alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2000d–3. Construction of provisions not to authorize administrative action with respect to employment practices except where primary objective of Federal financial assistance is to provide employment

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize action under this subchapter by any department or agency with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization except where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title VI, §604, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253.)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Fields’s

request for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZELOS FIELDS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

J. L. NORWOOD,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-56345

D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00173-VAP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Zelos Fields appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 31 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-56345

Fields challenges a prison disciplinary violation that resulted in the loss of

good conduct time, contending that his right to due process was violated because

he was denied staff representation at his hearing, and because he did not knowingly

or voluntarily waive his right to staff representation. We review the denial of a

section 2241 habeas petition de novo. See Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805

(9th Cir. 2008).

The record reflects that Fields was afforded the minimal procedural

protections to which he was entitled. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-

67 (1974). Contrary to Fields’s contention, his case was not so complicated as to

entitle him to staff representation at his hearing. See id. at 570 (an inmate has a

right to assistance from a fellow inmate or staff where “the complexity of the issue

makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence

necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case”). Therefore, we do not

reach Fields’s claim that his waiver of staff representation was unknowing and

involuntary.

To the extent that Fields argues that he was denied his right under Wolff to

call witnesses, this contention is not supported by the record, which reflects that

Fields never made a request to call witnesses, or identified any potential witnesses.

AFFIRMED.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00042-CR

IN RE Michael IDROGO

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 8, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 19, 2012, relator filed a petition entitled “Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto 

and/or Petition for Writ of Error and/or Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” The court has 

considered relator’s petition and supplemental petition and is of the opinion that relator is not 

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 342465, styled State of Texas v. Michael Idrogo, in the County Court No. 

6, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Wayne Christian presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3975 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3975

To amend title V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend 
 the provisions of the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2012

  Mr. Rogers of Michigan (for himself and Mr. Markey) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend 
 the provisions of the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement 
                                  Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PEDIATRIC MEDICAL DEVICE SAFETY AND IMPROVEMENT 
              ACT.

    (a) Humanitarian Device Exemption Extension.--Section 
520(m)(6)(A)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
360j(m)(6)(A)(iv)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
``2017''.
    (b) Demonstration Grants To Improve Pediatric Device 
Availability.--Section 305(e) of Pediatric Medical Device Safety and 
Improvement Act (Public Law 110-85; 42 U.S.C. 282 note)) is amended by 
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2017''.
    (c) Effective Date for Rule Relating to Tracking of Pediatric Uses 
of Devices.--Notwithstanding subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, 
of title 5, the United States Code (commonly known as the 
``Administrative Procedures Act'') and any other provision of law, the 
proposed rule issued by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs entitled 
``Medical Devices; Pediatric Uses of Devices; Requirement for 
Submission of Information on Pediatric Subpopulations That Suffer From 
a Disease or Condition That a Device Is Intended to Treat, Diagnose, or 
Cure,'' 75 Fed. Reg. 16365 (April 1, 2010), shall take effect on 
January 1, 2013, unless such Commissioner issues the final rule before 
such date.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Commercial Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2007 (“Form 10-Q”), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.Dated: October 30, 2007        /s/ Harry Brill   Harry Brill   Chief Financial Officer
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1369 V

UNPUBLISHED

SHERRIE LEWIS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 6, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Decision Awarding Damages; Pain

and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC , for petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On September 9, 20 19 , Sherrie Lewis filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”)

. Petitioner alleges that suffered left shoulder injuries related to vaccine

administration (SIRVA) , resulting from the infl uenz a (fl u) vaccination received on

September 12, 2018 . Petit ion at 1

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit

of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 6, 2021

, a ruling on entitlement was issued , finding P etitioner entitled to

compensation for SIRVA . On April 29, 2021

, R espondent filed a com bine d Rule 4 (c)

report and p roffer on a ward of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating P etitioner should be

awarded $ 57,500.00

. Proffer at 4

. In the Proffer, R espondent represented that P etitioner

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic

Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the

internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact

medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

If, upon review, I agree that the identified material f its within this definition, I will redact such material from

public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the perti nent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012).2

agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that P etitioner

is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award P etitioner a lump sum

payment of $ 57,500.00 in the form of a check payable to P etitioner

. This amount

represents compensation for all damages that w ould be available under § 15 (a)

.

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this

decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint fil ing of notice

renouncing the right to seek review.
OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE

Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto (each, a “Servicing Agreement”), for which Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, has engaged Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark, as Primary Sub-Servicer or Limited Primary Sub-Servicer, (as reflected on Schedule I hereto) (the “Primary and Limited Primary Sub-Servicer”), the undersigned, Ronald Steffenino, Vice Chairman of Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

1. A review of the activities of the Primary & Limited Primary Sub-Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the applicable Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and


2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Primary & Limited Primary Sub-Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.






Berkeley Point Capital LLC				February 22, 2023

dba Newmark





/s/ Ronald Steffenino

Ronald Steffenino Vice Chairman

img47534043_0.jpg

---

Schedule I



Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark as Primary Sub-Servicer for Well Fargo NA

|                  |                 
|----------------- | ----------------
|COMM 2014-CCRE20  | GSMS 2015-GC28  
|COMM 2015-CCRE24  | COMM 2015-CCRE26
|COMM 2015-LC23    | GSMS 2015-GC34  
|CFCRE 2016-C3     | CFCRE 2016-C4   
|Citigroup 2016-C1 | CFCRE 2016-C6   
|SGCMS 2016-C5     | UBS 2017-C4     
|UBS 2017-C6       | CFCRE 2017-C8   
|UBS 2018-C10      | CFCRE 2018-C6   
|BBCMS 2018-C2     |                 

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark as Limited Primary Sub-Servicer for Wells Fargo NA

|                      |                 
|--------------------- | ----------------
|COMM 2012-CCRE2       | COMM 2012-CCRE3 
|COMM 2012-CCRE4       | COMM 2013-CCRE6 
|COMM 2013-CCRE10      | COMM 2013-CCRE12
|COMM 2013-CCRE13      | COMM 2014-CCRE14
|DB CCRE 2014-ARCP     | GSMS 2014-GC18  
|COMM 2014-LC17        | COMM 2014-CCRE20
|GSMS 2014-GC22        | COMM 2014-UBS5  
|GSMS 2014-GC26        | CGCMT 2014-GC19 
|CGCMT 2014-GC21       | GSMS 2015-GC28  
|COMM 2015-CCRE22      | COMM 2015-CCRE24
|COMM 2015-CCRE25      | COMM 2015-CCRE26
|COMM 2016-CCRE28      | GSMS 2015-GC34  
|BBCCRE TRUST 2015-GTP | COMM 2015-LC23  
|Citigroup 2016-C1     | CFCRE 2016-C3   
|CFCRE 2016-C4         | SGCMS 2016-C5   
|CFCRE 2016-C6         | UBS 2017-C6     
|UBS 2017-C7           | CFCRE 2017 C8   
|UBS 2018-C10          | BBCMS 2018-C2   
|UBS 2019 C18          | CFCRE 2019 L3   



img47534043_0.jpg

---
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SRM-SECY-15-0087: Agreement State Program Policy Statement and Program Recommendations

Accession Number: ML16082A511

Date Released: Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16082A514 - SRM-SECY-15-0087:  Agreement State Program Policy Statement and Program Recommendations. (1 page(s), 3/22/2016)
    - ML16082A517 - SRM-SECY-15-0087:  Enclosure - Agreement State Program Policy Statement and Program Recommendations (27 page(s), 3/22/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3932 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Reactive Red 198. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Reactive 

Red 198. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REACTIVE RED 198. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.99 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2014’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

9 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 990.50 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to provide a process by which trustees evaluate and quantify potential injuries (injury assessment), and use that information to determine the need for and scale of restoration actions (restoration selection).
§ 12.21 Voluntary dismissal. ( a ) At any time after the Director of the Office of Proceedings has served notification to the parties pursuant to § 12.15 of the Director's determination to forward the complaint to the respondent for a response, either the complainant or the respondent may obtain dismissal of the complaint (or the proceeding, if one has commenced) by filing a stipulation of dismissal, duly executed by all of the complainants and each respondent against whom the complaint has been forwarded (or added as a party in the course of a proceeding); *provided however,* that if the stipulation is filed after any respondent has filed an answer, the terms of the stipulation shall include a dismissal of any counterclaims in the answer.
( b ) A dismissal of a complaint pursuant to this paragraph shall be with prejudice to complainant's right to re-file a claim in reparations based upon the same set of facts as alleged in the dismissed complaint. Unless otherwise stated in the stipulation, a dismissal ordered pursuant to this paragraph shall be regarded by the Commission as without prejudice to the parties' right to seek redress in such alternative forums as may be available for adjudication of their claims.
( c ) Upon receiving a written stipulation of dismissal which satisfies the requirements of this rule, the official before whom the matter or proceeding is pending shall issue an order of dismissal, and serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties.
( d ) This rule shall be applicable at all stages of a reparation proceeding.
[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 86 FR 64353, Nov. 18, 2021]
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.25 Form 25, for notification of removal from listing and/or registration.

This form shall be used by registered national securities exchanges and issuers for notification of removal of a class of securities from listing on a national securities exchange and/or withdrawal of registration under section 12(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78l(b)).

[70 FR 42469, July 22, 2005]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form 25, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-47028) and on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-47786,
333-47788, 333-47790, 333-47860, 333-54500, and 333-54502) of APW Ltd. of our
report dated October 1, 2001, except for information in Note 3 as it relates to
the goodwill impairment, and except for information in Note 17, for which the
date is December 13, 2001, relating to the financial statements, and of our
report dated October 1, 2001 relating to the financial statement schedule, which
appear in this Form 10-K/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
December 13, 2001
#### Mary Cosgrove, as Administratrix of the Estate of James Cosgrove, Deceased, Respondent, v. City Ice and Fuel Company, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Gunite Construction Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### §17941. Recognition of security practices

#### (a) In general

Consistent with the authority of the Secretary under sections 1320d–5 and 1320d–6 of this title, when making determinations relating to fines under such section 1320d–5 (as amended by section 13410 of Pub. L. 111–5) or such section 1320d–6, decreasing the length and extent of an audit under section 17940 of this title, or remedies otherwise agreed to by the Secretary, the Secretary shall consider whether the covered entity or business associate has adequately demonstrated that it had, for not less than the previous 12 months, recognized security practices in place that may—

(1) mitigate fines under section 1320d–5 of this title (as amended by section 13410 of Pub. L. 111–5);

(2) result in the early, favorable termination of an audit under section 17940 of this title; and

(3) mitigate the remedies that would otherwise be agreed to in any agreement with respect to resolving potential violations of the HIPAA Security rule (part 160 of title 45 Code of Federal Regulations and subparts A and C of part 164 of such title) between the covered entity or business associate and the Department of Health and Human Services.

#### (b) Definition and miscellaneous provisions

#### (1) Recognized security practices

The term "recognized security practices" means the standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes developed under section 272(c)(15) of title 15, the approaches promulgated under section 1533(d) of title 6, and other programs and processes that address cybersecurity and that are developed, recognized, or promulgated through regulations under other statutory authorities. Such practices shall be determined by the covered entity or business associate, consistent with the HIPAA Security rule (part 160 of title 45 Code of Federal Regulations and subparts A and C of part 164 of such title).

#### (2) Limitation

Nothing in this section shall be construed as providing the Secretary authority to increase fines under section 1320d–5 of this title (as amended by section 13410 of Pub. L. 111–5), or the length, extent or quantity of audits under section 17940 of this title, due to a lack of compliance with the recognized security practices.

#### (3) No liability for nonparticipation

Subject to paragraph (4), nothing in this section shall be construed to subject a covered entity or business associate to liability for electing not to engage in the recognized security practices defined by this section.

#### (4) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the Secretary's authority to enforce the HIPAA Security rule (part 160 of title 45 Code of Federal Regulations and subparts A and C of part 164 of such title), or to supersede or conflict with an entity or business associate's obligations under the HIPAA Security rule.

(Pub. L. 111–5, div. A, title XIII, §13412, as added Pub. L. 116–321, §1, Jan. 5, 2021, 134 Stat. 5072.)
#### § 287.1 Applicability of this part.

This part (Regulation AD) prescribes the reports to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Asian Development Bank pursuant to section 11(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act.
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.1401 Form ABS-EE, for submission of the asset-data file exhibits and related documents.

This Form shall be used by an electronic filer for the submission of information required by Item 1111(h) (§ 229.1111(h) of this chapter).

[79 FR 57346, Sept. 24, 2014]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form ABS-EE, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
February 4, 2010 wa

Today’s R- 134a is a greenhouse gas that is targeted for phase out in Europe starting next year. As part of the US Clean Air Act that resulted in the phase - out of CFC - 12 and controlled it’s use to only certified service personnel its re placement R- 134a use was not controlled. The uncontrolled sale of R- 134a in the US resulted in the atmospheric loading of this high global warming chemical providing international reason to eliminate its future use. Productions of new vehicles using HF C - 134a systems were first introduced in MY1992 and full production MY 1995. The US Clean Air Act required that refrigerant Recovery Recycle service equipment was ma ndatory. These new HFC - 134a s ystem s incorporated new technologies to reduce refrigerant em iss ions therefore required minimal refrigerant for servicing the fleet in that time period. In the October 12, 2001 Executive Summary of Technologies to Reduce Emissions of Non CO 2 Greenhouse Gases and Black Carbon National Climate Change Technology Initiati ve ( NCCTI), d ata from the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1999 and 2000 indicated high em ission levels for HFC - 134a. In 1998 an unexplained HFC - 134a emissions, accountable to MAC service industry, of an additional 14,000 equivalent me tric tonnes of carbon dioxide or 31 million pounds of HFC 134a was reported. Since the sale of CFC - 12 was restricted to service professionals, HFC - 134a was used to service the leaking MAC CFC - 12 fleet estimated by R.L. Polk to be 159.4 million in 1992 and 13.7 million in 1998, therefore impacting the high R - 134a atmospheric loading.