alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Theron Hall, as Administrator of the Estate of Jean Hall, Deceased, Respondent, v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Defendants have appealed from a judgment rendered at the Warren County Trial Term of the Supreme Court in plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $10,840.27 and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The action was in negligence and was brought to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, a child eight years of age, and for conscious pain and suffering. The amount claimed in the complaint by reason of the wrongful, death was $10,000. The case was submitted to the jury by the trial court solely upon the theory of damages by reason of the wrongful death, there being no proof of any conscious pain or suffering on the part of decedent, and consequently the failure to dismiss that cause of action was not prejudicial. There were no exceptions to the court’s charge in that respect and no request for any further instructions on the question of damages. We find nothing prejudicial in - counsel’s remarks in summation. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $12,000 and in addition thereto the sum of $162 for funeral expenses. The trial judge reduced the verdict to the sum of $10,000 on the cause of action for wrongful death. The accident happened on December 24, 1945. Plaintiff was driving a truck southerly on Route 28, a highway twenty-two feet in width consisting of two separate strips of eleven feet each. Plaintiff drove his truck entirely off the road on the westerly side in front of his garage and parked the same. Plaintiff’s home was located on the easterly side of the highway and *927about thirty feet off the road. After plaintiff stopped his truck the decedent opened the door of the cab, crossed the highway and entered upon her own property and was at least fifteen feet off the highway. Defendant’s truck was also proceeding southerly in the rear of plaintiff’s truck. The driver turned to his left, crossed the highway, entered upon plaintiff’s property and struck the infant as a result of which she lost her life. The evidence as to the negligence of defendant driver is overwhelming. On his own admission he had plenty of room to pass on his own side of the road and no occasion warranted his making a left turn. The evidence sustains the finding of the jury. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffeman, Brewster, Russell and Deyo, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1042.] Mary M. Caloro, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Donald Caloro, Respondents, v. Hereford Smith, Appellant. Mary M. Caloro, as Administratrix of the Estate of Cosmos Caloro, Deceased, Appellant, v. Hereford Smith,
### §60703. Purpose

#### (a) Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program

The purpose of the Program is to foster and improve existing partnerships between Federal, State, and local agencies, including the United States Attorney in each Federal judicial district, entities representing members of the community affected by increased violence, victims' advocates, and researchers to create safer neighborhoods through sustained reductions in violent crimes by—

(1) developing and executing comprehensive strategic plans to reduce violent crimes, including the enforcement of gun laws, and prioritizing efforts focused on identified subsets of individuals or organizations responsible for increasing violence in a particular geographic area;

(2) developing evidence-based and data-driven intervention and prevention initiatives, including juvenile justice projects and activities which may include street-level outreach, conflict mediation, provision of treatment and social services, and the changing of community norms, in order to reduce violence; and

(3) collecting data on outcomes achieved through the Program, including the effect on the violent crime rate, incarceration rate, and recidivism rate of the jurisdiction.

#### (b) Additional purpose areas

In addition to the purpose described in subsection (a), the Attorney General may use funds authorized under this chapter for any of the following purposes—

(1) competitive and evidence-based programs to reduce gun crime and gang violence;

(2) the Edward Byrne criminal justice innovation program; 1

(3) community-based violence prevention initiatives; or

(4) gang and youth violence education, prevention and intervention, and related activities.

(Pub. L. 115–185, §4, June 18, 2018, 132 Stat. 1485.)

1 So in original. Probably should be "Edward Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program;".
§ 451.305 Responsibilities of the Office of Personnel Management. ( a ) Annually, OPM shall establish criteria, including terms, conditions, and evaluation factors, for rank award nominations, in consultation with agencies and other stakeholders. Agencies shall nominate individuals for rank awards in accordance with OPM criteria and any other instructions.
( b ) Annually, OPM shall review agency recommendations for Presidential Rank Awards for SES career appointees and senior career employees under 5 U.S.C. 4507 and 4507a, and recommend to the President which of those individuals should receive rank awards.
### **CHAPTER 221—THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW**

Sec.
22101.
Organization.
22102.
Purposes.
22103.
Governing body.
22104.
Powers.
22105.
Restrictions.
22106.
Principal office.
22107.
Records and inspection.
22108.
Service of process.
22109.
Liability for acts of officers and agents.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-2758

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael Shawn McGuire

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________

Submitted: May 16, 2022

Filed: May 19, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

Michael McGuire received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded 

guilty to four counts of cyberstalking. See 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2). An Anders brief 

suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and that he should not have 

received a fine. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se 

supplemental brief raises two other issues.
-2- 

Neither the sentence nor the fine poses a problem. The record establishes that 

the district court1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of 

judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc). The record further establishes that the district court did not clearly err when 

it found that McGuire was “able to pay [the] fine.” United States v. Allmon, 500 

F.3d 800, 807 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a)). 

McGuire’s pro se arguments fare no better. He forfeited his double-jeopardy 

argument when he pleaded guilty, see United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 571 

(1989); and there has been no impermissible double counting, see United States v. 

Jones, 951 F.3d 918, 919 –20 (8th Cir. 2020).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no 

other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82 –83 (1988). 

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel 

permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa.
EMPLOYER DETERMINATION

East Chattanooga Belt Railway Company

AUG 2 7 2001

This is a determination ofthe Railroad Retirement Board concerning the

status of East Chattanooga Belt Railway Company (ECBT)as an

employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et

seq.XRRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §

351 et seq.HRUIA).

In Surface Transportation Board (STB) Finance Docket No. 34024,

decided April 3, 2001, ECBT filed a verified notice of exemption to

acquire by lease and operate a line of railroad owned by Norfolk

Southern Railway Company (NS) (B.A. No. 1525). The rail line begins

approximately at NS milepost 448 in the vicinity of CP 23rd Street,

railroad valuation station 1+25, and extending to valuation station

5633+27, at the intersection of the rail line and Awtry Street, a distance

of approximately 4.4 route miles in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The STB

decision stated that ECBT and NS intended to consummate the

transaction on or after the April 4, 2001 effective date of the exemption.

Information regarding ECBT was provided by Mr. Tim Andrews,

President of ECBT. According to Mr. Andrews, Tennessee Valley

Railroad Museum is the owner of ECBT. Mr. Andrews stated that

ECBT began rail operations over its 4.3 miles of rail line on April 4,

2001. ECBT hired one employee who began on April 1, 2001 and hired

two more employees who began on April 4, 2001. Mr. Andrews further

stated that ECBT provides common carrier freight service and expects

to handle approximately 150 carloads of freight annually. Mr. Andrews 

also stated that although ECBT only interchanges with NS, ECBT

provides operations on an as needed basis to deliver cars between

ECBT's Norfolk Southern Interchange and the three on-line customers.

Mr. Andrews also noted that Norfolk Southern pays ECBT a set amount

per car to move the cars between the interchange and the customers.

Section 1(a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1)),

insofar as relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

BA# 4574
East Chattanooga Belt Railway Company

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the

Surface Transpiration Board under Part A ofsubtitle IV oftitle 49,

United States Code;

Section 1 of the RUIA contains essentially the same definitions, as does

section 3231 of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.

The evidence of record establishes that ECBT is a rail carrier operating

in interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that East

Chattanooga Belt Railway Company became an employer within the

meaning of section l(a)(l)(i) of the Railroad Retirement Act and its

corresponding provision of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act

effective April 1, 2001, the date as of which its first employee was first

compensated. [Cf. Rev. Rule. 82-100, 1982-1 C.B. 155, wherein the IRS

held that a company became an employer under the Railroad

Retirement Tax Act on the date it hired employees to perform functions

directly related to its carrier operations.]

uerome F. Kever
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 14, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 14, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0127. NICO LOCKHART v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: SU19CR0546
# L_2018089EN.01001902.xml

| 5.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 89/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 89/19

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 256/2014 of 12 December 2014 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) and Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2015/2123]

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 311 of 26 November 2015
  )

On page 4, in Article 1 of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 256/2014, the text is replaced as follows:

for:

‘The following indent is added in point 9b (Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council) in Part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement:

| “— | 32010 L 0063: Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 (OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 33).”’, |
| --- | --- |

“—

32010 L 0063: Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 (OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 33).”’,

read:

‘The following is added in point 9b (Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council) in Part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement:

“, as amended by:

| — | 32010 L 0063: Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 (OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 33).”
  ’. |
| --- | --- |

—

32010 L 0063: Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 (OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 33).”
  ’.

---
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1897

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 

gross income of social security benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2003

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the inclusion in gross income of social security benefits.

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 ‘‘Senior Citizens Tax 

5 Elimination Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SO7 CIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 86 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to social security benefits) 
2

•HR 1897 IH 

1 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub2 section: 

3 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to 

4 any taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment 

5 of this subsection.’’

6 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS HELD HARM7 LESS.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appro9 priated (out of any money in the Treasury not other10 wise appropriated) for each fiscal year to each fund 

11 under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Re12 tirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the reduc13 tion in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal 

14 year by reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Rev15 enue Code of 1986. 

16 (2) NO TAX INCREASES.—It is the sense of the 

17 Congress that tax increases will not be used to pro18 vide the revenue necessary to carry out paragraph 

19 (1).

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 705 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 705

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
with respect to future interstate designations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 2021

   Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Cramer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
with respect to future interstate designations, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Ports-to-Plains Highway Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. FUTURE INTERSTATE DESIGNATION AND OPERATION.

    (a) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System.--
Section 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 129 
Stat. 1422; 133 Stat. 3018) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), in the first sentence--
                    (A) by inserting ``subsection (c)(14)(A)(ii) 
                (relating solely to the portion from Limon to I-76 in 
                the vicinity of Brush),'' after ``subsection 
                (c)(13),''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``subsection (c)(38),'' after 
                ``subsection (c)(37),''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by adding at the end the 
        following: ``A State having jurisdiction over any segment of 
        the routes referred to in subsection (c)(14)(A)(ii) (relating 
        solely to the portion from Limon to I-76 in the vicinity of 
        Brush) or (c)(38) shall erect signs, as appropriate and 
        approved by the Secretary, identifying such segment as a future 
        addition to the Interstate System.''.
    (b) Vehicle Weight Limitations.--Section 127 of title 23, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(v) Operation of Vehicles on Certain Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, 
and New Mexico Highways.--If any segment of the routes referred to in 
paragraph (14)(A)(ii) (relating solely to the portion from Limon to I-
76 in the vicinity of Brush) or paragraph (38) of section 1105(c) of 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public 
Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032; 114 Stat. 2763A-202; 119 Stat. 1210) is 
designated as a route on the Interstate System, a vehicle that could 
operate legally on that segment before the date of such designation may 
continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement 
under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 66239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0060]


National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee; Intent to 
Reestablish

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, we are giving 
notice that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to reestablish the 
National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee for a 2-year period. The 
Secretary has determined that the Committee is necessary and in the 
public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Joyce, Designated Federal 
Officer, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, Riverdale, 
MD 20737; (301) 851-3999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the National Wildlife 
Services Advisory Committee (the Committee) is to advise the Secretary 
of Agriculture on policies, program issues, and research needed to 
conduct the Wildlife Services program. The Committee also serves as a 
public forum enabling those affected by the Wildlife Services program 
to have a voice in the program's policies.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of December 2018.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-27943 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Diagnostic Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, SAM WINER, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Sam Winer                                    
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
|                      |  | Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Directors
#### § 534.302 Coverage.

This subpart applies to employees in executive level and staff positions in temporary organizations. Such employees are not subject to the provisions applicable to General Schedule employees covered by chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code.

[67 FR 63049, Oct. 10, 2002]
### §1473. Consultations and determinations respecting creation of hazards to human health, etc.; criteria for determinations respecting grave and imminent dangers of major harmful consequences to United States coastline or related interests

(a) The Secretary, after consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Commerce, shall determine when a substance other than those enumerated in the protocol is liable to create a hazard to human health, to harm living resources, to damage amenities, or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.

(b) In determining whether there is grave and imminent danger of major harmful consequences to the coastline or related interests of the United States, the Secretary shall consider the interests of the United States directly threatened or affected including but not limited to, human health, fish, shellfish, and other living marine resources, wildlife, coastal zone and estuarine activities, and public and private shorelines and beaches.

(Pub. L. 93–248, §4, Feb. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 9; Pub. L. 95–302, §1(3), June 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 344.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–302 added subsec. (a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (b), and inserted "human health," before "fish".

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 95–302, see section 2 of Pub. L. 95–302, set out as a note under section 1487 of this title.
§ 838.911 Identifying the retirement system. ( a ) To satisfy the requirements of § 838.804(b)(1), a court order must contain language identifying the retirement system affected. For example, “CSRS,” “FERS,” “OPM,” or “Federal Government” survivor benefits, or “survivor benefits payable based on service with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” etc., are sufficient identification of the retirement system.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, language referring to benefits under another retirement system, such as military retired pay, Foreign Service retirement benefits and Central Intelligence Agency retirement benefits, does not satisfy the requirements of § 838.804(b)(1). ( 1 ) A court order that mistakenly labels CSRS benefits as FERS benefits and vice versa satisfies the requirements of § 838.804(b)(1).
( 2 ) Unless the court order expressly provides otherwise, for employees transferring to FERS, court orders directed at CSRS benefits apply to this entire FERS basic benefit, including the CSRS component, if any. Such a court order satisfies the requirements of § 838.804(b)(1).
( c ) A court order affecting military retired pay, even when military retired pay has been waived for inclusion in CSRS annuities, does not award a former spouse survivor annuity under CSRS or FERS. Such a court order does not satisfy the requirements of § 838.804(b)(1).
( d ) A court order that requires an employee or retiree to maintain survivor benefits covering the former spouse satisfies the requirements of § 838.804(b)(1), if the former spouse was covered by a CSRS or FERS survivor annuity or the FERS basic employee death benefit as defined in § 843.102 of this chapter at the time of the divorce.
[57 FR 33574, July 29, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 43493, Aug. 17, 1993]