alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 30.700 In general, what responsibilities do providers have with respect to enrolling with OWCP, seeking authorization to provide services, billing, and retaining medical records? ( a ) All providers must enroll with OWCP or its designated bill processing agent (hereinafter OWCP in this subpart) to have access to the automated authorization system and to submit medical bills to OWCP. To enroll, the provider must complete and submit a Form OWCP-1168 to the appropriate location noted on that form. By completing and submitting this form, providers certify that they satisfy all applicable Federal and state licensure and regulatory requirements that apply to their specific provider or supplier type. The provider must maintain documentary evidence indicating that it satisfies those requirements. The provider is also required to notify OWCP immediately if any information provided to OWCP in the enrollment process changes. Federal government medical officers, private physicians and hospitals are also required to keep records of all cases treated by them under EEOICPA so they can supply OWCP with a history of the claimed occupational illness or covered illness, a description of the nature and extent of the claimed occupational illness or covered illness, the results of any diagnostic studies performed and the nature of the treatment rendered. This requirement terminates after a provider has supplied OWCP with the above-noted information, and otherwise terminates ten years after the record was created.
( b ) Where a medical provider intends to bill for a procedure where prior authorization is required, authorization must be requested from OWCP.
( c ) After enrollment, a provider must submit all medical bills to OWCP through its bill processing portal and include the Provider Number/ID obtained through enrollment or other identifying number required by OWCP.
[84 FR 3053, Feb. 8, 2019]
§ 679.310 What is the Local Workforce Development Board? ( a ) The Local WDB is appointed by the chief elected official(s) in each local area in accordance with State criteria established under WIOA sec. 107(b), and is certified by the Governor every 2 years, in accordance with WIOA sec. 107(c)(2).
( b ) In partnership with the chief elected official(s), the Local WDB sets policy for the portion of the statewide workforce development system within the local area and consistent with State policies.
( c ) The Local WDB and the chief elected official(s) may enter into an agreement that describes the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties.
( d ) The Local WDB, in partnership with the chief elected official(s), develops the local plan and performs the functions described in WIOA sec. 107(d) and § 679.370.
( e ) If a local area includes more than one unit of general local government in accordance with WIOA sec. 107(c)(1)(B), the chief elected officials of such units may execute an agreement to describe their responsibilities for carrying out the roles and responsibilities. If the chief elected officials are unable to reach agreement after a reasonable effort, the Governor may appoint the members of the Local WDB from individuals nominated or recommended as specified in WIOA sec. 107(b).
( f ) If the State Plan indicates that the State will be treated as a local area under WIOA, the State WDB must carry out the roles of the Local WDB in accordance with WIOA sec. 107, except that the State is not required to meet and report on a set of local performance accountability measures.
( g ) The CEO must establish by-laws, consistent with State policy for Local WDB membership, that at a minimum address: ( 1 ) The nomination process used by the CEO to select the Local WDB chair and members;
( 2 ) The term limitations and how the term appointments will be staggered to ensure only a portion of membership expire in a given year;
( 3 ) The process to notify the CEO of a WDB member vacancy to ensure a prompt nominee;
( 4 ) The proxy and alternative designee process that will be used when a WDB member is unable to attend a meeting and assigns a designee as per the requirements at § 679.110(d)(4);
( 5 ) The use of technology, such as phone and Web-based meetings, that will be used to promote WDB member participation;
( 6 ) The process to ensure WDB members actively participate in convening the workforce development system's stakeholders, brokering relationships with a diverse range of employers, and leveraging support for workforce development activities; and
( 7 ) A description of any other conditions governing appointment or membership on the Local WDB as deemed appropriate by the CEO.
#### Mary Edwards, as Administratrix, etc., of Nathan Edwards, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Elverton R. Chapman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Nassau on the 23d day of October, 1913, in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 3d day of December, 1913, denying his motion for a new trial.

*859Per Curiam:

The judgment should be reversed. It was erroneous to permit the jury to infer wrongful possession by the defendant from his allegation of title to the goods in the answer. The finding of conversion is against the weight of the evidence. Nothing came of the arrangement considered by Edwards and M. D. Chapman. Edwards left the hotel and goods in the possession of Coffey, who forthwith conducted the hotel under lease from the Elverton Hotel Company. Privity between defendant and Coffey is not sufficiently shown. The evidence of the value of the goods is given by one who knew nothing of their quality or condition from personal observation or from evidence given on the trial and used hypothetically. But the grounds of objection do not cover such disqualification. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgmentand order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
### §462. Compelling foreign vessels to depart

It shall be lawful for the President to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, as he may deem necessary to compel any foreign vessel to depart from the United States or any of its possessions in all cases in which, by the law of nations or the treaties of the United States, it ought not to remain, and to detain or prevent any foreign vessel from so departing in all cases in which, by the law of nations or the treaties of the United States, it is not entitled to depart.

(Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §15, 35 Stat. 1091; June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title V, §10, 40 Stat. 223.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 27 of title 18 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §1, 62 Stat. 683.

Act June 15, 1917, inserted provisions relating to detention of vessels.

#### Prior Provisions

Section was derived from R.S. §5288 (act Apr. 20, 1818, ch. 88, §9, 3 Stat. 449), which was repealed by act Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §341, 35 Stat. 1153.
|   | (i) | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended      December 31, 2007 (the “Form      10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C.      78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Dated:      March 17, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------------|

|                            |
|---------------------------------|
| /S/      D. FRANK      HARRISON |
| D.      Frank Harrison          |
| Chief      Executive Officer    |

----
#### § 618.700 Scope.

This subpart explains the requirements for eligibility, amounts, and duration of Basic TRA, Additional TRA, and Completion TRA, all of which are income support in the form of cash payments for an AAW.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yexon Abel MONTOYA-ESPINAL, also known as Jose Abel Guajardo-Espinal, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41161

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 13, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Yexon Abel Montoya-Espinal 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.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 445 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require that scientific studies 

used in a rule making be published, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2015 

Mr. BUCSHON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require that scientific studies used in a rule making be published, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in Rule 

5 Making When Using Scientific Testing Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRED PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 553(b) of title 5, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 445 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(4) any scientific research of which the agency 

5 is aware and which is relevant to the rule making.’’. 

6 (b) DEFINITION.—Section 551 of title 5, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (13), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at 

10 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(15) ‘scientific study’ means a study that— 

13 ‘‘(A) applies rigorous, systematic, and ob14 jective methodology to obtain reliable and valid 

15 knowledge relevant to the subject matter in16 volved; 

17 ‘‘(B) presents findings and makes claims 

18 that are appropriate to, and supported by, the 

19 methods that have been employed; and 

20 ‘‘(C) includes, appropriate to the research 

21 being conducted— 

22 ‘‘(i) use of systematic, empirical meth23 ods that draw on observation or experi24 ment; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 445 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) use of data analyses that are 

2 adequate to support the general findings; 

3 ‘‘(iii) reliance on measurements or ob4 servational methods that provide reliable 

5 and generalizable findings; 

6 ‘‘(iv) strong claims of causal relation7 ships, only with research designs that 

8 eliminate plausible competing explanations 

9 for observed results, such as, but not lim10 ited to, random-assignment experiments; 

11 ‘‘(v) presentation of studies and meth12 ods in sufficient detail and clarity to allow 

13 for replication or, at a minimum, to offer 

14 the opportunity to build systematically on 

15 the findings of the research; 

16 ‘‘(vi) acceptance by a peer-reviewed 

17 journal or critique by a panel of inde18 pendent experts through a comparably rig19 orous, objective, and scientific review; and 

20 ‘‘(vii) consistency of findings across 

21 multiple studies or sites to support the 

22 generality of results and conclusions.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §4005. Implementation of selection board recommendations

(a) Recommendations for promotion made by selection boards shall be submitted to the Secretary in rank order by salary class or in rank order by specialization within a salary class. The Secretary shall make promotions and, with respect to career appointments into or within the Senior Foreign Service, shall make recommendations to the President for promotions, in accordance with the rankings of the selection boards.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), in special circumstances set forth by regulation, the Secretary may remove the name of an individual from the rank order list submitted by a selection board or delay the promotion of an individual named in such a list.

(Pub. L. 96–465, title I, §605, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2096.)
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

 130.62

 130.58

 130.60

 130.51

 130.50

 130.77

 130.62

 130.45

 130.25

 129.96

 129.73

 129.60

 129.55

 129.17

 130.47

 130.07

 128.94

 129.37

 129.72

 128.49

 128.69

 130.12

 130.40

 129.44

 128.61

 129.12

 129.85

 130.03

 129.71

 129.63

 130.33

 646

 642

 644

 634

 633

 664

 646

 628

 607

 577

 554

 541

 536

 500

 630

 588

 480

 519

 553

 440

 457

 593

 623

 526

 451

 496

 565

 584

 552

 544

 615

STORAGE

-20

-4

+2

-10

-1

+31

-18

-18

-21

-30

-23

-13

-5

-36

+130

-42

-108

+39

+34

-113

+17

+136

+30

-97

-75

+45

+69

+19

-32

-8

+71

CHANGE

346

388

381

318

295

288

254

263

282

281

292

295

281

280

163

7

37

48

46

30

186

205

43

35

43

62

76

53

58

104

115

INFLOW

 25

 25

 26

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 27

 25

 27

 30

 33

 33

 33

 33

 33

 33

 33

PUTAH

 330

 364

 353

 295

 268

 244

 235

 243

 264

 267

 275

 273

 255

 269

 69

 0

 63

 0

 0

 59

 150

 110

 0

 53

 48

 6

 8

 10

 41

 75

 46

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

C.F.S.

 .27

 .20

 .14

 .10

 .13

 .12

 .11

 .15

 .18

 .39

 .31

 .26

 .25

 .24

 .13

 .11

 .17

 .15

 .18

 .10

 .09

 .25

 .25

 .17

 .12

 .14

 .13

 .12

 .09

 .11

 .05

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .16

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .41

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OCTOBER 2008 RUN DATE: 11/03/2008

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -51 5,555 4,673 892 14 5.21 .67

ACRE-FEET -51 11,018 9,269 1,769 28

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 1,769

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 9,269

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .67

JULY 1, 2008 .67

 666

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6099** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MICHAEL SCOTT MCRAE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:97

- cr - 00094

- H

- 6 )

Submitted : March 30, 2010 Decided: April 12 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam o pinion

.
Michael Scott McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Scott McRae appeals th e district court ’ s order finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. McRae , No. 5:97

- cr 00094

- H

- 6 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 2009) . We deny McRae’ s motion to hold his appeal in abeyance and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Chris H. Starke et al., appellees, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, appellant.

Filed December 5, 1908.

No. 15,398.

Railroads: Negligence: Evidence. In an action to recover damages for the killing of an animal by a train of cars upon a railroad track, the mere fact of killing is not sufficient to establish negligence on the part of those in charge of the train. *Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Wendt,*12 Neb. 76.

Appeal from the district court for Webster county: Ed L. Adams, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*J. E. Kelby, Fred M. Deweese, F. E. Bishop, Halleók F. Rose*and *L. H. Blackledge,*for appellant.

*A. H. Keeney*and *J. O. Baylor, contra.*

Fawcett, C.

The petition alleges that on February 9, 1906, defendant negligently and carelessly ran over and killed a horse belonging to plaintiff, which was at the time, without fault on the part of plaintiff, upon defendant’s railway track, and prays damages in the sum of $150. The answer is a general denial.

All that the evidence shows is that in November, 1905, plaintiff placed the animal in question with his other horses in a pasture on the south side of defendant’s track; that on the morning of February 9,1906, the dead body of the animal was found lying on the right of way of defendant on the north side of its track; that the marks on the body indicated that it had been struck by an engine; that there was blood and hair on the ties and rails for a dis*801tance of from 40 to 50 yards from where the body of the animal was found; that the track just west of this point is straight for a distance of half a mile; and that a passenger train was scheduled to pass that point, running east, during the night. This is substantially all of the evidence that was offered on the trial of the case. When plaintiff rested, defendant moved the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, which motion was overruled. In this the district court erred. As early as *Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Wendt,*12 Neb. 76, we held: “In an action to recover damages for the killing of an animal by a train of cars upon a railroad track, the mere fact of killing was properly held to be no evidence of negligence on the part of those in charge of the train.” The rule there announced has never been overruled or modified in this court.

We recommend that the judgment of the district court be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceeding according to law.

Calkins and Root, CC., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing-opinion, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       9,171,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,877,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,817,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,029,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<COMMON>                                       435,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,126,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,817,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,568,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,125,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             373,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,720,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,720,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,720,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>