alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 478
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 478 appear by T.D. ATF-411, 64 FR 17291, Apr. 9, 1999, T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3750, Jan. 24, 2003, and ATF-11F, 73 FR 57240, Oct. 2, 2008.

§ 478.1 Scope of regulations. ( a ) *General.* The regulations contained in this part relate to commerce in firearms and ammunition and are promulgated to implement Title I, State Firearms Control Assistance (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44), of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1213) as amended by Pub. L. 99-308 (100 Stat. 449), Pub. L. 99-360 (100 Stat. 766), Pub. L. 99-408 (100 Stat. 920), Pub. L. 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536), Pub. L. 103-322 (108 Stat. 1796), Pub. L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009), and Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681).
( b ) *Procedural and substantive requirements.* This part contains the procedural and substantive requirements relative to: ( 1 ) The interstate or foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition;
( 2 ) The licensing of manufacturers and importers of firearms and ammunition, collectors of firearms, and dealers in firearms;
( 3 ) The conduct of business or activity by licensees;
( 4 ) The importation of firearms and ammunition;
( 5 ) The records and reports required of licensees;
( 6 ) Relief from disabilities under this part;
( 7 ) Exempt interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition; and
( 8 ) Restrictions on armor piercing ammunition.
[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10490, Mar. 31, 1988, as amended by T.D. ATF-354, 59 FR 7112, Feb. 14, 1994; T.D. ATF-363, 60 FR 17450, Apr. 6, 1995; T.D. ATF-401, 63 FR 35522, June 30, 1998; T.D. ATF-471, 67 FR 5425, Feb. 5, 2002]
### §9802. Definitions

#### (a) ESEA definitions

Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the terms used in this chapter have the meanings given the terms in section 7801 of this title.

#### (b) Other definitions

In this chapter:

#### (1) Critical foreign language

The term "critical foreign language" means a foreign language that the Secretary determines, in consultation with the heads of such Federal departments and agencies as the Secretary determines appropriate, is critical to the national security and economic competitiveness of the United States.

#### (2) Institution of higher education

The term "institution of higher education" has the meaning given the term in section 1001(a) of this title.

#### (3) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Education.

#### (4) Scientifically valid research

The term "scientifically valid research" includes applied research, basic research, and field-initiated research in which the rationale, design, and interpretation are soundly developed in accordance with accepted principles of scientific research.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title VI, §6001, formerly §6002, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 625; renumbered §6001, Pub. L. 111–358, title X, §1002(b)(1), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4048; Pub. L. 114–95, title IX, §9215(i)(1), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 2167.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 6001 of Pub. L. 110–69 was classified to section 9801 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 111–358.

#### Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–95 made amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 7801 of this title. Amendment was executed to this section, which is section 6001 of Pub. L. 110–69, notwithstanding directory language directing amendment of section 6002(a) of Pub. L. 110–69, to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the renumbering of section 6002 of Pub. L. 110–69 as this section. Pub. L. 110–69 does not contain a section 6002.

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

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–95 effective Dec. 10, 2015, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 114–95, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.
#### § 10.126 What does the decision contain?

The decision shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons. It is accompanied by information about the claimant's appeal rights, which may include the right to a hearing, a reconsideration, and/or a review by the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board. (See subpart G of this part.)
### §1451a. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–66, title XIII, §13811(b)(1), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 670

Section, act June 3, 1944, ch. 233, §2, 58 Stat. 270, provided that certain extra compensation of customs officers and employees assigned to performance of inspectional services in connection with traffic over highways, toll bridges, etc. on Sundays or holidays prior to June 3, 1944, was to be payable by the U.S. without reimbursement by the applicant for such services and that any reimbursement which had accrued and been collected since Jan. 6, 1941, was to be refunded.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to customs inspectional services provided on or after Jan. 1, 1994, see section 13811(c) of Pub. L. 103–66, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 267 of this title.
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

DAY HIGH

 234

 290

 304

 285

 290

 301

 321

 347

 367

 409

 392

 372

 502

 411

 412

 398

 390

 485

 553

 539

 525

 531

 550

 552

 562

 553

 559

 649

 737

 553

 215

 220

 217

 217

 218

 217

 216

 217

 222

 225

 227

 226

 233

 236

 235

 246

 246

 261

 230

 230

 231

 229

 227

 226

 227

 233

 237

 229

 242

 229

 223

 238

 236

 235

 239

 243

 248

 267

 275

 263

 266

 270

 302

 293

 294

 303

 302

 356

 356

 347

 331

 330

 337

 332

 335

 343

 347

 360

 435

 375

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 5, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Health /
              - 8.3 Health Behavior - Smoking among Persons Aged 18 and Over, by Disability Status

## Table 8.3: Health Behavior—Percent (%) Smoking among Persons Ages 18 and Over, by Disability Status: 2012

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
§ 1002.139 Are there any circumstances in which the pre-service employer is excused from its obligation to reemploy the employee following a period of uniformed service? What statutory defenses are available to the employer in an action or proceeding for reemployment benefits? ( a ) Even if the employee is otherwise eligible for reemployment benefits, the employer is not required to reemploy him or her if the employer establishes that its circumstances have so changed as to make reemployment impossible or unreasonable. For example, an employer may be excused from reemploying the employee where there has been an intervening reduction in force that would have included that employee. The employer may not, however, refuse to reemploy the employee on the basis that another employee was hired to fill the reemployment position during the employee's absence, even if reemployment might require the termination of that replacement employee;
( b ) Even if the employee is otherwise eligible for reemployment benefits, the employer is not required to reemploy him or her if it establishes that assisting the employee in becoming qualified for reemployment would impose an undue hardship, as defined in § 1002.5(n) and discussed in § 1002.198, on the employer; or,
( c ) Even if the employee is otherwise eligible for reemployment benefits, the employer is not required to reemploy him or her if it establishes that the employment position vacated by the employee in order to perform service in the uniformed services was for a brief, nonrecurrent period and there was no reasonable expectation that the employment would continue indefinitely or for a significant period.
( d ) The employer defenses included in this section are affirmative ones, and the employer carries the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any one or more of these defenses is applicable.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John MADDOX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-16274

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 19, 2006.

*794Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Maddox appeals the 84-month prison sentence the district court imposed following his plea of guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Maddox contends that the sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He suggests that a prison sentence within the Guidelines sentence range of 51 to 63 months, which he believes the court should have adopted, would be reasonable, especially in light of these facts: (1) although his possession of the firearm was illegal, he needed the gun to protect himself; (2) as the presentence investigation report indicates, he endured physical and emotional abuse as a child which resulted in his running away at age 15 — the age when his problems with drugs commenced.

In determining whether a sentence is unreasonable, we are mindful that “[a]fter the district court has accurately calculated the Guideline range, it may impose a more severe or more lenient sentence” than the sentence prescribed by that range. *United States v. Winingear,*422 F.3d 1241, 1244-1245 (11th Cir.2005) (internal quotations omitted). The district court is guided by the factors set forth in § 3553(a). *Id.*at 1246. These factors include the available sentences, applicable guideline range, nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense and needed medical care. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We conclude that the challenged sentence is not unreasonable. The sentence is within the applicable Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months imprisonment, is less than the maximum prescribed by statute, and. takes into consideration, among other things, Maddox’s criminal history and characteristics, and the need for the sentence to provide adequate deterrence and protect the public.

AFFIRMED.
§ 1002.171 How does the continuation of health plan benefits apply to a multiemployer plan that provides health plan coverage through a health benefits account system? ( a ) Some employees receive health plan benefits provided pursuant to a multiemployer plan that utilizes a health benefits account system in which an employee accumulates prospective health benefit eligibility, also commonly referred to as “dollar bank,” “credit bank,” and “hour bank” plans. In such cases, where an employee with a positive health benefits account balance elects to continue the coverage, the employee may further elect either option below: ( 1 ) The employee may expend his or her health account balance during an absence from employment due to service in the uniformed services in lieu of paying for the continuation of coverage as set out in § 1002.166. If an employee's health account balance becomes depleted during the applicable period provided for in § 1002.164(a), the employee must be permitted, at his or her option, to continue coverage pursuant to § 1002.166. Upon reemployment, the plan must provide for immediate reinstatement of the employee as required by § 1002.168, but may require the employee to pay the cost of the coverage until the employee earns the credits necessary to sustain continued coverage in the plan.
( 2 ) The employee may pay for continuation coverage as set out in § 1002.166, in order to maintain intact his or her account balance as of the beginning date of the absence from employment due to service in the uniformed services. This option permits the employee to resume usage of the account balance upon reemployment.
( b ) Employers or plan administrators providing such plans should counsel employees of their options set out in this subsection.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5584 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5584

   To require the Secretary of Transportation to modify regulations 
          concerning hours of service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2020

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of Transportation to modify regulations 
          concerning hours of service, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom from Regulating Edible 
Supplies and Horticulture Trucking Act'' or the ``FRESH Trucking Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF HOURS OF SERVICE REGULATIONS.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall amend part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, to establish that, with respect to a motor carrier or 
driver transporting any agricultural, horticultural, or floricultural 
commodity (including both fresh and processed products, as well as sod 
and other agricultural products sensitive to temperature and climate 
and at the risk of perishing in transit)--
            (1) loading and unloading of commercial motor vehicles 
        shall be excluded from on-duty time requirements;
            (2) there shall be no requirement of a 30-minute rest break 
        within the first 8 hours of the hours of service on-duty 
        requirements and such carrier or driver may take breaks at any 
        time during trip; and
            (3) such carrier or driver may complete a scheduled trip if 
        they are over the hours of service maximum on-duty drive 
        schedule and are within 150 miles of their scheduled delivery 
        point.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 44

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

#### § 44.147 General.

Every export warehouse proprietor shall make a report on Form 5220.4 of all tobacco products, cigarette papers and tubes, and any processed tobacco on hand, received, removed, transferred, and lost or destroyed. Such report shall be made at the times specified in this subpart and shall be made whether or not any operations or transactions occurred during the period covered by the report. A copy of each report shall be retained by the export warehouse proprietor at his warehouse for 3 years following the close of the calendar year covered in such reports, and made available for inspection by any appropriate TTB officer upon his request.

(72 Stat. 1422; 26 U.S.C. 5722)

[T.D. 6871, 31 FR 51, Jan. 4, 1966. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975; T.D. ATF-232, 51 FR 28088, Aug. 5, 1986; T.D. ATF-243, 51 FR 43194, Dec. 1, 1986; T.D. ATF-421, 64 FR 71925, Dec. 22, 1999; T.D. ATF-424, 64 FR 71933, Dec. 22, 1999; T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30802, May 8, 2002; T.D. TTB-78, 74 FR 29419, June 22, 2009]
#### § 771.98 Separation of functions.

Administrative law judges shall perform no functions inconsistent with their duties and responsibilities. The Director may assign administrative law judges duties not inconsistent with the performance of their functions as administrative law judges. Except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as required by law, no administrative law judge shall consult any person or party as to any fact in issue unless there has been notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. The functions of the administrative law judge shall be entirely separated from the general investigative functions of the agency. No officer, employee, or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in any proceeding shall, in that proceeding or a factually related proceeding, participate or advise in the administrative law judge's or Director's decision, or in the agency review on appeal, except as a witness or counsel in the proceedings. The administrative law judge may not informally obtain advice or opinions from the parties or their counsel, or from any officer or employee of the ATF, as to the facts or the weight or interpretation to be given to the evidence. The administrative law judge may, however, informally obtain advice on matters of law or procedure in a proceeding from officers or employees who were not engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in that proceeding or a factually related proceeding. The administrative law judge may, at any time, consult with and obtain instructions from the Director on questions of law and policy. Furthermore, it is not a violation of the separation of functions for the administrative law judge to participate in the questioning of witnesses, where the questioning is for clarification or to move the proceedings along, and where the questioning is not so extensive as to place the administrative law judge in the position of a prosecuting officer.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 00-40492 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
JAIME ASTUL VELASQUEZ-RIVERA,
Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-00-CR-34-1

_________________________________________________________________ December 4, 2000
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Astul Velasquez-Rivera appeals his conviction and

41-month sentence following his plea of guilty to illegal re-entry
into the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. Velasquez argues that the felony conviction that resulted

in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an

element of the offense that should have been charged in his

indictment . He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by2

Almendare z-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in the light

of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000). A pprendi did not

overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S.Ct. at 2361-62 &

n.15; see also United Stat es v. Dabeit , ___ F.3d ___, 2000 WL

1634264 at *4 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2000, No. 00-10065). Velasquez’s
argument is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235.

A F F I R M E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULE FOR YEARS ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2000
AND FEBRUARY 28, 1999 AND 1998 TOGETHER WITH AUDITOR'S REPORTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           3,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,507
<ALLOWANCES>                                       322
<INVENTORY>                                      3,429
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,115
<PP&E>                                           4,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,170
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,045
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,002
<SALES>                                         18,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,111
<CGS>                                            9,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   209
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       129
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,075
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,459
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>