alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 404.251 Subsequent entitlement to benefits less than 12 months after entitlement to disability benefits ended. ( a ) *Disability before 1979; second entitlement after 1978.* In this situation, we compute your second-entitlement primary insurance amount by selecting the highest of the following: ( 1 ) The primary insurance amount to which you were entitled when you last received a benefit, increased by any automatic cost-of-living or *ad hoc* increases in primary insurance amounts that took effect since then;
( 2 ) The primary insurance amount resulting from a recomputation of your primary insurance amount, if one is possible; or
( 3 ) The primary insurance amount computed for you as of the time of your second entitlement under any method for which you are qualified at that time, including the average-indexed-monthly-earnings method if the previous period of disability is disregarded.
( b ) *Disability and second entitlement after 1978.* In this situation, we compute your second-entitlement primary insurance amount by selecting the highest of the following: ( 1 ) The primary insurance amount to which you were entitled when you last received a benefit, increased by any automatic cost-of-living or *ad hoc* increases in primary insurance amount that took effect since then;
( 2 ) The primary insurance amount resulting from a recomputation of your primary insurance amount, if one is possible (this recomputation may be under the average-indexed-monthly-earnings method only); or
( 3 ) The primary insurance amount computed for you as of the time of your second entitlement under any method (including an old-start method) for which you are qualified at that time.
( c ) *Disability before 1986; second entitlement after 1985.* When applying the rule in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, we must consider your receipt of a monthly pension based on noncovered employment. (See § 404.213). However, we will disregard your monthly pension if you were previously entitled to disability benefits before 1986 and in any of the 12 months before your second entitlement.
[47 FR 30734, July 15, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 47918, Dec. 17, 1987]
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

 122.85

 123.11

 123.06

 122.93

 123.41

 124.45

 124.11

 124.35

 123.96

 124.30

 124.40

 124.04

 123.81

 123.57

 123.40

 123.51

 123.47

 123.44

 123.68

 123.79

 123.68

 123.67

 122.71

 123.99

 123.68

 123.56

 123.66

 124.23

 124.09

 123.38

 123.23

 7,724

 7,843

 7,819

 7,760

 7,984

 8,486

 8,316

 8,436

 8,242

 8,411

 8,461

 8,281

 8,172

 8,059

 7,979

 8,031

 8,012

 7,998

 8,111

 8,162

 8,111

 8,106

 7,661

 8,256

 8,111

 8,054

 8,101

 8,376

 8,306

 7,970

 7,899

STORAGE

+32

+119

-24

-59

+224

+502

-170

+120

-194

+169

+50

-180

-109

-113

-80

+52

-19

-14

+113

+51

-51

-5

-445

+595

-145

-57

+47

+275

-70

-336

-71

CHANGE

1,525

1,576

2,052

2,046

2,140

2,262

1,929

3,935

3,899

4,091

4,000

3,878

3,963

3,565

3,553

3,146

2,993

2,992

3,129

3,104

3,012

3,034

2,766

3,266

2,930

2,598

2,536

2,659

2,485

2,786

2,977

INFLOW

 1,414

 1,423

 1,979

 1,993

 1,952

 1,934

 1,940

 3,794

 3,912

 3,919

 3,885

 3,879

 3,925

 3,527

 3,498

 3,025

 2,908

 2,902

 2,972

 2,978

 2,940

 2,942

 2,920

 2,906

 2,923

 2,534

 2,413

 2,416

 2,423

 2,852

 2,908

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

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 58

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 3

 0

 0

 1

 0

 1

 4

 2

 3

 5

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2002 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 25, 2002

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +207 90,827 87,936 0 1,858 20

ACRE-FEET +207 180,155 174,421 0 3,685 40

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 174,421

SPILL 0

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,805

 3,685

 7,692

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 35

 33

 25

 23

 15

 15

 15

 21

 25

 27

 30

 30

 33

 35

 35

 35

 35

 37

 40

 40

 37

 32

 10

 0

 19

 33

 38

 40

 37

 40

 40

 910

 1,805

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 179,911

Table 12
### Part 1—Customs Duties
### §1451. Assignment of Government employees to requesting countries; governing regulations

The Director of the United States Information Agency is authorized, when the government of another country is desirous of obtaining the services of a person having special scientific or other technical or professional qualifications, from time to time to assign or authorize the assignment for service, to or in cooperation with such government, any person in the employ or service of the Government of the United States who has such qualifications, with the approval of the Government agency in which such person is employed or serving. No person shall be assigned for service to or in cooperation with the government of any country unless (1) the Director finds that such assignment is necessary in the national interest of the United States, or (2) such government agrees to reimburse the United States in an amount equal to the compensation, travel expenses, and allowances payable to such person during the period of such assignment in accordance with the provisions of section 1452 of this title, or (3) such government shall have made an advance of funds, property, or services as provided in section 1479 of this title. Nothing in this chapter, however, shall authorize the assignment of such personnel for service relating to the organization, training, operation, development, or combat equipment of the armed forces of a foreign government.

(Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 36, title III, §301, 62 Stat. 7; Pub. L. 97–241, title III, §304(a)(1)(A), (2)(A), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 292.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–241 substituted "person in the employ" for "citizen of the United States in the employ", "Director of the United States Information Agency" for "Secretary", and "Director finds" for "Secretary finds".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

United States Information Agency (other than Broadcasting Board of Governors and International Broadcasting Bureau) abolished and functions transferred to Secretary of State, see sections 6531 and 6532 of this title.

#### References to Act May 25, 1938

Act Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 36, title X, §1004(c), 62 Stat. 14, provided that: "Any reference in the Foreign Service Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 999) [section 801 et seq. of this title], or in any other law, to provisions of such Act of May 25, 1938, as amended [section 118e of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees], shall be construed to be applicable to the appropriate provisions of titles III and IX of this Act [sections 1451 to 1453, 1478, and 1479 of this title]."

#### Effectiveness of Executive Orders and Regulations Under Act May 25, 1938, Ch. 277, 52 Stat. 442

Act Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 36, title X, §1004(b), 62 Stat. 14, provided that: "Existing Executive orders and regulations pertaining to the administration of such Act of May 25, 1938, as amended [former section 118e of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees], shall remain in effect until superseded by regulations prescribed under the provisions of this Act [this chapter]."
#### Joseph E. Downer, Respondent, v. Hattie Haffner, Appellant.

Judgment and order of the County Court of Queens county unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER III—EXCEPTION RELATING TO IMPORTATION OF GOODS
(No. 74-CC-162

#### Harold L. Wells, d/b/a Metropolis Block Co., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 2, 1974.*

Louis G. Horman, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
# C_2012156EN.01001201.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/12

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

2012/C 156/07

Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

1

2

Page 99

Page 99

2309   Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding

2309

Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding

The penultimate paragraph is replaced by the following text:

‘Products with a starch content lower than 0,5 % should not be considered as containing starch. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) shall be used for the determination of glucose (Commission Regulation (EC) No 904/2008 (OJ L 249, 18.9.2008, p. 9)).’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.

2

---
### §679. Application of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

#### (a) Authorities under food, drug, and cosmetic provisions unaffected

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, including section 1002(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 392(a)), the provisions of this chapter shall not derogate from any authority conferred by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] prior to December 15, 1967.

#### (b) Enforcement proceedings; detainer authority of representatives of Secretary of Health and Human Services

The detainer authority conferred by section 672 of this title shall apply to any authorized representative of the Secretary of Health and Human Services for purposes of the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] with respect to any carcass, part thereof, meat, or meat food product of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or equines that is outside any premises at which inspection is being maintained under this chapter, and for such purposes the first reference to the Secretary in section 672 of this title shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2907, title IV, §409, as added Pub. L. 90–201, §16, Dec. 15, 1967, 81 Stat. 600; amended Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695; Pub. L. 111–31, div. A, title I, §103(o), June 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1838.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, which is classified generally to chapter 9 (§301 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 301 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2009—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–31 substituted "section 1002(b)" for "section 902(b)".

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" in subsec. (b) pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis GARCIA-PEREZ, also known as Luis Garcia-Contreras, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11095.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 13, 2006.

US Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Garcia-Perez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3931 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 620 Central Avenue Suite 1A in Hot Springs 

National Park, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Chief Petty Officer 

Adam Brown United States Post Office’’. 

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


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3931 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. CHIEF PETTY OFFICER ADAM BROWN UNITED 

2 STATES POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 620 Central Avenue Suite 1A 

5 in Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas, shall be known 

6 and designated as the ‘‘Chief Petty Officer Adam Brown 

7 United States Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chief Petty Officer 

12 Adam Brown United States Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
#### § 226.34 Divorced spouse regular annuity rate.

The regular annuity rate of a divorced spouse is equal to his or her tier I amount. The divorced spouse is not entitled to a tier II benefit.
#### § 404.2060 Transfer of accumulated benefit payments.

A representative payee who has conserved or invested benefit payments shall transfer these funds and the interest earned from the invested funds to either a successor payee, to the beneficiary, or to us, as we will specify. If the funds and the earned interest are returned to us, we will recertify them to a successor representative payee or to the beneficiary.

[47 FR 30472, July 14, 1982; 47 FR 34781, Aug. 11, 1982, as amended at 75 FR 7552, Feb. 22, 2010]
#### In the Matter of the Will of Jane B. Lissberger, Deceased. Edmund Lissberger, Appellant; President and Directors of Manhattan Company, as Trustee, Respondent.

Decree, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent payable out of the fund. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [189 Mise. 277.] [See *post,*p. 964.]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLIE LEON WOODARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-95-16; CA-00-111-V)

Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noell Peter Tin, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Douglas

Scott Broyles, Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Leon Woodard seeks to appeal the district court’s

judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Woodard has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
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

 5,594

 4,169

 2,989

 3,338

 3,054

 1,546

 1,189

 1,147

 1,294

 3,541

 4,065

 6,005

 4,081

 2,285

 2,260

 1,631

 1,189

 905

 715

 569

 381

 306

 285

 273

 271

 335

 391

 480

 438

 386

 764

 612

 599

 556

 432

 360

 357

 363

 351

 410

 477

 606

 531

 464

 402

 379

 323

 301

 295

 278

 263

 255

 252

 253

 252

 255

 259

 268

 275

 276

 1,725

 1,472

 1,277

 1,311

 1,190

 697

 590

 600

 554

 1,237

 1,402

 1,935

 1,194

 923

 749

 639

 507

 430

 405

 376

 311

 279

 263

 257

 260

 270

 290

 309

 306

 293

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 6, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 408.1215 How do you establish eligibility for Federally administered State recognition payments? ( a ) *Applications.* When you file an application for SVB under subpart C of this part, you are deemed to have filed an application for any Federally administered State recognition payments for which you may be eligible unless you waive your right to such payments as provided for in § 408.1230. However, you will be required to give us a supplemental statement if additional information is necessary to establish your eligibility or to determine the correct amount of your State recognition payment.
( b ) *Evidence requirements.* The evidence requirements and developmental procedures of this part also apply with respect to Federally administered State recognition payments.
( c ) *Determination.* Where not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart, we determine your eligibility for and the amount of your State recognition payment using the rules in subparts A through K of this part.
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

 23,298

 24,097

 24,776

 25,384

 23,585

 22,517

 22,054

 23,574

 24,819

 25,519

 24,846

 24,420

 26,136

 26,308

 26,302

 26,813

 24,808

 23,545

 22,730

 23,758

 25,208

 25,103

 24,859

 24,457

 25,765

 26,055

 26,696

 27,629

 28,957

 26,007

 11,828

 11,955

 10,945

 12,229

 12,805

 13,305

 12,728

 14,298

 16,141

 15,175

 13,984

 13,747

 13,187

 13,960

 13,537

 13,293

 13,321

 13,317

 13,769

 14,304

 16,057

 15,782

 15,468

 14,833

 14,350

 14,086

 14,029

 14,265

 15,177

 15,420

 17,884

 18,413

 19,033

 20,110

 19,217

 18,605

 17,931

 18,978

 19,438

 20,259

 19,793

 19,165

 20,045

 20,382

 20,213

 20,166

 19,696

 19,267

 18,985

 19,337

 20,041

 20,100

 19,896

 19,538

 20,058

 20,318

 20,342

 21,107

 22,816

 21,208

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

NOVEMBER 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 11, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
---



April 24, 2014

Dejour Energy Inc. 598-999 Canada Place Vancouver,
BCV6C 3E1

Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and
reports evaluating a portion of Dejour

Energy Inc.s petroleum and natural gas reserves as of December
31, 2013, and the information derived from our reports, as described or
incorporated by reference in: (i) Dejour Energy Inc.s Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, (ii) Dejour Energy Inc.s
Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-183587), and (iii) Dejour
Energy Inc.s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Files No. 333-179540 and
333-156772), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sincerely,

GUSTAVSON ASSOCIATES, LLC

Dated: April 24, 2014 Boulder, Colorado USA





5757 Central Ave.     Suite
  D     Boulder, Co. 80301
  USA      1-303-443-2209     
  FAX 1-303-443-3156      http:/ / www.gustavson.com

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1266

DEAN STEPPELLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN DOE CAPTAIN, FCI Butner 2; JOHN DOE WARDEN, FCI BUTNER, 

Complex Warden; HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR; LT. SHAW, FCI 1; SAI 

MOORE; MS. DANIELS, Health Administrator’s Assistant; JOHN DOE, White 

Male; JOHN DOE, Warden FCI 2; JOHN DOE, Warden FCI 1; JOHN DOE, Captain 

FCI 1,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03238-FL)

Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dean Steppello, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dean Steppello seeks to appeal the district court’s order noting deficiencies in his 

complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C §§ 1346(b)(1), 

2671-2680, and directing him to file an amended complaint. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Steppello seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Steppello’s requests for the appointment of counsel 

and to transfer his case. 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.

DISMISSED
### §9577. Vacancies

Any member appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board occurring before the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term. A vacancy in an office, board, committee, or center of the Institute shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. This section does not apply to employees appointed under section 9578 of this title.

(Pub. L. 107–279, title I, §187, Nov. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 1973.)