alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 802.103 Powers of the Board. ( a ) *Conduct of proceedings.* Pursuant to section 27(a) of the LHWCA, the Board shall have power to preserve and enforce order during any proceedings for determination or adjudication of entitlement to compensation or benefits or for liability for payment thereof, and to do all things in accordance with law which may be necessary to enable the Board to effectively discharge its duties.
( b ) *Contumacy.* Pursuant to section 27(b) of the LHWCA, if any person in proceedings before the Board disobeys or resists any lawful order or process, or misbehaves during a hearing or so near the place thereof as to obstruct the same, the Board shall certify the facts to the Federal district court having jurisdiction in the place in which it is sitting (or to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia if it is sitting in the District) which shall thereupon in a summary manner hear the evidence as to the acts complained of, and if the evidence so warrants, punish such person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed before the court, or commit such person upon the same conditions as if the doing of the forbidden act had occurred with reference to the process or in the presence of the court.
### §§111 to 123. Repealed. Pub. L. 85–857, §14(1), (2), (7), (9), (14)–(16), (22), (25), (27), (34), (46), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1268–1271

Section 111, R.S. §4831; act Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 129, §1, 18 Stat. 359, authorized Board of Managers of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers to receive donations of money or property.

Section 112, act Aug. 18, 1894, ch. 301, §1, 28 Stat. 412, related to receipts from sales of subsistence stores or other property of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

Section 113, act Mar. 2, 1923, ch. 178, title II, 42 Stat. 1424, related to use of moneys allotted for support of World War veterans.

Acts June 30, 1922, ch. 253, title II, 42 Stat. 763; Mar. 2, 1923, ch. 178, title II, 42 Stat. 1424, which were set out in notes under section 113 of this title, related to use of moneys allotted for support of World War veterans, and were repealed by Pub. L. 85–857, §14(44), (46), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1271.

Section 114, act June 6, 1900, ch. 785, §1, 31 Stat. 294, related to availability of appropriations for construction of buildings at any of branches of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

Section 115, act Mar. 3, 1903, ch. 1007, §1, 32 Stat. 1137, related to availability of appropriations for branch homes of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

Section 116, act Mar. 3, 1915, ch. 75, §1, 38 Stat. 850, prohibited use of appropriations for repairs for construction of new buildings.

Section 117, act July 9, 1886, ch. 756, §2, 24 Stat. 129, related to security for deposits of moneys pertaining to National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

Section 118, act Mar. 3, 1893, ch. 210, §1, 27 Stat. 653, related to supervision of accounts of volunteer soldiers' homes.

Section 119, act Aug. 18, 1894, ch. 301, §1, 28 Stat. 411, related to disbursements, accounts, supplies and to posthumous fund.

Section 120, acts Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 362, 24 Stat. 539; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §304, 42 Stat. 24, related to expenditures of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

Section 121, acts Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 853, §1, 31 Stat. 1178; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §304, 42 Stat. 24, related to auditing and settlement of accounts of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

Section 122, act Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 129, §1, 18 Stat. 359, related to employment of clerks, appropriations, estimates, requisitions, and accounts of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.

Section 123, acts Aug. 5, 1892, ch. 380, §1, 27 Stat. 384; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §304, 42 Stat. 24, required statement of expenses of Board of Managers of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, to be included in annual budget.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1959, see section 2 of Pub. L. 85–857, set out as a note preceding Part I of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits.
#### § 725.719 What is the objective of vocational rehabilitation?

The objective of vocational rehabilitation is the return of a miner who is totally disabled by pneumoconiosis to gainful employment commensurate with such miner's physical impairment. This objective may be achieved through a program of re-evaluation and redirection of the miner's abilities, or retraining in another occupation, and selective job placement assistance.
### §124. Expenditures from tribal funds of Five Civilized Tribes without specific appropriations

No money shall be expended from tribal funds belonging to the Five Civilized Tribes without specific appropriation by Congress.

(May 24, 1922, ch. 199, 42 Stat. 575.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1559

SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, II; REV. SAMUEL WHATLEY; PACITA D. 

WHATLEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON; NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; NORTH CHARLESTON CODE ENFORCEMENT; MAYOR 

KEITH SUMMEY, Mayor at CND,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:22-cv-04419-RMG)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel T. Whatley, II; Samuel T. Whatley; and Pacita D. Whatley, Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1559 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel T. Whatley II, Reverend Samuel T. Whatley, and Pacita D. Whatley appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing for failure to state a claim their amended complaint. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the 

Whatleys’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, 

they have forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 

170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth 

Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1559 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### § 702.233 Penalty for failure to pay without an award.

If any installment of compensation payable without an award is not paid within 14 days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such unpaid installment an amount equal to 10 per centum thereof which shall be paid at the same time as, but in addition to, such installment unless the employer files notice of controversion in accordance with § 702.261, or unless such nonpayment is excused by the district director after a showing by the employer that owing to conditions over which he had no control such installment could not be paid within the period prescribed for the payment.
### §6461. Exports of certain items used in particularly severe violations of religious freedom

#### (a) Mandatory licensing

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall include on the list of crime control and detection instruments or equipment controlled for export and reexport under section 4605(n) 1 of title 50 or under any other provision of law, items being exported or reexported to countries of particular concern for religious freedom that the Secretary of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation with appropriate officials including the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and the Ambassador at Large, determines are being used or are intended for use directly and in significant measure to carry out particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

#### (b) Licensing ban

The prohibition on the issuance of a license for export of crime control and detection instruments or equipment under section 2304(a)(2) of this title shall apply to the export and reexport of any item included pursuant to subsection (a) on the list of crime control instruments.

(Pub. L. 105–292, title IV, §423, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2810.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 4605(n) of title 50, referred to in subsec. (a), was repealed by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title XVII, §1766(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2232.

1 See References in Text note below.
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 HIGH

 260

 268

 269

 275

 276

 278

 281

 287

 285

 283

 282

 279

 282

 289

 297

 311

 319

 311

 313

 332

 337

 316

 331

 321

 328

 353

 407

 417

 463

 496

 509

 238

 245

 244

 243

 251

 255

 235

 256

 254

 249

 231

 241

 233

 233

 244

 248

 252

 238

 252

 236

 245

 239

 236

 237

 236

 233

 245

 244

 249

 252

 249

 247

 254

 257

 260

 266

 268

 265

 274

 273

 273

 268

 266

 265

 267

 274

 281

 285

 281

 286

 289

 291

 286

 287

 286

 289

 297

 309

 312

 328

 350

 363

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 2, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.31 Notice of deficiency. ( a ) *Notification timeline.* If the CO determines the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* and/or job order is incomplete, contains errors or inaccuracies, or does not meet the requirements set forth in this subpart, the CO will notify the employer within 7 business days from the CO's receipt of the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification.* If applicable, the Notice of Deficiency will include job order deficiencies identified by the SWA under § 655.16. The CO will send a copy of the Notice of Deficiency to the SWA serving the area of intended employment identified by the employer on its job order, and if applicable, to the employer's attorney or agent.
( b ) *Notice content.* The Notice of Deficiency will: ( 1 ) State the reason(s) why the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* or job order fails to meet the criteria for acceptance and state the modification needed for the CO to issue a Notice of Acceptance;
( 2 ) Offer the employer an opportunity to submit a modified *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* or job order within 10 business days from the date of the Notice of Deficiency. The Notice will state the modification needed for the CO to issue a Notice of Acceptance;
( 3 ) Offer the employer an opportunity to request administrative review of the Notice of Deficiency before an ALJ under provisions set forth in § 655.61. The Notice will inform the employer that it must submit a written request for review to the Chief ALJ of DOL within 10 business days from the date the Notice of Deficiency is issued by facsimile or other means normally assuring next day delivery, and that the employer must simultaneously serve a copy on the CO. The Notice will also state that the employer may submit any legal arguments that the employer believes will rebut the basis of the CO's action; and
( 4 ) State that if the employer does not comply with the requirements of this section by either submitting a modified application within 10 business days or requesting administrative review before an ALJ under § 655.61, the CO will deny the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification.* The Notice will inform the employer that the denial of the *Application for Temporary Employment Certification* is final, and cannot be appealed. The Department of Labor will not further consider that *Application for Temporary Employment Certification.*
§ 679.610 What provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Wagner-Peyser Act may be waived, and what provisions may not be waived? ( a ) The Secretary may waive for a State, or local area in a State, any of the statutory or regulatory requirements of subtitles A, B and E of title I of WIOA, except for requirements relating to: ( 1 ) Wage and labor standards;
( 2 ) Non-displacement protections;
( 3 ) Worker rights;
( 4 ) Participation and protection of workers and participants;
( 5 ) Grievance procedures and judicial review;
( 6 ) Nondiscrimination;
( 7 ) Allocation of funds to local areas;
( 8 ) Eligibility of providers or participants;
( 9 ) The establishment and functions of local areas and Local WDBs;
( 10 ) Procedures for review and approval of State and Local plans;
( 11 ) The funding of infrastructure costs for one-stop centers; and
( 12 ) Other requirements relating to the basic purposes of title I of WIOA described in § 675.100 of this chapter.
( b ) The Secretary may waive for a State, or local area in a State, any of the statutory or regulatory requirements of secs. 8 through 10 of the Wagner- Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49g-49i) except for requirements relating to: ( 1 ) The provision of services to unemployment insurance claimants and veterans; and
( 2 ) Universal access to the basic labor exchange services without cost to job seekers.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 57005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21370]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
forthcoming Center for Systems Engineering Audit meeting. The purpose 
of the meeting is review the curriculum and programs of the Center for 
Systems Engineering. Portions of this meeting may be closed to the 
public in accordance with section 552b of title 5, United States Code, 
specifically subparagraphs (c)(1) and (4) thereof.

DATES: September 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maj Berg, Air Force Scientific 
Advisory Board Secretariat, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Rm 5D982, 
Washington, DC 20330-1180, (703) 697-4811.

Pamela D. Fitzgerald,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-21370 Filed 9-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-M
* 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. 00-50270

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSÉ FERNANDO LUCERO-HERNANDEZ, also known as

José Hernandez Lucero,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-99-CR-1224-2-DB

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

October 17, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

José Fernando Lucero-Hernandez (“Lucero”) appeals from his

conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. 

Lucero contends that the Government infringed on his right to

compulsory process of José Ayala. According to Lucero, the

prosecutor made clear that Ayala would lose sentencing

adjustments for acceptance of responsibility and his minor role

in the offense were he to testify on Lucero’s behalf,

intimidating Lucero into invoking his privilege against self-
No. 00-50270 

-2-

incrimination. Lucero contends that the district court erred by

permitting Ayala not to testify without stating personally that

he was invoking his privilege against self-incrimination.

Lucero cannot demonstrate error, plain or otherwise, on his

contention that the Government substantially interfered with his

right of compulsory process, a contention that he raises for the

first time on appeal. United States v. Thompson, 130 F.3d 676,

686 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 920 (1998); United

States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en

banc). The record demonstrates that Ayala invoked his right

against self-incrimination on the advice of counsel. Neither

counsel’s comments that he wished to avoid losing the benefits of

Ayala’s plea bargain nor the prosecutor’s recitation of the terms

of his understanding with Ayala indicated that Ayala necessarily

would be punished in any way were he to testify on Lucero’s

behalf.

Lucero has failed to brief adequately his contention that

the district court erred by allowing Ayala not to testify without

stating personally that he was invoking his privilege against

self-incrimination. See United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249,

258 (5th Cir. 1994). We do not consider that contention.

Lucero’s appeal is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The appeal therefore is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
### §2877a. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–302, title III, §320(a)(2), May 25, 1990, 104 Stat. 247

Section, Pub. L. 101–246, title III, §302, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 63, provided that any funds appropriated for Board of International Broadcasting would not be available for obligation or expenditure unless such funds were appropriated pursuant to an authorization for appropriations or if such funds were appropriated in excess of authorized level of appropriations.
[No. 8133.

Department One.

December 20, 1909.]

#### Charles Watson, *Appellant,*v. James Shelton, *Respondent.**1*

Attachment — Dissolution—Affidavits-—Sufficiency. It is not error to dissolve an attachment issued on the ground that the defendant was about to convert certain real estate into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors, where the affidavit for attachment was controverted by affidavit that the defendant at no time attempted to sell the property, but desired his creditors to receive the full amount to which they were entitled; as the same sufficiently denies that he was about to convert the same, etc.

Appeal from an order of the superior, court for Lincoln county, Holcomb, J., entered January 19, 1909, in favor of the defendant, dissolving an attachment, after a hearing before the court.

Affirmed.

*Merritt, Oswald*<§• *Merritt,*for appellant.

1

 Reported in 105 Pac. 850.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment. The affidavit for attachment, after stating the formal matters required in such cases and particularly describing certain real property, alleged the ground of attachment as follows: “Which said real estate the defendant is about to convert into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors.” The affidavit in support of the motion to dissolve the attachment averred, among other things, that, “He [the defendant] has at no time attempted to sell any of his property for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors, or at all, that he has at all times desired his creditors to receive the full amount to which they are entitled,” etc. A counter affidavit filed by the appellant averred that, on the 17th day of November, 1908 (the attachment issued two days later), the respondent “Had a tentative agreement or contract, to sell the property upon *427which the attachment was levied,” etc. Based on the foregoing affidavits, the contention of the appellant is, that the respondent did not deny that he was about to convert his real property into money. We cannot agree with this contention. While the respondent did not in express terms controvert the averments of the attachment affidavit, he did deny that he at any time attempted to sell any of his property, and we fail to see how a person can convert real property into money except through the medium of a sale.

In our opinion there was a direct and explicit denial of the ground of attachment set forth in the original affidavit, and the court committed no error in the ruling complained of. The order discharging the attachment is therefore affirmed.
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

 817.47

 817.24

 817.02

 816.79

 816.53

 816.29

 816.20

 815.97

 815.73

 815.49

 815.25

 815.04

 814.83

 814.70

 814.56

 814.39

 814.21

 813.98

 814.07

 814.15

 814.16

 814.13

 814.04

 813.95

 813.81

 813.68

 813.52

 813.35

 813.11

 812.90

 812.91

 24.88

 24.68

 24.49

 24.29

 24.07

 23.86

 23.79

 23.59

 23.39

 23.19

 22.99

 22.82

 22.64

 22.54

 22.42

 22.28

 22.14

 21.95

 22.02

 22.09

 22.10

 22.07

 22.00

 21.93

 21.81

 21.71

 21.58

 21.45

 21.26

 21.09

 21.10

STORAGE

-0.20

-0.20

-0.19

-0.20

-0.22

-0.20

-0.08

-0.20

-0.20

-0.20

-0.20

-0.17

-0.17

-0.11

-0.12

-0.14

-0.15

-0.19

+0.07

+0.07

+0.01

-0.02

-0.07

-0.07

-0.11

-0.11

-0.13

-0.14

-0.19

-0.17

+0.01

CHANGE

238

239

241

236

226

235

302

240

237

237

236

242

247

275

272

264

256

232

366

365

337

323

298

298

280

284

271

268

240

251

255

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 330

 330

 330

 329

 329

 328

 329

 328

 328

 327

 327

 327

 327

 327

 327

 327

 326

 326

 327

 326

 326

 327

 326

 326

 326

 326

 326

 325

 325

 325

 245

OUTLET

 9

 10

 7

 7

 9

 10

 11

 10

 10

 11

 10

 2

 7

 2

 3

 7

 4

 0

 2

 6

 7

 8

 9

 9

 10

 11

 10

 11

 11

 10

 6

C.F.S.

 .33

 .35

 .25

 .25

 .31

 .38

 .39

 .36

 .38

 .39

 .36

 .07

 .26

 .09

 .12

 .26

 .16

 .00

 .08

 .23

 .25

 .30

 .35

 .35

 .40

 .41

 .39

 .43

 .42

 .41

 .25

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .05

 .00

 .02

 .03

 .00

 .14

 .10

 .16

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .08

 .92

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MAY 2020 RUN DATE: 07/15/2020

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -3.99 8,291 10,058 0 239 8.98 1.51

ACRE-FEET -3,990 16,445 19,950 0 474

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 19,950

 19,950

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 1.51

JULY 1, 2019 9.15

 25.08

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS

OCT 1, 2019 TO DATE = 9.03
§ 725.466 Order of dismissal. ( a ) An order dismissing a claim shall be served on the parties in accordance with § 725.478. The dismissal of a claim shall have the same effect as a decision and order disposing of the claim on its merits, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Such order shall advise the parties of their right to request review by the Benefits Review Board.
( b ) Where the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the presiding administrative law judge issues a decision and order dismissing the claim after a show cause proceeding, the district director shall terminate any payments being made to the claimant under § 725.522, and the order of dismissal shall, if appropriate, order the claimant to reimburse the fund for all benefits paid to the claimant.