck out "United States District Court for the Canal Zone and the" after "The".

1958—Pub. L. 85–508 struck out provisions which related to the District Court for the Territory of Alaska. See section 81A of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, which establishes a United States District Court for the State of Alaska.

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

#### Effective Date of 1958 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 85–508 effective Jan. 3, 1959, on admission of Alaska into the Union pursuant to Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, as required by sections 1 and 8(c) of Pub. L. 85–508, see notes set out under section 81A of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and preceding former section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
#### Domingo BENAVIDES TABLATE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents.

No. 01-70260. I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2002.*

Decided May 14, 2002.

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 **

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected Domingo Tablate’s petition for asylum, and he appeals. The petition is denied.

The BIA stated specific, cogent reasons for not believing Tablate’s testimony, and the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. *See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS,*955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.1992). There was no corroborating evidence of Tablate’s membership in the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces or the Civilian Home Defense Force, despite the fact that he claimed it existed and was given several opportunities to produce it. Aso, Tablate had been in the United States five times *598between 1984 and 1989, including in 1987, 1988, and 1989 after his cousin had been killed and his first child was born, yet never sought asylum. This undercuts his claim that he feared for his life on account of death threats, five or six of which were made before these trips occurred, or that things changed after he started a family. Tablate said that his guerilla activity took place while he was home on vacation, which is not particularly plausible; and his family remains in the Philippines without harm. In these circumstances we cannot say that the BIA was compelled to conclude that Tablate had established a well-founded fear of persecution.

Tablate argues that his case is indistinguishable from *Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.2000). However unlike Lim, Tab-late’s threats were not increasingly numerous or menacing and Tablate did not adequately explain why he decided to apply for asylum in 1991 instead of earlier.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 The disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Steve Davis, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Form10-K of Lotus Pacific, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
|   | Date: April 15, 2004                              |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | */s/**DAVIS,  Steve*                                   |   |
|   | DAVIS, Steve                                           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1

                          Section 302 Certification
                       Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB

I, Stanley J. Wolfson, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Clancy Systems
International, Inc.;

1.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

2.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;

3.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the small business issuer and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based
on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

<PAGE>

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the
audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.


Date:  March 13, 2006

/s/Stanley J. Wolfson
Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### Louis Solomon v. Henry Kuntz, Impleaded.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Sekou Shakur, Petitioner, v Joseph Smith, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 741]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits fighting after *899petitioner and another inmate were observed on the medical transport bus yelling and pushing each other. Petitioner was found guilty of fighting following a tier II disciplinary hearing. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and corroborating testimony at the hearing from the correction officers who witnessed the physical confrontation provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see *Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964 [1990]; *Matter of Singh v Coombe,*239 AD2d 721, 722 [1997]). Although petitioner asserts that the other inmate simply fell into him due to the shackles on his legs, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see *Matter of Cliff v De Celle,*260 AD2d 812, 813 [1999]).

Peters, J.P, Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
### §460p–4. Administration, protection, and development

The administration, protection, and development of the recreation area shall be by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to national forests, in such manner as in his judgment will best provide for (1) public outdoor recreation benefits; (2) conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing to public enjoyment; and (3) such management, utilization, and disposal of natural resources as in his judgment will promote, or is compatible with, and does not significantly impair the purposes for which the recreation area is established.

(Pub. L. 89–207, §5, Sept. 28, 1965, 79 Stat. 844.)