alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Julius Schwartz, Respondent, v. Hooker Electro Chemical Company, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
### §77b. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–509, pt. I, §5, July 19, 1966, 80 Stat. 310

Section, act Aug. 12, 1946, ch. 955, §3, 60 Stat. 998, directed Secretary of Smithsonian Institution to investigate and survey suitable lands and buildings for selection as a site for national air museum and to make recommendations to Congress.

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

#### Construction Plans; Location; Design; Supervision of Drawings and Specifications; Construction; Authorization and Transfer of Appropriations

Pub. L. 85–935, Sept. 6, 1958, 72 Stat. 1794, as amended by Pub. L. 89–509, §§12, 13, July 19, 1966, 80 Stat. 311, 312, authorized and directed Regents of Smithsonian Institution to prepare plans and to construct a building for a National Air and Space Museum at a certain site with exact location to be approved by National Capital Planning Commission and design to be approved by Commission of Fine Arts and with supervision of work to be by Administrator of General Services Administration and also appropriated such sums as were necessary to carry out the work.
### §2a. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 647

Section, act May 26, 1930, ch. 330, 46 Stat. 384, provided for appointment of an Assistant Commissioner of Education.
#### § 1002.22 Who has the burden of proving discrimination or retaliation in violation of USERRA?

The individual has the burden of proving that a status or activity protected by USERRA was one of the reasons that the employer took action against him or her, in order to establish that the action was discrimination or retaliation in violation of USERRA. If the individual succeeds in proving that the status or activity protected by USERRA was one of the reasons the employer took action against him or her, the employer has the burden to prove the affirmative defense that it would have taken the action anyway.
§ 216.71 Who is eligible for a child's annuity. An individual is eligible for a child's annuity if the individual: ( a ) Is a child of an employee who has completed 10 years of railroad service and had a current connection with the railroad industry when he or she died;
( b ) Is not married at the time the application is filed;
( c ) Is dependent upon the employee as defined in part 222 of this chapter; and
( d ) Meets one of the following at the time the application is filed: ( 1 ) Is under age 18; or
( 2 ) Is age 18 or older and either: ( i ) Is disabled as defined in part 220 of this chapter before attaining age 22 (the disability must continue through the time of application for benefits);
( ii ) Is under age 19 and is a full-time student as defined in § 216.74 of this part; or
( iii ) Becomes age 19 in a month in which he or she is a full-time student and has not completed the requirement for, or received a diploma or certificate from, a secondary school.
### §5040. Support

The Attorney General may contract with any public or private agency or individual and such community-based facilities as halfway houses and foster homes for the observation and study and the custody and care of juveniles in his custody. For these purposes, the Attorney General may promulgate such regulations as are necessary and may use the appropriation for "support of United States prisoners" or such other appropriations as he may designate.

(Added Pub. L. 93–415, title V, §510, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1138.)

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

#### Repeals

Pub. L. 93–415, title V, §510, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1138, cited as a credit to this section, was repealed by Pub. L. 115–385, title III, §307, Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5152.
### SUBCHAPTER II—PREPARING, TRAINING, AND RECRUITING HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, OR OTHER SCHOOL LEADERS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, comprising this subchapter, was originally enacted as part of Pub. L. 89–10, Apr. 11, 1965, 79 Stat. 27, and subsequently revised, restated, and amended by other public laws. Title II as extensively revised by Pub. L. 107–110, title II, §201, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1620, related to preparing, training, and recruiting high quality teachers and principals, and was set out in this subchapter as having been added by Pub. L. 107–110. Except as provided below, title II of the Act was repealed by Pub. L. 114–95, title II, §2002, Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1913.

Subpart 5 of part C of prior title II of the Act, comprising subpart 5 (§6731 et seq.) of prior part C of this subchapter, was redesignated subpart 3 (§8551 et seq.) of part F of title VIII of the Act and transferred to subpart 3 (§7941 et seq.) of part F of subchapter VIII of this chapter by Pub. L. 114–95, title II, §2001(a)(3)(A)–(C), title VIII, §8001(a), (b)(1), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1913, 2088, 2089.

Subpart 4 of part D of prior title II of the Act, comprising subpart 4 (§6777) of prior part D of this subchapter, was redesignated subpart 2 (§4121) of part A of title IV of the Act and transferred to subpart 2 (§7131) of part A of subchapter IV of this chapter by Pub. L. 114–95, title II, §2001(a)(4)(A)–(C), title IV, §4001(a)(5)(C), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1913, 1966.
Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT TO THE 2006 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN
OF
LANDMARK APARTMENT TRUST, INC.
(Adopted on June 25, 2015)


This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the 2006 Incentive Award Plan of Landmark Apartment Trust, Inc. (formerly known as Landmark Apartment Trust of America, Inc.), as amended and restated effective May 13, 2014 (the “Plan”), is adopted as of this 25th day of June, 2015.  All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Plan.
WHEREAS, the Administrator and the Board have adopted and approved this Amendment to the Plan for the sole purpose of extending the duration of the Plan to June 30, 2035.
1.Amendment.    The last sentence of Section 11.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted, in its entirety, and replaced with the following:
“No Awards may be granted or awarded during any period of suspension or after termination of the Plan, and in no event may any Award be granted under the Plan after June 30, 2035.”
    
2.Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan remain in full force and effect.





1
A-AA+Skip to content

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

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Archives /
              - 2012 Compendium Statistics /
              - 2012 Population and Prevalence /
              - 2012 1.9 Civilians Ages 18-64 Living in the Community for the U.S.-Vision Disability

## Table 1.9: Civilians Ages 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community for the United States and States—Vision Disability: 2011

----

----

 

----

#### 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.
<PAGE>





                              EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<S>                                         <C>                                <C>
                                            State or other
                                            Jurisdiction                       Name under which
Name                                        of Incorporation                   Business is done
--------------------------                  ---------------------              -----------------

JBAK Canton Realty, Inc.                    Massachusetts                      JBAK Canton Realty, Inc.

JBI, Inc.                                   Massachusetts                      JBI, Inc.
                                                                               J. Baker, Inc.
                                                                               Parade of Shoes
                                                                               Shoe Corporation of America


JBI Holding Company, Inc.*                  Delaware                           JBI Holding Company, Inc.


Morse Shoe, Inc.*                           Delaware                           Morse Shoe, Inc.


Spencer Companies, Inc.                     Massachusetts                      Spencer Companies, Inc.


The Casual Male, Inc.                       Massachusetts                      Casual Male Big & Tall

TCM Holding Company, Inc.**                 Delaware                           TCM Holding Company, Inc.

TCMB&T, Inc.                                Massachusetts                      Casual Male Big & Tall

WGS Corp.                                   Massachusetts                      Work 'n Gear

</TABLE>



*  Subsidiaries of JBI, Inc.
** Subsidiary of The Casual Male, Inc.
#### In re: Michael Allen KOKOSKI, Petitioner.

No. 06-6741.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2006.

Decided: June 21, 2006.

Michael Allen Kokoski, Petitioner Pro Se.

*245Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen Kokoski petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order for his immediate release from federal prison. We conclude Kokoski is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

Kokoski’s request, if considered, calls upon this court to review the merits of the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re United Steelworkers,*595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979).*

The relief sought by Kokoski is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*

*

 In any event, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not an appealable final order. Kokoski may seek to appeal a district court’s order that adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:03:27-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3714 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3714

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To amend the Small Business Act to allow the Small Business 
   Administration to establish size standards for small agricultural 
enterprises using the same process for establishing size standards for 
            small business concerns, 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 ``Small Agriculture Producer Size 
Standards Improvements Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES.

    Paragraph (1) of section 18(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
647(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``businesses'' and inserting ``small 
business concerns''.

SEC. 3. EQUAL TREATMENT OF SMALL FARMS.

    Paragraph (1) of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``operation: Provided,'' and all that 
follows through the period at the end and inserting ``operation.''.

SEC. 4. UPDATED SIZE STANDARDS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall, by rule, establish size standards in accordance 
with section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for 
agricultural enterprises (as such term is defined in section 18(b)(1) 
of such Act).
    (b) Review.--Size standards established under subsection (a) are 
subject to the rolling review procedures established under section 
1344(a) of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 632 note).

            Passed the House of Representatives April 19, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3714

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To amend the Small Business Act to allow the Small Business 
   Administration to establish size standards for small agricultural 
enterprises using the same process for establishing size standards for 
            small business concerns, and for other purposes.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2016

No. 04-15-00794-CV

IN RE NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On December 15, 2015, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus with an emergency 

motion for temporary relief. The court has considered relator’s petition, the response filed on 

behalf of the real party in interest and relator’s reply and is of the opinion that relator is not 

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

The temporary emergency relief previously granted by this court on December 16, 2015, 

is LIFTED.

It is so ORDERED on April 27, 2016.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CVF-001419 D1, styled A. Maldonado Co., Inc. d/b/a Maldonado 

Furniture and Agustin Maldonado Jr., Trustee of the Agustin Maldonado Jr. Revocable Trust v. Northfield 

Insurance Company and Executive Insurance Professionals, PLLC, pending in the 49th Judicial District Court,

Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Jose A. Lopez presiding.
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 HIGH

 18,273

 21,037

 21,354

 21,427

 21,658

 21,967

 19,722

 20,122

 21,066

 19,323

 18,085

 16,842

 16,057

 15,696

 15,222

 17,889

 19,330

 19,411

 20,987

 18,348

 15,491

 14,571

 11,280

 9,882

 6,954

 5,200

 5,140

 6,183

 4,447

 4,991

 5,852

 6,658

 6,712

 8,121

 6,422

 6,197

 7,036

 8,325

 8,855

 8,138

 7,252

 6,246

 5,309

 5,332

 5,789

 5,634

 7,363

 5,510

 4,722

 4,149

 2,676

 2,461

 1,630

 932

 688

 530

 9,746

 12,034

 12,980

 13,763

 14,032

 14,689

 12,969

 12,882

 13,868

 14,077

 13,744

 11,841

 10,937

 10,175

 9,340

 10,446

 11,899

 12,109

 13,519

 12,506

 10,461

 9,519

 7,153

 5,917

 4,334

 2,902

 2,169

 1,815

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 13, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
Exhibit 10.4
 TERMINATION AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company Parent Consultant
 Non-Compete Agreement
  Termination.
 Release of Claims.
 Amendment.
 Successors and Assigns.
 Governing Law.
 Execution of Counterparts.
 [signature page follows]




---



##### 



ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P.By:
    /s/ John W. McReynoldsName:
    John W. McReynoldsTitle:
    President and Chief Financial OfficerSOUTHERN UNION COMPANYBy:
    /s/ George LindemannName:
    George LindemannTitle:
    Chairman and CEOEric D. Herschmann/s/ Eric D. Herschmann [Signature page to the Termination Agreement (Non-Compete)]
###### Editorial Note on Part 71

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 71 appear by T.D. ATF-414, 64 FR 49084, Sept. 10, 1999and T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42734, 42735, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 71.74 General.

All motions shall be made and addressed to the officer before whom the proceeding is pending, and copies of all motion papers shall be served upon the other party or parties. Such officer may dispose of any motion without oral argument, but he may, if he so desires, set it down for hearing and request argument. He may dispose of such motion prior to the hearing on the merits or he may postpone the disposition until the hearing on the merits. No appeal may be taken from any ruling on a motion until the whole record is certified for review. Examples of typical motions may be found in the Rules of Civil Procedure referred to in § 71.2.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41261

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWIN SIFREDO GALDAMEZ-FUNES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-443-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edwin Sifredo Galdamez-Funes (Galdamez) appeals the sentence of 77

months imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of being unlawfully

presentin the United States following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Galdamez argues that in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586

(2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), his sentence

should be vacated and remanded. He asserts that this court’s precedent

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 5, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41261

2

improperly restricted the district court’s ability to deviate from the Guidelines

absent extraordinary circumstances, a standard rejected in Gall. He also

challenges the imposition of a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2, asserting that the Guideline is flawed and not entitled to deference.

Although Galdamez generally argued that the guidelines range was

excessive for this offense and that he should receive a below guidelines sentence,

he did not raise the specific challenges to his sentence that he raises here, i.e.,

that the sentencing regime was unduly restrictive or that the 16-level

enhancement is flawed and not entitled to deference. Accordingly, we review

those arguments for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez,

530 F.3d 381, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Campos-Maldonado,

531 F. 3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Given our dispositions of similar challenges

in Rodriguez-Rodriguez and Campos-Maldonado, we conclude that Galdamez

has failed to demonstrate any reversible plain error. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

#### § 70.462 Shipments from the United States.

For regulations under 26 U.S.C. 7653, see 27 CFR part 28 relating to exportation of liquors; and 27 CFR part 44, relating to exportation of cigars, cigarettes, and cigarette papers and tubes.

(68A Stat. 908, as amended; (26 U.S.C. 7653))

[T.D. ATF-6, 38 FR 32445, Nov. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. ATF-249, 52 FR 5961, Feb. 27, 1987. Redesignated by T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47606, Nov. 14, 1990; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001; T.D. TTB-8, 69 FR 3830, Jan. 27, 2004; T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5482, Feb. 1, 2011]
###### 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.

#### § 478.27 Destructive device determination.

The Director shall determine in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4) whether a device is excluded from the definition of a destructive device. A person who desires to obtain a determination under that provision of law for any device which he believes is not likely to be used as a weapon shall submit a written request, in triplicate, for a ruling thereon to the Director. Each such request shall be executed under the penalties of perjury and contain a complete and accurate description of the device, the name and address of the manufacturer or importer thereof, the purpose of and use for which it is intended, and such photographs, diagrams, or drawings as may be necessary to enable the Director to make his determination. The Director may require the submission to him, of a sample of such device for examination and evaluation. If the submission of such device is impracticable, the person requesting the ruling shall so advise the Director and designate the place where the device will be available for examination and evaluation.