alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1805. Monetary allowance

(a) The Secretary shall pay a monthly allowance under this section to any child of a Vietnam veteran for any disability resulting from spina bifida suffered by such child.

(b)(1) The amount of the allowance paid to a child under this section shall be based on the degree of disability suffered by the child, as determined in accordance with such schedule for rating disabilities resulting from spina bifida as the Secretary may prescribe.

(2) The Secretary shall, in prescribing the rating schedule for the purposes of this section, establish three levels of disability upon which the amount of the allowance provided by this section shall be based.

(3) The amounts of the allowance shall be $200 per month for the lowest level of disability prescribed, $700 per month for the intermediate level of disability prescribed, and $1,200 per month for the highest level of disability prescribed. Such amounts are subject to adjustment under section 5312 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 104–204, title IV, §421(b)(1), Sept. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 2925; amended Pub. L. 106–419, title IV, §401(c)(2), (e)(2), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1860.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1805 was renumbered section 3705 of this title.

#### Amendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–419, §401(e)(2), substituted "this section" for "this chapter".

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 106–419, §401(c)(2), struck out subsecs. (c) and (d) which read as follows:

"(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, receipt by a child of an allowance under this section shall not impair, infringe, or otherwise affect the right of the child to receive any other benefit to which the child may otherwise be entitled under any law administered by the Secretary, nor shall receipt of such an allowance impair, infringe, or otherwise affect the right of any individual to receive any benefit to which the individual is entitled under any law administered by the Secretary that is based on the child's relationship to the individual.

"(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the allowance paid to a child under this section shall not be considered income or resources in determining eligibility for or the amount of benefits under any Federal or federally assisted program."

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

#### Effective Date of 2000 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–419 effective on the first day of the first month beginning more than one year after Nov. 1, 2000, see section 401(g) of Pub. L. 106–419, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1811 of this title.
```

[House Report 107-271]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-271

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3167, GERALD B.H. SOLOMON FREEDOM 
                       CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

  November 6, 2001.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 277]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 277, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3167, the 
Gerald B.H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, under a 
modified closed rule. The rule provides one hour of debate in 
the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. The rule also provides that the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on International Relations now 
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
    The rule further provides for consideration of only the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
Congressional Record, if offered by Representative Lantos or 
his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be 
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
    Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.

                                  

```
NRC’S VICTOR MCCREE NAMED AS ONE OF THE 

MOST INFLUENTIAL BLACK ENGINEERS IN 2008 

Victor McCree, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Region II Deputy 

Regional Administrator, has been profiled in a national engineering magazine, which 

identified him as a leader in the energy field. 

U.S. Black Engineer & Information Technology Magazine included McCree 

in a cover story entitled “They’ve Got the Power,” which profiled 16 of the leading 

black engineers in the energy arena. The story appears in the magazine’s fall 2008 issue. 

“It is a tremendous honor and I am proud to be included among such a group of highly 

regarded professionals,” McCree said. 

Career Communications Group, publishers of the U.S. Black Engineer & Information 

Technology Magazine, recognizes and honors minority men and women who are making a 

difference in technology and serve as role models. The profiles demonstrate the success that 

minority energy experts are capable of and the skill and determination it took to overcome hurdles 

as they rose in professions sometimes resistant to change. McCree is among those individuals 

spotlighted because of his significant professional success and contributions. 

McCree joined the NRC in 1988. He has held positions of increasing responsibility, 

including operations engineer in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, senior regional 

coordinator and program engineer in the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO), 

and chief of staff for the OEDO. He was appointed to the federal Senior Executive Service in 1996 

and was selected to be the deputy director for policy development and technical support in the 

office of then NRC Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson. In 1998, he was assigned to NRC Region II in 

Atlanta, Ga., and, in addition to his current position, has served as the director and deputy director 

for the Divisions of Reactor Safety and Reactor Projects. 

Prior to joining the NRC, McCree was a nuclear-trained submarine officer and completed 

Nuclear Engineer Officer certification. He also served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations 

and retired from the Naval Reserve at the rank of Commander. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval 

Academy, and holds an Executive Master of Business Administration degree from Georgia State 

University. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to 

subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 08-204 November 10, 2008
§ 847.905 How is the present value of an immediate annuity with credit for NAFI service computed? ( a ) OPM will determine the present value of the immediate annuity including service credit for NAFI service by multiplying the monthly annuity rate as of the commencing date of the annuity by the present value factor for the retiree's age on that date.
( b ) The monthly annuity rate under paragraph (a) of this section for CSRS and CSRS Offset retirees equals the monthly rate of annuity otherwise payable under 5 U.S.C. chapter 83, subchapter III, including all reductions provided under that subchapter.
( c ) The monthly annuity rate under paragraph (a) of this section for FERS retirees equals the monthly rate of annuity otherwise payable under 5 U.S.C. chapter 84, subchapter II, including all reductions provided under that subchapter.
§ 890.903 Covered services. ( a ) The limitation on the charges and FEHB benefit payments for inpatient hospital services apply to inpatient hospital services which are: ( 1 ) Covered under both Medicare part A and the retired enrolled individual's FEHB plan; and
( 2 ) Supplied to a retired enrolled individual who does not have Medicare part A; and
( 3 ) Provided by hospital providers who have in force participation agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) consistent with sections 1814(a) and 1866 of the Social Security Act, and receive Medicare part A payments in accordance with the diagnosis related group (DRG) based prospective payment system (PPS).
( b ) The limitation on the charges and FEHB benefit payments for physician services apply to physician services, (as defined in section 1848(j) of the Social Security Act), which are: ( 1 ) Covered under both Medicare part B and the retired enrolled individual's FEHB plan; and
( 2 ) Supplied to a retired enrolled individual who does not have Medicare part B.
[60 FR 26668, May 18, 1995]
#### § 9401.112 Prohibited purchase of assets.

An employee, or an employee's spouse or minor child, shall not purchase, directly or indirectly, any real or personal property from an entity supervised by the Bureau, unless it is sold at public auction or by other means which assures that the selling price reflects the asset's fair market value.
#### Hattie J. Brown, Appellant, v. Edward M. Brown, Appellee.

Gen. No. 19,895.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.

Transferred to Supreme Court.

Opinion filed April 23, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Bill by Hattie J. Brown against Edward M. Brown praying for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The bill alleged that after the marriage complainant bought real estate with her own money, that the defendant without complainant’s knowledge and consent procured the insertion of his name as a grantee jointly with complainant, and that defendant thereafter refused to release to her his interest thus acquired. The bill prayed for a decree requiring de*89fendant to execute such release and convey to complainant all his interest in the real estate. The court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and complainant appeals.

The appellant assigned as errors the action of the court in refusing a decree of divorce and also in refusing to require appellee to release and convey to complainant his interest in said real estate.

Chytraus, Healy & Frost and Edwin White Moore, for appellant.

Bluim & Teed, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and error, § *147*
      ***
      *—when decree in divorce proceeding involves a freehold.*A decree dismissing a bill for divorce *held*to involve a freehold authorizing a transfer of an appeal perfected in the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court, where the pleadings presented two distinct issues, one whether complainant was entitled to a divorce and the other whether she was entitled to a decree for a conveyance of real estate.

2. Appeal and error, § *1718*
      ***
      *—when freehold not waived by appeal to Appellate Court.'*Praying and perfecting an appeal to the Appellate Court and assigning errors which such court has jurisdiction to determine, *held*not to constitute a waiver or abandonment of the question whether a freehold is involved, where the appellant made his motion for a transfer of the appeal to the Supreme Court before any briefs or abstracts were filed in the Appellate Court.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DUE HAU TR

A N, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56420 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02195-M W FM R W M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d July 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, B EA, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Due Ha u T ran a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c osts following his suc c e ssful m otion to re m and. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of 

# FIL ED

JUL 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion a

de nia l of fe e s a

nd c osts. Lussie r

v . Dollar Tre eStore

s, Inc . , 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Tra n’ s m otion for attorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c o sts be c a

use the Housing Authority of the C ounty

of Los Ange l e s ha d a

n obje c tive l y

re a sona ble ba sis to re m o ve Tran’ s a c tion, a s the c om pla i nt c onta ine d a lle gations c onc e rning viola tions of fe de ra l la

ws. Se e M

artin v . Frank lin C apital C orp. , 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (disc ussing whe n attorne y ’ s fe e s should beawarde d unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1447(c ) and e xpla ining tha t a bse nt unusua l c irc um sta

nc e s, “ whe n a

n obje c tive ly

re a sona ble ba sis [for re m ova l ] e xists, fe e s should bede nie d” ). W e re je c t Tra n’ s c onte ntions tha

t furthe r e fforts to m e e t

an d c onfe r would have be e n futile , a nd tha t t he distric t c ourt wa s re q

uire d to de te rm ine whe the r Tran’ s re que ste d fe e s a

nd c osts we re re a sona

ble . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 6 4 2 0 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6359** 
ANQUAN M. COBB, a/k/a Anquan Montrez Cobb , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Henry F. Floyd , District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 00919

- HFF )

Submitted : July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opi nion
. Anquan M. Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anquan M. Cobb seeks to appeal the district c ourt’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by d emonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distric t court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We hav e independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cobb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the accompanying Quarterly Report of Superior Oil and
Gas  Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June  30, 2003 (the
"Report"),  I,  Daniel  Lloyd,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company, hereby
certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

     (2)     The  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


                                   /s/  Daniel  Lloyd
Dated:  March  4,  2004            ---------------------------------------------
                                   Daniel  Lloyd
                                   Chairman  and  Chief  Executive  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-Q  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.





                                                                      Exhibit 32
#### Marian Sherman v. Michael R. Sudakow et al.

Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 912.]
§ 890.1028 Conducting a fact-finding proceeding. ( a ) *Informal proceeding.* The presiding official may conduct the fact-finding proceedings as informally as practicable, consistent with principles of fundamental fairness. Formal rules of evidence or procedure do not apply to these proceedings.
( b ) *Proceeding limited to disputed material facts.* The presiding official shall consider only the genuinely disputed facts identified by the debarring official as material to the basis for the debarment. Matters that have been previously adjudicated or that are not in bona fide dispute within the administrative record shall not be considered by presiding official.
( c ) *Provider's right to present information, evidence, and arguments.* A provider may appear before the presiding official with counsel, submit oral and written arguments and documentary evidence, present witnesses on his own behalf, question any witnesses testifying in support of the debarment, and challenge the accuracy of any other evidence that the agency offers as a basis for the debarment.
( d ) *Record of proceedings.* The presiding official shall make an audio recording of the proceedings and shall provide a copy to the provider at no charge. If the provider wishes to have a transcribed record, OPM shall arrange for production of one which may be purchased at cost.
( e ) *Presiding official's findings.* The presiding official shall resolve all of the disputed facts identified by the debarring official, on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence contained within the entire administrative record. The presiding official shall issue a written report of all findings of fact to the debarring official within 30 days after the record of the fact-finding proceeding closes.
### §21721. Establishment of best practices for local, State, and Federal data collection

#### (a) In general

The Attorney General, in consultation with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, shall—

(1) establish best practices for data collection to focus on elder abuse; and

(2) provide technical assistance to State, local, and tribal governments in adopting the best practices established under paragraph (1).

#### (b) Deadline

Not later than 1 year after October 18, 2017, the Attorney General shall publish the best practices established under subsection (a)(1) on the website of the Department of Justice in a publicly accessible manner.

#### (c) Limitation

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or obligate compliance with the best practices established under subsection (a)(1).

(Pub. L. 115–70, title II, §201, Oct. 18, 2017, 131 Stat. 1211.)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2062

To restore freedom of choice to women in the uniformed services serving 

outside the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2003

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BACA, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CAPUANO, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FARR, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HOLT, Mrs. 

JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. LANTOS, Mrs. 

MALONEY, Mr. OLVER, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. STARK, 

Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. WAXMAN, and Mr. WEXLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL

To restore freedom of choice to women in the uniformed 

services serving outside the United States.

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 ‘‘Freedom of Choice 

5 for Women in the Uniformed Services Act’’. 
2

•HR 2062 IH 

1 SEC. 2. LIMITING RESTRICTION OF USE OF DEPARTMENT 

2 OF DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES TO PER3 FORM ABORTIONS TO FACILITIES IN THE 

4 UNITED STATES. 

5 Section 1093(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘in the United States’’ after ‘‘De7 fense’’.

Æ