alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7701. Organization of the Administration

(a) There is in the Department of Veterans Affairs a Veterans Benefits Administration. The primary function of the Veterans Benefits Administration is the administration of nonmedical benefits programs of the Department which provide assistance to veterans and their dependents and survivors.

(b) The Veterans Benefits Administration is under the Under Secretary for Benefits, who is directly responsible to the Secretary for the operations of the Administration. The Under Secretary for Benefits may be referred to as the Chief Benefits Director.

(Added Pub. L. 102–83, §2(b), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 399; amended Pub. L. 102–405, title III, §302(c)(1), (3), Oct. 9, 1992, 106 Stat. 1984.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–405 substituted "Under Secretary for Benefits" for "Chief Benefits Director" and inserted at end "The Under Secretary for Benefits may be referred to as the Chief Benefits Director."
No. II-10-007 February 22, 2010 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 562-4416 

NRC SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS NFS INSPECTION RESULTS 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting in Erwin, 

Tenn., on Tuesday, March 2 to discuss the results of an Augmented Inspection Team review of 

an October incident at Nuclear Fuel Services. 

 The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. in the Erwin Town Hall, 211 N. Main Ave. The 

meeting is open to the public and the NRC staff will be available to answer questions before and 

after the meeting. 

 On Oct. 13, 2009, during work on a Department of Energy project process line, a 

chemical reaction occurred during the dissolution of scrap material, resulting in unexpected 

levels of heat and the release of nitrogen compound gas fumes within the facility. The NRC 

dispatched a Special Inspection Team to the facility to investigate the incident and within days, 

escalated the effort by adding additional inspectors to form an Augmented Inspection Team. An 

AIT is the second highest level of NRC inspection response. 

 In January, NFS agreed to a number of commitments, including suspending operation of 

all process lines at the facility. The commitments were spelled out in a confirmatory action letter 

issued to NFS on Jan. 7. The NRC staff will schedule additional public meetings in Erwin to 

discuss the commitments in the letter and overall facility performance. 

The announcement for the inspection exit meeting is available online at 

www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. In addition, the inspection team will 

issue a publicly-available written report detailing its results within 30 days of the meeting. 

### 

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand. 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/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, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50988

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Aron Esteban Ruiz-Alvarez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-406-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Aron Esteban Ruiz-Alvarez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry 

into the United States and his sentence of 37 months of imprisonment and 

three years of supervised release. He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is 

unconstitutional because it permits the increase of a sentence beyond the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50988 Document: 00516275076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
No. 21-50988

2

otherwise-applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither 

charged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He 

concedes that this issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for future review and 

has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition.

As Ruiz-Alvarez concedes, the issue he raises is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 

2019). Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Ruiz-Alvarez’s motion for 

summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50988 Document: 00516275076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
#### § 19.15 How will Commerce entities refer Commerce debts to private collection agencies?

Commerce entities will transfer delinquent Commerce debts to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service to obtain debt collection services provided by private collection agencies. *See* § 19.9 of this part.
### §8124. Transfer of jurisdiction between Federal and District of Columbia authorities

(a) Transfer of Jurisdiction.—Federal and District of Columbia authorities administering properties in the District that are owned by the Federal Government or by the District may transfer jurisdiction over any part of the property among or between themselves for purposes of administration and maintenance under conditions the parties agree on. The National Capital Planning Commission shall recommend the transfer before it is completed.

(b) Report to Congress.—The District authorities shall report all transfers and agreements to Congress.

(c) Certain Laws Not Repealed.—Subsection (a) does not repeal any law in effect on May 20, 1932, which authorized the transfer of jurisdiction of certain land among and between federal and District authorities.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1207.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8124(a), (b) | 40:122. | May 20, 1932, ch. 197, §1, 47 Stat. 161; Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1076, §(20), 68 Stat. 967. |
| 8124(c) | 40:123. | May 20, 1932, ch. 197, §2, 47 Stat. 162. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "National Capital Planning Commission" are substituted for "National Capital Park and Planning Commission" because of section 9 of the Act of June 6, 1924 (ch. 270), as added by section 1 of the Act of July 19, 1952 (ch. 949, 66 Stat. 790). See section 8711(f) of the revised title.

In subsection (c), the words "but all such laws shall remain in full force and effect" are omitted as unnecessary.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Elizabeth S. Hussey, Deceased. Andrew J. Hussey, Respondent; Virginia Hussey, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, granting relief in the nature of a writ of assistance requiring the Sheriff to put respondent, Andrew J. Hussey, into possession of premises purchased by him, and directing that the Sheriff remove appellant Virginia Hussey, Alice Hussey Raeder, and all other persons claiming under them, from the premises. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Beldock, JJ., concur.
### §11312. Capital planning and investment control

(a) Design of Process.—In fulfilling the responsibilities assigned under section 3506(h) of title 44, the head of each executive agency shall design and implement in the executive agency a process for maximizing the value, and assessing and managing the risks, of the information technology acquisitions of the executive agency.

(b) Content of Process.—The process of an executive agency shall—

(1) provide for the selection of investments in information technology (including information security needs) to be made by the executive agency, the management of those investments, and the evaluation of the results of those investments;

(2) be integrated with the processes for making budget, financial, and program management decisions in the executive agency;

(3) include minimum criteria to be applied in considering whether to undertake a particular investment in information systems, including criteria related to the quantitatively expressed projected net, risk-adjusted return on investment and specific quantitative and qualitative criteria for comparing and prioritizing alternative information systems investment projects;

(4) identify information systems investments that would result in shared benefits or costs for other federal agencies or state or local governments;

(5) identify quantifiable measurements for determining the net benefits and risks of a proposed investment; and

(6) provide the means for senior management personnel of the executive agency to obtain timely information regarding the progress of an investment in an information system, including a system of milestones for measuring progress, on an independently verifiable basis, in terms of cost, capability of the system to meet specified requirements, timeliness, and quality.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1239; Pub. L. 108–458, title VIII, §8401(3), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3869.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 11312 | 40:1422. | Pub. L. 104–106, div. E, title LI, §5122, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 683. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 108–458 substituted "investments in information technology (including information security needs)" for "information technology investments".
§ 8a.445 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *Status generally.* A recipient shall not apply any rule concerning a student's actual or potential parental, family, or marital status that treats students differently on the basis of sex.
( b ) *Pregnancy and related conditions.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, unless the student requests voluntarily to participate in a separate portion of the program or activity of the recipient.
( 2 ) A recipient may require such a student to obtain the certification of a physician that the student is physically and emotionally able to continue participation as long as such a certification is required of all students for other physical or emotional conditions requiring the attention of a physician.
( 3 ) A recipient that operates a portion of its education program or activity separately for pregnant students, admittance to which is completely voluntary on the part of the student as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall ensure that the separate portion is comparable to that offered to non-pregnant students.
( 4 ) Subject to § 8a.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability with respect to any medical or hospital benefit, service, plan, or policy that such recipient administers, operates, offers, or participates in with respect to students admitted to the recipient's educational program or activity.
( 5 ) In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its students, or in the case of a student who does not otherwise qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence for as long a period of time as is deemed medically necessary by the student's physician, at the conclusion of which the student shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began.
Agency Spotlight

----

**October 1997**
**The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)** The EBRD iscurrently considering financing for several energy-related projects in Ukraine.  These projectsinclude rehabilitation of the Kiev district heating system (worth $108.6 million), currently in the"preparation" stage; commercialization and privatization of Ukraine's system for transportingnatural gas from Russia to Central and Western Europe ($145.3 million), in "appraisal;" purchaseand installation of gas meters ($78.5 million), in appraisal; and rehabilitation of the Krivoy RogPower Plant ($272.7 million), currently in appraisal.  For more information, contact DeanPeterson, U.S. Department of Commerce, Senior Commercial Officer at the EBRD, in Londonat 011-44 (171) 338-6569 (voice), or  011-44 (171) 338-6487 (fax).
**Asian Development Bank (ADB)** The ADB has approved a $12.5 million loan tosupport establishment of a rural credit union network in Kyrgyzstan.  The project will helpestablish 280 credit unions across the country.  The credit unions will make capital more readilyavailable for both farmers and non-farm rural activities.  The project will include an $8.4 millioncredit line to match credit union members' contributions. It will also provide technical support andtraining to two supervisory agencies.   The project will cost a total of $22.1 million. Theconcessional loan will be interest-free, with a service charge of 1 percent per annum and isrepayable over 40 years, including a 10-year grace period.  For more information, contact DennyBarnes, Senior Commercial Officer at the ADB, in Manila at 011 -63 (2) 890-9364 (voice), or011-63 (2) 890-9713 (fax).
***This report is provided courtesy of the Business Information Service for the NewlyIndependent States (BISNIS)***
§ 270.313 Requests for evidence. ( a ) After the Director establishes and deploys a Team, the Lead Investigator, or their designee, may request the testimony of any person by deposition, upon oral examination or written questions, and may request documents or other physical evidence without seeking prior approval of the Director.
( b ) Requests for responses to written questions will be made in writing and shall include: ( 1 ) A statement that the request is made to gather evidence necessary to an investigation being conducted under the Act;
( 2 ) Identification of the person whose responses are sought;
( 3 ) Contact information for the person to whom the responses should be submitted;
( 4 ) The date and time by which the responses are requested;
( 5 ) A statement that the questions for which responses are sought are attached; and
( 6 ) Contact information for the person to whom questions or problems regarding the request should be addressed.
( c ) Requests for documents or other physical evidence will be made in writing and shall include: ( 1 ) A statement that the request is made to gather evidence necessary to an investigation being conducted under the Act;
( 2 ) A description of the documents or other physical evidence sought;
( 3 ) Identification of the person or persons to whom the request is made;
( 4 ) A request that each person to whom the request is directed produce and permit inspection and copying of the documents and physical evidence in the possession, custody, or control of that person at a specific time and place; and
( 5 ) Contact information for the person to whom questions or problems regarding the request should be addressed.
( d ) Requests for witness testimony will be made in writing and shall include: ( 1 ) The name of the person whose testimony is requested;
( 2 ) The date, time, and place of the deposition;
( 3 ) A statement that the person whose testimony is requested may be accompanied by an attorney; and
( 4 ) Contact information for the person to whom questions or problems regarding the request should be addressed.
( e ) Collections of evidence under paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section are investigatory in nature and will not be considered research for any purpose.
[68 FR 4694, Jan. 30, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 66707, Nov. 28, 2003]
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of 2002, the undersigned officer of NTK Holdings, Inc. (“Company”), hereby
        certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-Q/A for
        the fiscal quarter ended April 1, 2006 (the “Reports”) fully comply with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Reports fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of the Company.










/s/
      Richard L.
      Bready


Name:
      Richard L. Bready


Title:
      President and Chief Executive Officer








Dated:
      November 21, 2006
### §3505. Submission of other information

(a) Authority To Require Submission.—When certified cost or pricing data are not required to be submitted under this chapter for a contract, subcontract, or modification of a contract or subcontract, the contracting officer shall require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to determine the reasonableness of the price of the contract, subcontract, or modification of the contract or subcontract. Except in the case of a contract or subcontract covered by the exceptions in section 3503(a)(1) of this title, the contracting officer shall require that the data submitted include, at a minimum, appropriate information on the prices at which the same item or similar items have previously been sold that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price for the procurement.

(b) Limitations on Authority.—The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall include the following provisions regarding the types of information that contracting officers may require under subsection (a):

(1) Reasonable limitations.—Reasonable limitations on requests for sales data relating to commercial products or commercial services.

(2) Limitation on scope of request.—A requirement that a contracting officer limit, to the maximum extent practicable, the scope of any request for information relating to commercial products or commercial services from an offeror to only that information that is in the form regularly maintained by the offeror in commercial operations.

(3) Information not to be disclosed.—A statement that any information received relating to commercial products or commercial services that is exempt from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5 shall not be disclosed by the Federal Government.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3767; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §836(b)(13), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1863.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3505 | 41:254b(d). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §304A(d), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1251(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3281; Pub. L. 104–106, title XLII, §§4201(b)(1), 4321(e)(4), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 652, 675; Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title VIII, §808(b), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2085. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–232 substituted "commercial products or commercial services" for "commercial items" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Jan. 1, 2020, subject to a savings provision, see section 836(h) of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as an Effective Date of 2018 Amendment; Savings Provision note under section 453b of Title 6, Domestic Security.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Texeira, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 183]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered January 21, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 22 years to life and 3V2 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s contention regarding the sufficiency of the fingerprint evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant’s fingerprint found on the outside of the window used by the burglar to gain access to the victims’ home was, standing alone, sufficient to support the conviction *(see People v Yancey,*24 NY2d 864 [1969]), particularly in view of the evidence that the fenced-in backyard leading to the window was inaccessible to the public. Defendant’s farfetched theory that the prints might *757have been left on the window long before the crime, and that the public might have had access to the backyard at some time in the distant past, does not warrant a different conclusion *(see e.g. People v McKenzie,*2 AD3d 348 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 764 [2004]; *People v Steele,*287 AD2d 321, 322 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 682 [2001]; *Taylor v Stainer,*31 F3d 907, 910 [1994]).

The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant’s constitutional challenge to his sentence as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]). Defendant’s sentence was based entirely on his prior convictions *(see Almendarez-Torres v United States,*523 US 224 [1998]).

As the People concede, since the crimes were committed prior to the effective date of the legislation providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### §§ 8c.41-8c.48 [Reserved]
#### Ermire Krevulin, Respondent, v. Solomon Present, Appellant.

Motion denied on condition that appellant perfect the appeal, place the case on the June calendar and be ready for argument when reached. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.