alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft

(a) Offense.—Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Laser Pointer Defined.—As used in this section, the term "laser pointer" means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object.

(c) Exceptions.—This section does not prohibit aiming a beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an aircraft, by—

(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research and development or flight test operations conducted by an aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration, or any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct such research and development or flight test operations;

(2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security acting in an official capacity for the purpose of research, development, operations, testing, or training; or

(3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling device to send an emergency distress signal.

(d) Authority To Establish Additional Exceptions by Regulation.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, may provide by regulation, after public notice and comment, such additional exceptions to this section as may be necessary and appropriate. The Attorney General shall provide written notification of any proposed regulations under this section to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, not less than 90 days before such regulations become final.

(Added Pub. L. 112–95, title III, §311(a), Feb. 14, 2012, 126 Stat. 65.)
(No. 74-CC-0058

#### Dorothy Todd, Administratrix of the Estate of Ronald Stege Todd, Deceased, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed September 7, 1978.*

Holderman, J.

This matter comes before the Court on a petition for rehearing filed by Respondent.

In the opinion of this Court, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly invoked by the Claimant in this case.

*511In the case of *Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. State of Illinois, 27 Ill.Ct.Cl. 327,*the Court held that “when a thing which has caused an injury is shown to be under the management of the party charged with negligence and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things will not happen if those who have such management use proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the parties charged, that it arose from want of due care.”

In this case, the evidence is uncontradicted that the deceased was very unstable on his feet, that he needed help to get around, and he had access to liquor and, possibly, drugs. In addition, the fact that after his disappearance was noticed, only a token search was made for this individual, sustains the position of Claimant.

The original award in the amount of $58,750.00 to Dorothy Todd, wife and sole surviving next of kin of the deceased, is hereby affirmed.
### §1457. Time for unlading

Whenever any merchandise remains on board any vessel or vehicle from a foreign port more than twenty-five days after the date on which report of said vessel or vehicle was made, the appropriate customs officer may take possession of such merchandise and cause the same to be unladen at the expense and risk of the owners thereof, or may place one or more inspectors or other customs officers on board of said vessel or vehicle to protect the revenue. The compensation and expenses of any such inspector or customs officer for subsistence while on board of such vessel or vehicle shall be reimbursed to the Government by the owner or master of such vessel or vehicle.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §457, 46 Stat. 716; Pub. L. 91–271, title III, §301(b), June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 287.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in R.S. §§2879, 2880 and 2969 (as amended by act May 9, 1896, ch. 164, 29 Stat. 115), which were superseded by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, §456, 42 Stat. 955, and were repealed by section 642 thereof. Section 456 of the 1922 act was superseded by section 457 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

#### Amendments

1970—Pub. L. 91–271 substituted reference to appropriate customs officer for reference to collector.

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

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 91–271, see section 203 of Pub. L. 91–271, set out as a note under section 1500 of this title.
§ 19.719 Spirits made unfit for beverage use in the production process. If an alcohol fuel plant makes spirits unfit for beverage use before the spirits are removed from the production process, for example by the in-line addition of materials or by the addition of materials to receptacles where spirits are first deposited, the proprietor must determine the quantity and proof of the spirits produced for purposes of the production records by: ( a ) Determining the proof of each lot of spirits by procuring a representative sample of each lot, prior to the addition of any materials for rendering the spirits unfit for beverage use, and then proofing the spirits; and
( b ) Determining the quantity (proof gallons) of spirits produced by subtracting the quantity of materials added to render the spirits unfit for beverage use from the quantity of fuel alcohol (in gallons) produced and multiplying the resulting figure by the proof of the spirits divided by 100.
(26 U.S.C. 5181, 5207)
§ 658.2 Who is eligible to apply for assistance under this program? The following are eligible to apply for assistance under this part: ( a ) Institutions of higher education.
( b ) Consortia of institutions of higher education.
( c ) Partnerships between nonprofit educational organizations and institutions of higher education.
( d ) Public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including professional and scholarly associations.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1124)
[47 FR 14122, Apr. 1, 1982, as amended at 64 FR 7739, Feb. 16, 1999; 74 FR 35073, July 17, 2009]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERNEST JAMES JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00054-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2012 Decided: September 11, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana F. Eddy, EDDY LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joseph 

F. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ernest James Johnson appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal or, 

alternatively, for a new trial. On appeal, Johnson contends 

that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possession 

of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and that the trial court 

abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. We 

affirm. 

Johnson contends that there was insufficient evidence 

before the jury to support his § 924(c) conviction. Johnson 

challenges only the jury’s finding that he possessed the firearm 

in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense. A jury verdict 

must be sustained “if, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by 

substantial evidence.” United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 

216 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether 

a firearm “furthered, advanced, or helped forward a drug 

trafficking crime . . . is ultimately a factual question.” 

United States v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246, 254 (4th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record 

and conclude that the Government presented sufficient evidence 

from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt 
3

that Johnson was guilty of possessing a firearm in furtherance 

of a drug trafficking crime.

Johnson also asserts that the district court erred by 

denying his motion for a new trial following the admission of 

testimony regarding his prior conviction for armed robbery. “We 

review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a 

motion for a new trial.” United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 

320 (4th Cir. 2003). After reviewing the record, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Johnson’s motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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
§ 19.112 General rules for amending a registration. If there is a change in any of the information in the proprietor's current, approved notice of registration, the proprietor must amend the registration within 30 days of the change unless another time period is specified in this subpart. To amend a registration the proprietor must submit in writing to the appropriate TTB officer any information necessary to make the registration file current and accurate. ( a ) *TTB F 5110.41.* Except when a letterhead application or letterhead notice procedure is allowed under this subpart, the proprietor must submit an amended form TTB F 5110.41, Registration of Distilled Spirits Plant, for changes that affect the registration. If the changes affect only parts or pages of the registration the proprietor only needs to submit the necessary pages or information that will make the registration file current.
( b ) *Letterhead applications.* For certain changes specified in this subpart the proprietor may submit a letterhead application for a change instead of an amended TTB F 5110.41. The letterhead application must identify the distilled spirits plant to which the change applies and clearly identify the change. Any change is subject to TTB approval. The appropriate TTB officer may, at any time, require that the proprietor submit an amended application on TTB F 5110.41 if administrative difficulties occur as a result of the letterhead application.
( c ) *Letterhead notices.* For certain changes specified in this subpart only a letterhead notice is required. The letterhead notice must identify the distilled spirits plant to which the change applies and clearly identify the change. A letterhead notice does not require approval by TTB. The appropriate TTB officer may, at any time, require that the proprietor submit an amended application on TTB F 5110.41 if administrative difficulties occur as a result of the letterhead notice.
(26 U.S.C. 5171, 5172)
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5470, 5471, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 17.171 Inspection of records.

All of the records, forms, and documents required to be retained by § 17.170 shall be kept at the premises where distilled spirits are used in the manufacture or production of nonbeverage products and shall be readily available during the manufacturer's regular business hours for examination and copying by the appropriate TTB officers. At the same time, any other books, papers, records or memoranda in the possession of the manufacturer, which have a bearing upon the matters required to be alleged in a claim for drawback, shall be available for inspection by appropriate TTB officers.

(26 U.S.C. 5113, 5123)

[T.D. ATF-379, 61 FR 31412, June 20, 1996, as amended by T.D. TTB-79, 74 FR 37402, July 28, 2009]
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 1220 Filed 12/12/17 Entered 12/12/17 12:34:24 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case 17-34665-KLP Doc 1220 Filed 12/12/17 Entered 12/12/17 12:34:24 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
# Official Journal L 258/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 258 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6115 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 258

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6115 October 2018

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2018/1504 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 repealing Regulation (EU) No 256/2014 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2018/1504 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 repealing Regulation (EU) No 256/2014 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union

1

| | | II   Non-legislative acts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision (EU) 2018/1505 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania and Poland | 3 |

II   Non-legislative acts

DECISIONS

*

Decision (EU) 2018/1505 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania and Poland

3

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011 ( OJ L 327, 9.12.2017 ) | 5 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011 ( OJ L 327, 9.12.2017 )

( OJ L 327, 9.12.2017 )

5

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 414.58

 414.03

 413.47

 412.94

 412.31

 411.65

 411.10

 410.53

 409.86

 409.26

 408.68

 408.24

 407.76

 407.29

 406.85

 406.36

 405.88

 405.42

 404.86

 404.36

 403.94

 403.47

 403.03

 402.48

 401.97

 401.53

 400.93

 400.47

 400.24

 399.75

 399.43

 484.7

 480.4

 476.1

 472.0

 467.2

 462.2

 458.1

 453.8

 448.8

 444.3

 440.1

 436.8

 433.4

 429.9

 426.8

 423.3

 419.8

 416.6

 412.6

 409.1

 406.2

 402.9

 399.9

 396.1

 392.6

 389.7

 385.6

 382.5

 381.0

 377.8

 375.6

STORAGE

-4.8

-4.3

-4.3

-4.1

-4.8

-5.0

-4.2

-4.3

-5.0

-4.4

-4.3

-3.2

-3.5

-3.4

-3.2

-3.5

-3.4

-3.3

-4.0

-3.5

-2.9

-3.3

-3.0

-3.8

-3.5

-3.0

-4.0

-3.1

-1.5

-3.3

-2.1

CHANGE

1,370

1,304

1,364

1,356

1,144

1,090

1,396

1,232

1,131

1,078

1,194

1,539

1,452

1,557

1,269

1,407

1,139

1,448

1,113

1,366

1,483

1,342

1,305

975

1,308

1,379

954

1,290

1,906

1,525

1,493

INFLOW

 3,439

 3,099

 3,185

 3,054

 3,202

 3,276

 3,199

 3,078

 3,349

 2,997

 3,014

 2,823

 2,889

 2,950

 2,544

 2,840

 2,539

 2,752

 2,777

 2,807

 2,637

 2,627

 2,449

 2,544

 2,737

 2,562

 2,676

 2,552

 2,358

 2,842

 2,217

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 32

 57

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 290

 284

 280

 286

 283

 261

 249

 255

 254

 263

 265

 264

 269

 270

 267

 262

 263

 269

 272

 270

 272

 267

 271

 267

 266

 261

 267

 235

 266

 262

 274

PUMPING

 81

 78

 75

 72

 82

 79

 43

 53

 50

 57

 67

 76

 56

 53

 58

 75

 65

 69

 57

 54

 54

 56

 63

 62

 62

 55

 52

 52

 56

 61

 67

C.F.S.

 .31

 .30

 .29

 .28

 .32

 .31

 .17

 .21

 .20

 .23

 .27

 .31

 .23

 .22

 .24

 .31

 .27

 .29

 .24

 .23

 .23

 .24

 .27

 .27

 .27

 .24

 .23

 .23

 .25

 .27

 .30

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2007 FOLSOM LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 17, 2007

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. PLANT

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

 RIVER 

TOTALS -114.0 40,909 88,014 0 89 8,284 1,940 8.03 .00

ACRE-FEET -114,000 81,143 174,576 0 177 16,431 3,848

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 174,576

SPILL

PUMPING PLANT

 0

 16,431

TOTAL 191,184

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2007 TO DATE = .00

 489.5

OUTLET 177 .00

Table 11
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Gerald F. Beal et al., as Executors of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased. William A. Nunlist et al., as Trustees for Hazel W. Nunlist, Appellants; Gerald F. Beal et al., as Executors of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of the Will of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased. William A. Nunlist et al., as Trustees for Hazel W. Nunlist, Appellants; Gerald F. Beal et al., as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Prentiss N. Gray, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [176 Misc. 829.]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1320

CHANG HUA ZENG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COOSAW PARTNERS LLC; TERRY KINDER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (2:15-cv-02023-RMG-MGB)

Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chang Hua Zeng, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Lewis Smith, SMITH & 

KOONTZ, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chang Hua Zeng appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his complaint after concluding that res judicata precluded Chang’s 

claims. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chang’s 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s disposition, Chang has forfeited appellate review of the 

court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. 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
### §3571. Sentence of fine

(a) In General.—A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.

(b) Fines for Individuals.—Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—

(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;

(2) the applicable amount under subsection (d) of this section;

(3) for a felony, not more than $250,000;

(4) for a misdemeanor resulting in death, not more than $250,000;

(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000;

(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or

(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.

(c) Fines for Organizations.—Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an organization that has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—

(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;

(2) the applicable amount under subsection (d) of this section;

(3) for a felony, not more than $500,000;

(4) for a misdemeanor resulting in death, not more than $500,000;

(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $200,000;

(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $10,000; and

(7) for an infraction, not more than $10,000.

(d) Alternative Fine Based on Gain or Loss.—If any person derives pecuniary gain from the offense, or if the offense results in pecuniary loss to a person other than the defendant, the defendant may be fined not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss, unless imposition of a fine under this subsection would unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing process.

(e) Special Rule for Lower Fine Specified in Substantive Provision.—If a law setting forth an offense specifies no fine or a fine that is lower than the fine otherwise applicable under this section and such law, by specific reference, exempts the offense from the applicability of the fine otherwise applicable under this section, the defendant may not be fined more than the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense.

(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1995; amended Pub. L. 100–185, §6, Dec. 11, 1987, 101 Stat. 1280.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

For a prior section 3571, applicable to offenses committed prior to Nov. 1, 1987, see note set out preceding section 3551 of this title.

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–185 amended section generally, revising and restating as subsecs. (a) to (e) provisions formerly contained in subsecs. (a) and (b).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of this section, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.
§ 19.646 Construction and equipment requirements. The proprietor of a vinegar plant must construct and equip the plant to ensure that: ( a ) The distilled spirits vapors that are separated by the vaporizing process from the mash are condensed only by introducing them into the water or other liquid used in making the vinegar; and
( b ) The distilled spirits produced are accurately accounted for and are secure from unlawful removal from the premises or from unauthorized use.
(26 U.S.C. 5502)