alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 404.42 How much time is provided to complete an appraisal investigation?

An appraisal investigation must be scheduled for completion not later than 2 years after the date on which the appraisal investigation is initiated, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Reclamation.
No. 14,805.

#### Graham et al. *v.*Severance.

(105 P. [2d] 853)

Decided September 16, 1940.

Mr. James R. Hoffman, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. E. Clifford Heald, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed en banc on application for supersedeas without written opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4745 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4745

To amend the Plant Protection Act to establish a fund for spotted wing 
                  drosophila research and mitigation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2022

  Mr. Peters (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Braun) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Plant Protection Act to establish a fund for spotted wing 
                  drosophila research and mitigation.

    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 ``Spotted Wing Abatement Trust Act of 
2022'' or the ``SWAT Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the spotted wing drosophila, an invasive species from 
        East Asia, has caused significant damage to many valuable fruit 
        crops in the United States, including raspberries, 
        blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, peaches, plums, and 
        cherries; and
            (2) the Department of Agriculture estimates that spotted 
        wing drosophila account for a combined 20 percent revenue loss 
        across strawberry, blueberry, raspberry, blackberry, and cherry 
        crops, based on reported yield losses due to that species.

SEC. 3. SPOTTED WING DROSOPHILA RESEARCH AND MITIGATION.

    Subtitle A of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 420A. SPOTTED WING DROSOPHILA RESEARCH AND MITIGATION.

    ``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (referred to in this section as the `Administrator') 
shall establish a fund within the Department of Agriculture to fund 
research relating to, and activities to mitigate the negative effects 
of, spotted wing drosophila.
    ``(b) Administration of Fund.--The Administrator shall--
            ``(1) determine eligible recipients to enter into 
        cooperative agreements with, or award grants to, using amounts 
        in the fund established under subsection (a); and
            ``(2) oversee the activities carried out using amounts in 
        that fund.
    ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for the fund established under subsection (a) $6,500,000 
for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2028.''.
                                 <all>
```
----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 363/2004 of 25 February 2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(2005/C 270/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
## Subtitle C—Employment Taxes

Chapter
Sec. 1
21.
Federal insurance contributions act
3101
22.
Railroad retirement tax act
3201
23.
Federal unemployment tax act
3301
23A.
Railroad Unemployment Repayment Tax
3321

24.
Collection of income tax at source on wages
3401
25.
General provisions relating to employment taxes
3501

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1983**—Pub. L. 98–76, title II, §231(c), Aug. 12, 1983, 97 Stat. 429, added item for chapter 23A.

Pub. L. 98–67 repealed amendments made by Pub. L. 97–248. See 1982 Amendment note below.

**1982**—Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §§307(b)(1), (6), 308(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 590, 591, provided that, applicable to payments of interest, dividends, and patronage dividends paid or credited after June 30, 1983, the heading of subtitle C is amended to read "Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Tax at Source", the caption of chapter 24 is amended by striking out "On Wages", and the caption of chapter 25 is amended by inserting "And Collection Of Income Taxes At Source" after "Employment Taxes". Section 102(a), (b) of Pub. L. 98–67, title I, Aug. 5, 1983, 97 Stat. 369, repealed subtitle A (§§301–308) of title III of Pub. L. 97–248 as of the close of June 30, 1983, and provided that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [now 1986] [this title] shall be applied and administered (subject to certain exceptions) as if such subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitle A) had not been enacted.

1  Section numbers editorially supplied.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4325 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4325

  To amend the Small Business Act to modify the anticipated value of 
  certain contracts reserved exclusively for small business concerns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2016

Ms. Velazquez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Act to modify the anticipated value of 
  certain contracts reserved exclusively for small business concerns.

    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 ``Unifying Small Business Terminology 
Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF THE ANTICIPATED VALUE OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS 
              RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.

    (a) In General.--Section 15(j)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 644(j)(1)) is amended by striking ``greater than $2,500 but not 
greater than $100,000'' and inserting ``greater than the micro-purchase 
threshold defined in section 1902(a) of title 41, United States Code, 
but not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 3(m) of the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 632(m)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(m) Simplified Acquisition Threshold.--In this Act, the term 
`simplified acquisition threshold' has the meaning given such term in 
section 134 of title 41, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
June 15, 2015

Mr. Chandler Atkins 1 Bay Road Lake Luzerne, NY 12846

Dear Mr. Atkins :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 4, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2095), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
February 1 , 20 1 0

MEMORANDUM TO: Air Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2005 - 0161 SUBJECT: Foreign Agricultural Impacts Calculations for Biofuel

Lifecycle Analysis This memorandum accompanies spreadsheet s placed on the docket that includes data about agricultural inputs in foreign countries
. These es timates were used to project lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by additional crop production in foreign countries . The spreadsheets that accompany this memorandum include estimates of:

 Fertilizer, pestic ide and herbicide use per hectare of foreign crop production;  Nitrous oxide emissions per metric ton of foreign fertilizer application;  Emissions from energy use per hectare of foreign crop production; and  Methane emissions per hectare of foreign rice prod uction. Upstream emissions from fertilizer production were calculated separatel y in an impact calculation spreadsheet that was placed on the docket separatel y.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01542

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01542\01542_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01542\01542_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01542\01542_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01542\01542_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01542\01542_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01542\01542_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01542\Certification Statement Plant ID 01542.pdf Plant certification statement

x 01542\Supporting Documentation\01542_PB - EPA Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01542\Supporting Documentation\01542_PB - Site Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01542\Supporting Documentation\01542_PB - Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 49.140 What is the process for appealing a permit-related decision? A permit-related decision may be appealed using processes defined by the issuing bureau. ( a ) Permit-related decisions by BLM may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under the process explained at 43 CFR 4.400 through 4.438.
( b ) Permit-related decisions by FWS may be appealed under the process explained at 50 CFR 36.41(i).
( c ) Permit-related decisions by Reclamation may be appealed under the process used for other types of scientific research and collecting permits issued by Reclamation, which will be specified in writing in the permit-related decision.
( d ) Permit-related decisions by NPS may be reconsidered under the process used for other types of scientific research and collecting permits issued by NPS, which will be specified in writing in the permit-related decision.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Ruth Barnett, as Administratrix of the Estate of James J. Burke, Deceased, Respondent. John J. Dwyer, Appellant; Patrick Burke et al., Respondents.

Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondents Patrick Burke, Mary A. Carey, John Bourke, Joseph Bourke and Mary Bourke. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1006.]
#### § 3509.16 How do I apply for a future interest lease?

No specific form is required. You must file at least one year before the mineral interest vests with the United States or BLM will deny your application. BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in § 3000.11 of this chapter.

[64 FR 53536, Oct. 1, 1999, as amended at 70 FR 58878, Oct. 7, 2005]
[Cite as State v. Penn , 2015-Ohio-4653.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLINTON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-03-007

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 11/9/2015 : LISA DAWN PENN, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 2014 0307

Richard W. Moyer, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, Brian Shi daker, 103 East Main Street, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for plaintiff-appellee Richard L. Federle, Jr., 820 W illow Bend Drive, Wilmington, Ohio 45177, for defendantappellant

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Clinton County Court of Comm on Pleas, and upon a brief fil ed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Lisa Dawn Penn, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1)Clinton CA2015-03-007 indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal,"

Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) req uests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

PIPER, P.J., S. POWELL and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
#### Abraham Levine, Appellant, v. Hartman Realty Company and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. As the justice at Special Term imposed conditions on granting this motion, which protect plaintiff from delays arising from this joinder of additional defendants, such exercise of his discretion will not be reviewed on appeal. His holding that it is better to dispose of respondents’ claims in this action rather than leave a door open for further litigation accords with the authorities. (30Cye. 138.) Apparently through the joinder of these defendants a single judgment may end the controversy. We think, however, that the only question which Cass & Apfel can .raise in this action is whether plaintiff is the owner absolutely of the bond and mortgage and entitled to recover the amount secured thereby, after crediting payments thereon, or is the owner of a fractional part thereof. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-18-00839- CR
The State of Texas, App ellant

v. Michael Lance Wood, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 787 25, H ONO RAB LE JO HN GAUNTT, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

Following a traff

ic stop, Michae l L ance Wood was arr ested and char g ed with driving wh i l e intox icated. See Tex. Penal Code § 49.04. After being char g ed, Wood filed a motion t o
s u p p re ss evidenc e obtained during the traff ic stop. The district court g rante d the motio n af t er convening a hear ing. The State appea led the district court’s order and filed a mot i on reque sting the district court to issue finding s of fac t and conclusions of law rela ted to its ruling

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a) (5). The rec ord bef ore this Court does not contain a ny finding s of fact or conclusions of lawreg arding the motion to suppress.

The Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls has held that “upon the reque st of t he los ing party on a motion to suppress evidence, t he trial court shall state its essential finding s,” which the court define d as “finding s of fac t and conclusions of law adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis upon which to revie w the trial court’s ap p l i ca t i o n o f the law to the fac ts.” State v.Cullen , 195 S.W .3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). T h e finding s must be “ade quate and

complete, cover ing ever

y potentially dispositi ve issue that might rea sonably be said to ha ve arisen in the course of the suppression proce eding s,” State v. Elias , 339 S.W .3d 667, 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), including “explicit cre dibilit y deter mination[ s]” reg arding the witnesses who testified at the suppression hear ing, State v. Mendoza , 365 S.W .3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Finding s of fac t and conclusions of law “ensur e that revie wing courts nee d not presume, assume, or g uess at what histor i ca l fac ts a trial judge actua lly found when making a ruling in a motion to suppress hear ing.” Id. at 671. Moreove r, “Rule 44.4 authorizes the co u rt o f ap p ea ls to rema nd the case t o the t rial court so that the court of appeals i s not forc ed to infer f ac t s fr o m an unex plained ruling.” Cullen , 195 S.W .3d at 698 (c iting Te x . R. App. P. 44.4).

Acc ording ly , we abate the appea l and remand t he cause to the di strict court so that it may make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law perta ining to its g ranting of Wood’s motion to suppress. The district court is instructed to file with this Court a supp l em en t al cler k’s rec ord containing those finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law no late r than Apr il 29, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). T his appea l will be reinstated onc e the suppleme ntal cler k’s re cord is filed. I t is so ordered Ma

rch 29, 2019.

Be fore J ustices Goodwin, B aker , and Tria na Abated a nd Remanded Filed: Mar ch 29, 2019 Do Not Publish

2
#### John J. Kane, Respondent, v. Rochester Securities Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
Opinion issued April 1 8 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 18 - 00836 - CV

——————————— DAIQUIRI HILL , Appella nt

V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TE LEPHONE COMPANY DBA AT&T TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2017 - 42352

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Daiquiri Hill , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041; Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District2

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Landau

.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000310 10-JUN-2019 08:38 AM
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*James Dickey, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 58818;

First District (2nd Division)

May 28, 1974.

*911Paul Bradley and Howard B. Augustus, both of the Office of State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Mary Ellen Dienes, and William Lirikul, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE DOWNING.
#### § 426.1 Purpose.

These rules and regulations implement certain provisions of Federal reclamation law that address the ownership and leasing of land on Federal Reclamation irrigation projects and the pricing of Federal Reclamation project irrigation water, and establish terms and conditions for the delivery of Federal Reclamation project irrigation water.
#### Alan David, Respondent, v. Leo Fayman et al., Appellants.

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Section 1444-a of the Civil Practice Act, added by chapter 213 of the Laws of 1948, creates a new statutory right of action for damages in favor of tenants and against landlords, where landlords, within specified periods of time, lease to third persons or fail to occupy housing accommodations from which tenants have been dispossessed. There is no indication that the Legislature intended to impose these time limits retroactively. Present — Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 408.]
### §7812. Streamlined critical pay authority for information technology positions

In the case of any position which is critical to the functionality of the information technology operations of the Internal Revenue Service—

(1) section 9503 of title 5, United States Code, shall be applied—

(A) by substituting "during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of section 7812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and ending on September 30, 2025" for "Before September 30, 2013 in subsection (a)" 1,

(B) without regard to subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(1), and

(C) by substituting "the date of the enactment of the Taxpayer First Act" for "June 1, 1998" in subsection (a)(6),

(2) section 9504 of such title 5 shall be applied by substituting "During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of section 7812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and ending on September 30, 2025" for "Before September 30, 2013" each place it appears in subsections (a) and (b), and

(3) section 9505 of such title shall be applied—

(A) by substituting "During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of section 7812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and ending on September 30, 2025" for "Before September 30, 2013" in subsection (a), and

(B) by substituting "the information technology operations" for "significant functions" in subsection (a).

(Added Pub. L. 116–25, title II, §2103(a), July 1, 2019, 133 Stat. 1011.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of the enactment of section 7812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in text, is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 116–25, which was approved July 1, 2019.

The date of the enactment of the Taxpayer First Act, referred to in par. (1)(C), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 116–25, which was approved July 1, 2019.

1 So in original. The closing quotation marks probably should follow "Before September 30, 2013" instead of "(a)".