alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3607. Recovery of costs by United States

#### (a) Suit by United States on behalf of grant or loan recipient for recovery of costs of activities of recipient; proceeds of judgment

(1) As a condition of the award of any grant under section 3604 of this title or loan under section 3605 of this title, the recipient of any such grant or loan shall permit the United States to sue on behalf of such recipient any person determined by the Attorney General to be liable to the recipient for the costs of any activities undertaken by the recipient under such sections.

(2) The proceeds from any judgment recovered in any suit brought by the United States under paragraph (1) (or, if the recipient files a similar suit on its own behalf, the proceeds from any judgment recovered by the recipient in such suit) shall be used to repay to the United States, to the extent that the proceeds are sufficient to provide for such repayment, an amount equal to the sum of—

(A) the amount of any grant made to the recipient under section 3604 of this title;

(B) the amount outstanding on any loan made to the recipient under section 3605 of this title; and

(C) an amount equal to the interest which would have been charged on such loan were the loan made by a commercial lender at prevailing interest rates (as determined by the Secretary).

#### (b) Investigation and report by Attorney General respecting feasibility of recovery of costs from any person determined by Attorney General to be liable

The Attorney General shall conduct an investigation to determine whether, by using all available means, the United States should or could recover, from any person determined by the Attorney General to be liable for such costs, the amounts expended by the United States to carry out this chapter. Within one year after June 14, 1980, the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report containing the results of the study, together with any appropriate recommendations.

#### (c) Expeditious proceedings by Attorney General

If the Attorney General determines in the report under subsection (b) that the United States should seek to recover the amounts expended by the United States to carry out this chapter, the Attorney General shall proceed in an expeditious manner to recover such amounts from the persons referred to in subsection (b).

(Pub. L. 96–270, §8, June 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 495.)
# oRlgltuAt

lJn tbe 

## @nitt! btattg @ourt of

## /e[erat

No. 13-773

### T (Filed January 

### 14,2014) 

### @tsims

SHARON D. 

### COLEMAN,Plaintiff,
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. 

## FILED JAN 

### 14 2014 U,S. COURT OF FEDERALCLAIII/E



### ORDER 

### on December 

### 12,2013, the court ordered 

### plaintiff to show cause 

### why her 

### suit should not be dismissed and directed her 

### to

### file an amended complaint on or before January 13, 

### 2014. See 

### Doc.

## 7. While the court appreciates 

### the fact that 

### plaintiff sent correspondence 

### to the court that was 

### filed on January 

### 14,2014' see 

### boc. S,the content

### ofthut.o.t"tpondence fails to demonstrate that her case should remain pending. 

### The United States 

### Court

## of Federal 

### Claims has

### jurisdiction 

## to "rendet 

### judgment upon 

### any claim 

### against

### the united 

### ,stafes founded either upon the 

### 'Coistitution, or any 

### Act of Congress or any regulation 

### of an executive department, or upon uny 

## .*pr.r, or implied contract 

### with the United States, or

### for liquidated or 

### unliquidated damages 

## in cases 

### not sounding 

### in tort'" 28 U'S'C'

## $ 1a91(a)(l) (emphasis added).

### thisjurisdictional grant covers some tax matters. See e.g., New 

## yo*tife Ins. 

## co.

## v. tJnited states, 118 

### F.3d 1553, 1558 

### (Fed.

## cir. 1997) 

### (affirming this court's

### jurisdiction over federal tax refund cases)' 

### Although 

### plaintiffs claim appears

### to involve an issue

### with her 

### tax return, nothing in thJpapers she has submitted establishes that she has aclaim against the 

### united states. Even assuming that she has a 

### claim against some person 

### or entity 

### for the mishandling 

### or misappropriation 

### of her 

### tax refund, because 

### that claim is apparently 

### not against 

### the 

### united States,

### this court cannot 

### review

### the matter further. 

### Plaintiff s case is dismissed for lack of

### jurisdiction' Case 1:13-cv-00773-JFM Document 9 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 2SO 

### ORDERED.

Jarnds F. 

### Merow Senior Judee Case 1:13-cv-00773-JFM Document 9 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 2
(No. 00125

#### In Re Application of Margaret Marinec

*Opinion filed November 14, 1977.*

Peter A. Loutos, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General for Illinois; Vincent J. Biskupic, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

This claim arising out of the death of a police chief allegedly killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter, the Act), Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, Sec. 281 *et seq.,*1975.

The Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and fur*377nished by the Attorney General; a written statement of the decedent’s supervising officer, and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted at a hearing before the Court on October 12, 1977, the Court finds that:

1. Alsip Police Chief, Raymond Marinee, was pronounced dead at Ingalls Memorial Hospital, Harvey, Illinois, at 12:33 a.m. on Saturday, November 6,1976, at the age of 38.

2. At 8:05 p.m., on Friday, November 5,1976, Chief Marinee, was stricken with a heart attack, in a Home-wood, Illinois restaurant, while attending a retirement party for another policeman sponsored by the South Suburban Association of Chiefs of Police, of which Chief Marinee was a member. He was taken directly to the hospital by ambulance, after being stricken.

3. The death certificate submitted by the Claimant indicated the immediate cause of death as “cardiac arrest, with an approximate interval between onset and death of seconds, due to or as a consequence of acute myocardial infarction, hours, due to, or as a consequence of, coronary artery disease years.”

4. Section 2, subparagraph (e) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “killed in the line of duty” means losing one’s life as a result of injury received in the active performance of duties as a law enforcement officer... “if the death occurs within one year from the date the injury was received and if that injury arose from violence or other accidental cause.”

5. While testimony and evidence were presented as to Chief Marinee’s devotion to duty, the hours he *378worked, and the many services he performed, as the Alsip Police Department’s Chief, he was not “killed in the line of duty” as defined in, and required by, the Act.

It is hereby ordered, by reason of the foregoing, that the claim for benefits by Margaret Marinee, pertaining to the death of her husband, Raymond Mari-nee, be, and the same is hereby denied.
(No. 6535

#### Michigan Blvd. Garden Apartments, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 9, 1973.*

Michigan Blvd. Garden Apartments, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Editorial Note on Part 53
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 53 appear by T.D. ATF-447, 66 FR 19088, Apr. 13, 2001.

§ 53.184 Refund to exporter or shipper. ( a ) *In general.* Any payment of tax imposed by chapter 32 of the Code that is determined to be an overpayment within the meaning of section 6416(b)(2)(A) of the Code and §§ 53.178 and 53.179, by reason of the exportation of any article may be refunded to the exporter or shipper of the article pursuant to section 6416(c) of the Code, if: ( 1 ) The exporter or shipper files a claim for refund of the overpayment, and
( 2 ) The person who paid the tax waives the right to claim credit or refund of the tax. No interest shall be paid on any refund allowed under this section. For provisions relating to the evidence required in support of a claim under this paragraph, see 27 CFR 70.123 (Procedure and Administration) and paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Supporting evidence required.* No claim for refund of any overpayment of tax to which this section applies shall be allowed unless the exporter or shipper submits with that claim proof of exportation in the form prescribed by § 53.133, and a statement, signed by the person who paid the tax, showing: ( 1 ) That the person who paid the tax waives the right to claim credit or refund of the tax, and
( 2 ) The amount of tax paid on the sale of the article and the date of payment.
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

DAY ELEV

 583.42

 583.23

 583.72

 584.29

 583.39

 583.41

 583.97

 584.37

 582.17

 583.09

 582.85

 583.47

 583.11

 583.54

 583.44

 583.21

 582.76

 582.98

 583.34

 584.05

 582.76

 582.37

 582.20

 582.52

 583.43

 583.57

 583.51

 583.86

 21,538

 21,423

 21,720

 22,069

 21,520

 21,532

 21,872

 22,118

 20,787

 21,338

 21,193

 21,568

 21,350

 21,611

 21,550

 21,410

 21,140

 21,271

 21,489

 21,921

 21,140

 20,907

 20,805

 20,996

 21,544

 21,629

 21,593

 21,805

STORAGE

-772

-115

+297

+349

-549

+12

+340

+246

-1,331

+551

-145

+375

-218

+261

-61

-140

-270

+131

+218

+432

-781

-233

-102

+191

+548

+85

-36

+212

CHANGE

3,618

3,933

4,143

4,171

3,712

3,995

4,209

4,131

3,332

4,272

3,940

4,202

3,894

4,173

3,978

3,936

3,837

4,123

4,112

4,226

3,664

3,885

3,953

3,999

4,091

3,876

6,161

6,364

INFLOW

 4,005

 3,990

 3,992

 3,994

 3,989

 3,989

 4,037

 4,006

 4,002

 3,990

 4,011

 4,012

 4,000

 4,039

 4,006

 4,006

 3,971

 3,971

 3,916

 3,915

 3,972

 3,916

 3,918

 3,817

 3,728

 3,746

 6,089

 6,172

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

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

FISHTRAP

 2

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 4

 2

 1

 4

 2

 3

 1

 2

 1

 1

 8

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 5

 0

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2002 KESWICK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 13, 2002

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -505 115,930 115,199 0 935 50

ACRE-FEET -505 229,947 228,497 0 1,855 99

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 228,497

SPILL 0

 22,310

FISH TRAP 1,855

SPRING

CR. P. P.

RELEASE (1)

 252

 250

 303

 267

 90

 134

 260

 421

 664

 275

 258

 259

 259

 270

 253

 278

 287

 290

 583

 1,643

 1,157

 1,139

 839

 899

 252

 597

 644

 1,093

 13,916

 27,602

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

(1) EVAPORATION RECORDS TAKEN FROM SHASTA PAN.

SHASTA

RELEASE

C.F.S

 3,339

 3,593

 3,697

 3,772

 3,627

 3,876

 3,669

 3,505

 2,391

 3,674

 3,331

 3,631

 3,544

 3,697

 3,609

 3,470

 3,368

 3,570

 3,092

 1,725

 1,995

 2,269

 2,701

 2,785

 3,411

 2,976

 5,396

 4,532

 94,245

 186,935

Table 8
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8845]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (11-035)]


NASA Advisory Council; Space Operations Committee; Meeting.

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) 
Space Operations Committee.

DATES: Tuesday, May 3, 2011, 8 a.m.-2 p.m. local time.

ADDRESSES: Doubletree Hotel, 2080 North Atlantic Ave, Cocoa Beach, FL 
32931.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jacob Keaton, NAC Space Operations 
Committee Executive Secretary, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-1507, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f656e6c606d21646a6e7b60614f616e7c6e21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1cbc0c2cec38fcac4c0d5cecfe1cfc0d2c08fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda for the meeting includes the 
following topics:

--Space Operations Mission Directorate FY2012 Budget.
--Commercial Crew Development Program status.
--Commercial Orbital Transportation System status.
--21st Century Launch Complex status.
--Recommendation preparation and discussion.

    The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity 
of the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-8845 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 10.200 What is continuation of pay? ( a ) For most employees who sustain a traumatic injury, the FECA provides that the employer must continue the employee's regular pay during any periods of resulting disability, up to a maximum of 45 calendar days. This is called continuation of pay, or COP. The employer, not OWCP, pays COP. Unlike wage loss benefits, COP is subject to taxes and all other payroll deductions that are made from regular income.
( b ) The employer must continue the pay of an employee, except for Postal Service employees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8117 and as provided below in paragraph (c) of this section, who is eligible for COP, and may not require the employee to use his or her own sick or annual leave, unless the provisions of § 10.200(c), § 10.220, or § 10.222 apply. However, while continuing the employee's pay, the employer may controvert the employee's COP entitlement pending a final determination by OWCP. OWCP has the exclusive authority to determine questions of entitlement and all other issues relating to COP.
( c ) Postal Service employees are not entitled to continuation of pay for the first 3 days of temporary disability and may use annual, sick or leave without pay during that period, except that if the disability exceeds 14 days or is followed by permanent disability, the Postal Service employee may have that leave restored.
( d ) The FECA excludes certain persons from eligibility for COP. COP cannot be authorized for members of these excluded groups, which include but are not limited to: persons rendering personal service to the United States similar to the service of a civil officer or employee of the United States, without pay or for nominal pay; volunteers (for instance, in the Civil Air Patrol and Peace Corps); Job Corps and Youth Conservation Corps enrollees; individuals in work- study programs, and grand or petit jurors (unless otherwise Federal employees).
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

 478.02

 477.53

 478.09

 478.19

 478.28

 478.19

 478.16

 478.12

 478.27

 478.61

 478.94

 479.46

 479.92

 480.35

 480.70

 481.04

 481.04

 481.14

 481.57

 481.60

 481.62

 481.41

 481.41

 480.97

 480.55

 480.17

 479.95

 479.75

 479.58

 479.52

 479.26

 156.9

 155.8

 157.1

 157.3

 157.6

 157.3

 157.3

 157.2

 157.5

 158.3

 159.1

 160.4

 161.5

 162.6

 163.4

 164.3

 164.3

 164.5

 165.6

 165.7

 165.7

 165.2

 165.2

 164.1

 163.1

 162.1

 161.6

 161.1

 160.7

 160.6

 159.9

STORAGE

-1.0

-1.2

+1.3

+0.2

+0.2

-0.2

-0.1

-0.1

+0.4

+0.8

+0.8

+1.3

+1.1

+1.1

+0.9

+0.8

+0.0

+0.2

+1.1

+0.1

+0.1

-0.5

+0.0

-1.1

-1.0

-0.9

-0.5

-0.5

-0.4

-0.1

-0.6

CHANGE

863

577

1,569

1,068

1,266

1,167

1,265

1,217

1,287

1,242

1,338

1,793

1,810

1,824

1,707

1,666

947

1,027

1,644

1,179

1,145

917

1,072

343

350

452

628

787

906

864

406

INFLOW

 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

MADERA

 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

 918

 748

 467

 520

 719

 832

 850

 821

 655

 394

 497

 708

 794

 835

 833

 813

 525

 467

 670

 711

 680

 757

 650

 471

 445

 503

 478

 578

 648

 474

 263

FRIANT-KERN

 28

 13

 20

 20

 17

 14

 21

 15

 19

 5

 10

 17

 20

 23

 20

 19

 12

 24

 24

 20

 30

 14

 12

 15

 18

 12

 13

 18

 17

 15

 13

C.F.S.

 .36

 .17

 .26

 .26

 .22

 .18

 .27

 .19

 .24

 .07

 .13

 .21

 .25

 .29

 .25

 .24

 .15

 .30

 .30

 .25

 .37

 .17

 .15

 .19

 .23

 .15

 .17

 .23

 .21

 .19

 .17

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

OCTOBER 2020 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 1, 2020

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +2.0 34,326 0 19,724 0 538 6.82 .00

ACRE-FEET +2,007 68,086 0 39,123 0 1,067

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 39,123

 0 65,012

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2020 TO DATE = 0.00

 157.9

 25,889 0.00

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 416

 406

 406

 406

 421

 430

 430

 430

 430

 430

 430

 431

 432

 432

 418

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 410

 436

 450

 449

 449

RIVER

 13,052

 25,889

RIVER

OCT 1, 2020 TO DATE = 0.00
```

[112th Congress Public Law 80]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 125 STAT. 1297]]

Public Law 112-80
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
 United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for 
      breast cancer research. <<NOTE: Dec. 23, 2011 -  [S. 384]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.

    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2015''.

    Approved December 23, 2011.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 384:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 112-97 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 157 (2011):
            Dec. 5, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 12, 13, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael Smolinski and Louis Juginski, Appellants.

Appeal dismissed upon stipulation filed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear by T.D. ATF-437, 66 FR 5478, 5479, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 25.22 Continuity of brewery.

Brewery premises will be unbroken except that they may be separated by public passageways, streets, highways, waterways, carrier rights-of-way, or partitions. If the brewery premises are separated, the parts will abut on the dividing medium and be adjacent to each other. If the brewer has facilities for loading, or for case packing or storage which are located within reasonable proximity to the brewery, the appropriate TTB officer may approve these facilities as part of the brewery if the revenue will not be jeopardized.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1389, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5402))
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Warren L. STEPHENSON, Appellee.

No. 12421.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 14, 1955.

Decided May 19, 1955.

*337Mr. Harold H. Greene, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Nicholas J. Chase, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Theodore Jaffe, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

Appellee was indicted for perjury. He moved in the District Court for suppression, as evidence, of a recording and a transcript of a telephone conversation. The court granted the motion [D.C., 121 F.Supp. 274] and the government appealed. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal.

The court expressed the opinion that its order of suppression was reviewable and cited United States v. Cefaratti, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 202 F.2d 13. In that case the indictment had been dismissed, after the order of suppression and before the appeal, and in the present case the indictment is pending. But in Cefaratti we did “not imply agreement” with United States v. Rosenwasser, 9 Cir., 145 F.2d 1015, 156 A.L.R. 1200, which treated such a difference as critical. On the contrary, we rested Cefaratti “squarely on the Cohen [Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528], Swift [Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Caribe, 339 U.S. 684, 70 S.Ct. 861, 94 L.Ed. 1206], and Stack [Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 3] cases.” The principle was, we said, that an order which does not “terminate an action” has the finality which 28 U.S.C. § 1291 requires for appeal “if (1) it has ‘a final and irreparable effect on the rights of the parties’, being ‘a final disposition of a claimed right’; (2) it is ‘too important to be denied review’; and (3) the claimed right ‘is not an ingredient of the cause of action and does not require consideration with it.’ ” 91 U.S.App.D.C. at page 301, 202 F.2d at page 16.

In this case, as in Cefaratti, without the suppressed evidence the prosecution cannot succeed. Yet the two cases differ in at least one critical respect. In Cefaratti, the evidence was obtained by search and seizure. Rule 41(e), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C., provides that when evidence so obtained is suppressed it “shall not be admissible * * * at any hearing or trial.” In the present case, the evidence was not obtained by search and seizure and Rule 41(e) is irrelevant. The District Court may decide to admit, at the trial, the evidence it has suppressed before trial. Its order of suppression therefore has not “ ‘a final and irreparable effect on the rights of the parties.’ ” It is not “ ‘a final disposition of a claimed right.’ ” It is an “interlocutory order” within the meaning of D.C.Code 1951, § 17-102.

We imply no opinion on the question whether this appeal would lie if the indictment had been dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.