alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §288k. Attorney General relieved of responsibility

(a) Upon receipt of written notice that the Counsel has undertaken, pursuant to section 288c(a) of this title, to perform any representational service with respect to any designated party in any action or proceeding pending or to be instituted, the Attorney General shall—

(1) be relieved of any responsibility with respect to such representational service;

(2) have no authority to perform such service in such action or proceeding except at the request or with the approval of the Senate; and

(3) transfer all materials relevant to the representation authorized under section 288c(a) of this title to the Counsel, except that nothing in this subsection shall limit any right of the Attorney General under existing law to intervene or appear as amicus curiae in such action or proceeding.

(b) The Attorney General shall notify Counsel as required by section 530D of title 28.

(Pub. L. 95–521, title VII, §712, Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1883; Pub. L. 107–273, div. A, title II, §202(b)(2), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1774; Pub. L. 108–7, div. H, title I, §110(b), Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 355.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2003—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–7 made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 530D of title 28.

2002—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–273 added subsec. (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: "The Attorney General shall notify the Counsel with respect to any proceeding in which the United States is a party of any determination by the Attorney General or Solicitor General not to appeal any court decision affecting the constitutionality of an Act or joint resolution of Congress within such time as will enable the Senate to direct the Counsel to intervene as a party in such proceeding pursuant to section 288e of this title."

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

#### Effective Date of 2003 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–7 effective as if included in the enactment of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub. L. 107–273, see section 110(c) of Pub. L. 108–7, set out as a note under section 5571 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 3, 1979, see section 717 of Pub. L. 95–521, set out as a note under section 288 of this title.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2022

No. 04-22-00072-CV

JMI CONTRACTORS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Jose Manuel MEDELLIN,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-05983

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellee’s brief was due by September 29, 2022. On September 28, 2022, appellee filed 

an unopposed motion seeking an extension of time until November 1, 2022 to file his brief.

After consideration, we grant the motion and order appellee’s brief due by November 1, 2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 4th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES ACCESS BOARD

A FEDERAL AGENCY COMMITTED TO ACCESSIBLE DESIGN

MEMORANDUM

To: Docket No. ATBCB-2013-0003

From: Gretchen Jacobs

General Counsel

Date: September 23, 2014

Re: Ex Parte Meeting

On September 23, 2014, representatives from the Cruise Lines Industry of America

(CLIA), as well as several individual cruise lines, met with Access Board staff in Arlington, 

Virginia to discuss comments and a dataset submitted by CLIA to regulations.gov entitled 

“Analysis of the Supply of Wheelchair Accessible Cabins and the Impact of Requiring Additional 

Accessible Cabins on New Vessels” by Business Research and Economic Advisors (hereafter, 

BREA Study), and to allow Board staff to review unredacted data described in that study.

1

 

Access Board staff attending this meeting were: David Capozzi; Gretchen Jacobs; Marsha Mazz; 

Paul Beatty; and Aromie Noe. Representatives from CLIA, BREA, and individual cruise lines 

were: Ted Thompson (CLIA); Andrew Moody (BREA); Ron Petit (Royal Caribbean, et al.); Jay 

Cardinali (Walt Disney Company); Tiffany Bergman (Holland America Line); Carolyn Doppelt 

Gray (Carnival Cruise Lines). 

 

1

The Brea Study is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ATBCB-2013-0003-0066. In April 

2014, CLIA provided the Access Board with a redacted version of the dataset underlying the Brea Study. See

Docket # ATBCB-2013-0003-0070.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-66747, 333-66739, 333-66733 and 333-66741) of our report
dated March 19, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
March 29, 1999
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2002 Page 2 of 2
### §1513. Loan interest rates; repayment periods

(a) Each loan made under section 1511 of this title shall bear interest at a discount or interest rate equal to the rate in effect (at the time the loan is made) for water resources planning projects under section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962(d)–17(a)).1

(b) Each such loan shall be for a term which the Secretary deems appropriate, except that no loan term shall exceed twenty years beyond the date on which production of energy or geothermal energy resources begins from the reservoir involved. If revenues are inadequate (as determined by the Secretary) to fully repay the principal and accrued interest within twenty years after production begins, any remaining unpaid amounts shall be forgiven.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title VI, §613, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 764.)

1 So in original. Should be "(42 U.S.C. 1962d–17(a))."
### §28–2. Definitions

As used in section 28–1 of this title,

(a) The term "geological surveys" means surveys on the ground for mineral deposits by the proper application of the principles and techniques of the science of geology as they relate to the search for and discovery of mineral deposits;

(b) The term "geochemical surveys" means surveys on the ground for mineral deposits by the proper application of the principles and techniques of the science of chemistry as they relate to the search for and discovery of mineral deposits;

(c) The term "geophysical surveys" means surveys on the ground for mineral deposits through the employment of generally recognized equipment and methods for measuring physical differences between rock types or discontinuities in geological formations;

(d) The term "qualified expert" means an individual qualified by education or experience to conduct geological, geochemical or geophysical surveys, as the case may be.

(Pub. L. 85–876, §2, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1701.)
Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 78 FR 62418, Oct. 22, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 89 FR 20832, Mar. 25, 2024.

§ 351.217 Reviews to implement results of subsidies enforcement proceeding under section 751(g) of the Act. ( a ) *Introduction.* Section 751(g) provides a mechanism for incorporating into an ongoing countervailing duty proceeding the results of certain subsidy-related disputes under the WTO Subsidies Agreement. Where the United States, in the WTO, has successfully challenged the “nonactionable” (*e.g.,* noncountervailable) status of a foreign subsidy, or where the United States has successfully challenged a prohibited or actionable subsidy, the Secretary may conduct a review to determine the effect, if any, of the successful outcome on an existing countervailing duty order or suspended investigation. This section contains rules regarding the initiation and conduct of reviews under section 751(g).
( b ) *Violations of Article 8 of the Subsidies Agreement.* If: ( 1 ) The Secretary receives notice from the Trade Representative of a violation of Article 8 of the Subsidies Agreement;
( 2 ) The Secretary has reason to believe that merchandise subject to an existing countervailing duty order or suspended investigation is benefiting from the subsidy or subsidy program found to have been in violation of Article 8; and
( 3 ) No administrative review is in progress, the Secretary will initiate an Article 8 violation review of the order or suspended investigation to determine whether the subject merchandise benefits from the subsidy or subsidy program found to have been in violation of Article 8 of the Subsidies Agreement.
( c ) *Withdrawal of subsidy or imposition of countermeasures.* If the Trade Representative notifies the Secretary that, under Article 4 or Article 7 of the Subsidies Agreement: ( 1 ) ( i ) ( A ) The United States has imposed countermeasures; and
( B ) Such countermeasures are based on the effects in the United States of imports of merchandise that is the subject of a countervailing duty order; or
( ii ) A WTO member country has withdrawn a countervailable subsidy provided with respect to merchandise subject to a countervailing duty order, then
( 2 ) The Secretary will initiate an Article 4/Article 7 review of the order to determine if the amount of estimated duty to be deposited should be adjusted or the order should be revoked.
( d ) *Procedures.* The Secretary will conduct an Article 8 violation review or an Article 4/Article 7 review under this section in accordance with § 351.221.
( e ) *Expedited reviews.* The Secretary will conduct reviews under this section on an expedited basis.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


                   Certification of Periodic Financial Reports

I, G. Darcy Klug, of OMNI Energy Services Corp., certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003
         (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies
         with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 and

(2)      the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of OMNI Energy Services Corp.


Dated:  March 30, 2004


                                                /s/ G. Darcy Klug
                                                -------------------------------
                                                    G. Darcy Klug
                                                Chief Financial Officer
### §1469. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 96–283, title III, §309, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 581, which required the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to submit a biennial report to Congress on the administration of this chapter, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 54 of House Document No. 103–7.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23678]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


State Energy Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the State Energy Advisory 
Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 
Stat. 770), requires that public notice of these meetings be announced 
in the Federal Register.

DATES: November 18, 2004 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and November 19, 
2004 from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Sandia National Laboratories, 1515 Eubank SE., Bldg. 957 
Receiving, Mail Stop 1033, Albuquerque, NM 87123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Burch, Office of Technology 
Development (EE.20), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), 
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, Telephone 202/586-
0081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: To make 
recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and 
administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's 
responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs 
Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Briefings on, and discussions of:

<bullet> EERE Programmatic Update
<bullet> Technology Deployment Strategy Update
<bullet> STEAB Annual Report
<bullet> STEAB Strategic Plan
<bullet> Discussion and Tour of Sandia Solar Test Facilities

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Gary Burch at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral presentations must 
be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will 
be made to include the statements in the agenda. The Chair of the Board 
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate 
the orderly conduct of business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on October 18, 2004.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-23678 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**886**

**KA 15**

**- 00838** 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KELLY L. MARSHALL, DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT.

FRANK J. NEBUSH, JR., PUBLIC DEFENDER, UTICA (DAVID A. COOKE OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF COUNSEL),

FOR RES PONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered December 4, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously
affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law ' 125.25 [3]) and robbery in the first degree ( ' 160.1 5 [3]), defendant contends that her waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. We reject that contention. Although the form notice signed by defendant recited, among other things, that she had the right to appeal, that form notice does not constitute

a pr oper written waiver of the right to appeal ( see 22 NYCRR 1022.11 [a]; People v Finster , 136 AD3d 1279, 1280, lv denied 27 NY3d 1132). We

nonetheless conclude that A [t]he plea allocution as a whole establishes

that def endant = s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary @ ( People v Brown , 281 AD2d 962, 962, lv denied 96 NY2d 899; see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256). Co ntrary to defendant = s contention, County Court A did not improperly conflate the waiver of the right to appeal with those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea @ ( People v Bentley , 63 AD3d 1624, 1625, lv denied 13 NY3d 742), and we conclude that the record establishes that the court engaged defendant A in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice @ ( People v Ripley , 94 AD3d 1554, 1554, lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The valid w aiver of the right to appeal forecloses our review of defendant = s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe ( see generally Lopez , 6 NY3d at
255

- 256), as well as our review of her contention that the sente nce constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ( see People v Santilli , 16 AD3d 1056, 1056

- 1057; People v Brathwaite , 263 AD2d 89, 92).**- 2** 

**- 886** 

**KA 15**

**- 00838** 

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Specialized Cooperative Centers Program in Reproduction Research.                    

*Date:*                         November 18-19, 2004.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn—Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jon M. Ranhand, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884.                         *ranhandj@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 29, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-23974  Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tracy Lynn CLARK, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-30286.

D.C. No. CR-00-00215-TSZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 2002 *.

Decided May 9, 2002.

*477Before RYMER, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

This case arises from Tracy Clark’s conviction for willful failure “to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State.... ” 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(1).

Clark’s single claim on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that his failure to pay child support in February 2000 was willful. We addressed this same issue in *United States v. Ballek:*

> A non-custodial parent who does not have the funds to satisfy the child support award, and who does not obtain a reduction or remission of the award because of inability to pay, will almost certainly be engaged in willful defiance of the state court’s child support order.

170 F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir.1999).

Here, Clark made no effort to modify the child support order until after he was arrested. Clark did make a $300 child support payment on February 19, 2000. This gesture, however, was far less than the payment he was obliged to make under the Washington state court’s child support order. *See United States v. Mattice,*186 F.3d 219, 227 (2d Cir.1999) (concluding that Congress intended to make partial failures to pay actionable). Clark’s putative agreement with his former spouse to pay less than the ordered amount could not, as a matter of law, have superseded the court order. *Hartman v. Smith,*100 Wash.2d 766, 674 P.2d 176, 178 (1984) (“[W]e have held agreements between parents regarding modification of prospective support invalid as against public policy.”). As the district court noted, Clark’s negotiation of the debt evinces his willfulness. There is also evidence indicating that Clark told his former spouse that he would discontinue paying child support. Thereafter, Clark left Washington State, took an assumed name, and never revealed his whereabouts to his former spouse. Under *Ballek,*these facts were adequate to support Tracy’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be *cited to or by*the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.