alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4244 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4244

   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a final decision 
 whether or not to issue a permit under the Endangered Species Act of 
  1973 authorizing construction of an elementary school in San Diego, 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2012

 Mr. Bilbray introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a final decision 
 whether or not to issue a permit under the Endangered Species Act of 
  1973 authorizing construction of an elementary school in San Diego, 
                              California.

    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 ``Jonas Salk Elementary Cap Undo 
Regulatory Environmental Delay'' or the ``CURED Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMIT AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SAN 
              DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, by not later 
than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of 
this Act, issue a final decision whether or not to issue a permit under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) authorizing 
the San Diego Unified School District to construct an elementary school 
in San Diego, California, in accordance with the document ``October 
2011, San Diego Unified School District, Final Environmental Impact 
Report for Jonas Salk Area Elementary School SCH#2010011021'', dated 
February 20, 2008, including the technical appendices to such document.
    (b) Permit Deemed Issued.--If the Secretary does not issue a final 
decision in accordance with subsection (a), such a permit is deemed to 
have been issued upon the expiration of the period referred to in 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Polly E. Boe, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 1, 2006 of RedEnvelope,Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b. [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date:November 14, 2006*By: /s/ POLLY E. BOE*
----

|  | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 30, 2022 | By:    | /s/ Christopher J. Gimbert    |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                 |   |                          |
|                 |   | Christopher J. Gimbert        |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                 |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |

----
#### Emanuel M. Kaiser, Respondent, v. Edith O. Kaiser, Appellant.

Order affirmed. No opinion. Present —- Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
### §284j. Muscular dystrophy research

#### (a) Coordination of activities

The Director of NIH shall expand and increase coordination in the activities of the National Institutes of Health with respect to research on muscular dystrophies, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

#### (b) Administration of program; collaboration among agencies

The Director of NIH shall carry out this section through the appropriate institutes, including the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and in collaboration with any other agencies that the Director determines appropriate.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §409F, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title XXII, §2201, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1157; amended Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §103(b)(12), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3687.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2007—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 109–482 struck out heading and text of subsec. (c). Text read as follows: "There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Amounts appropriated under this subsection shall be in addition to any other amounts appropriated for such purpose."

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

#### Effective Date of 2007 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–482 applicable only with respect to amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2007 or subsequent fiscal years, see section 109 of Pub. L. 109–482, set out as a note under section 281 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 202
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 202 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

§ 202.8 Refund by suppliers and/or agencies. ( a ) *By suppliers.* Any supplier of freight to whom freight charges have been financed by AID will promptly refund to AID upon demand the entire amount, or any lesser amount specified, of such freight charges determined by AID to be in excess of the prevailing rate at time of shipment, if any, or the rate paid the supplier for similar services by other customers similarly situated.
( b ) *By agencies.* Any agency to which freight charges have been paid or reimbursed under this Regulation will promptly refund to AID upon demand the entire amount, or any lesser amount specified, of inland transportation and/or related shipping costs, ( 1 ) whenever AID determines that the reimbursements were improper as being in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and relevant appropriation acts, or any rules, regulations, or procedures of AID promulgated under any of these acts, or
( 2 ) whenever it is determined by the agency or AID that any of the supplies for which reimbursement was made have not been accorded duty-free status by the recipient country.
§ 172.6 Procedure when response to demand is required prior to receiving instructions. ( a ) If a response to a demand is required before the appropriate Department official designated in § 172.4 renders a decision, the Department will request that either a Department of Justice attorney or a Department attorney designated for the purpose: ( 1 ) Appear with the employee upon whom the demand has been made;
( 2 ) Furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the regulations contained in this part;
( 3 ) Inform the court or other authority that the demand has been, or is being, as the case may be, referred for the prompt consideration of the appropriate Department official; and
( 4 ) Respectfully request the court or authority to stay the demand pending receipt of the requested instructions.
( b ) In the event that an immediate demand for production or disclosure is made in circumstances which would preclude the proper designation or appearance of a Department of Justice or Department attorney on the employee's behalf, the employee shall respectfully request the demanding court or authority for a reasonable stay of proceedings for the purpose of obtaining instructions from the Department.
[57 FR 32896, July 24, 1992, as amended at 83 FR 17489, Apr. 20, 2018]
#### Stuyvesant L. & B. Corporation, Respondent, v. Harry Reiner, as Treasurer of Waiters’ Union, Local No. 1, an Unincorporated Association of Seven or More Members, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 427 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 5-year recovery 

period for computer-based gambling machines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2011 

Mr. HELLER (for himself, Mr. HECK, and Ms. BERKLEY) 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 provide 

a 5-year recovery period for computer-based gambling 

machines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR RECOVER PERIOD FOR COMPUTER4 BASED GAMBLING MACHINES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

6 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend7 ed by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vi)(III), by 

8 striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and inserting 

9 ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the end the following new 

10 clause: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 427 IH

1 ‘‘(viii) any computer-based gambling 

2 machine, including slot machines and video 

3 lottery terminals.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
(November 27, 2000)

#### Bridget Aglio et al., Respondents, v Nemesio Reyes, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 894]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 23, *4082000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met his initial burden of establishing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to come forward with admissible evidence to raise an issue of fact *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957). The plaintiffs failed to do so *(see, Smith v Askew,*264 AD2d 834; *Yagliyan v Gun Shik Yang,*241 AD2d 518; *Gutierrez v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth.,*240 AD2d 469; *Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental,*216 AD2d 266). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Scott Farrell, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 298]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teres!, J.), entered November 25, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As a result of a pat frisk, petitioner was found to be in possession of a contraband receipt bearing another inmate’s name, a contraband receipt with a forged correction officer’s signature and instructions for completing a contraband receipt. On November 27, 2004, he was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing contraband and forging a document. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty with explanation to possessing contraband but not guilty to forging a document. He was found guilty of both charges at the conclusion of the hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination on proce*1104dural grounds. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

Initially, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the hearing was not completed in a timely manner. Although the hearing was completed on December 16, 2004, more than 14 days after the misbehavior report was written *(see*7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]), valid extensions were granted due to the unavailability of the Hearing Officer and the necessity of obtaining the confidential testimony of a mental health professional. Inasmuch as there was authorization for the delay in completing the hearing, there was compliance with the regulatory requirements *(see Matter of Karlin v Senkowski,*11 AD3d 832 [2004]; *Matter of Cornwall v Goord,*284 AD2d 763, 764 [2001]). Moreover, petitioner was not improperly denied access to the mental health professional’s confidential testimony. Given that petitioner was informed that such testimony was being presented solely to establish his mental health status and that maintaining the confidentiality of such testimony is in keeping with the accepted policy of the Office of Mental Hygiene *(see Matter of Ryan v Pico,*227 AD2d 806, 807 [1996]; *see also Matter of Colantonio v Coughlin,*194 AD2d 1015, 1016 [1993]), we find no error. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses, have been considered and found to be unavailing.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00343-CV

JOHNATHAN BALL

v.

ISAAC SAGREDO

On Appeal from the

389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-3976-20-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 18, 2022
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

April 11, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-16-0005 – CORNERSTONE 

DEVELOPMENT FOR THE REVISED FUEL CYCLE PROCESS 

The Commission has disapproved the staff’s recommendation for a Revised Fuel Cycle 

Oversight Process (RFCOP). Given that the staff has already undertaken enhancements to the 

existing fuel cycle oversight process, and that the current process effectively ensures the safety 

and security of licensed activities at these facilities, the staff should not expend limited agency 

resources on any further development of a RFCOP. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

PDR
#### Kris K. McSORLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-16578.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

*449Kris K. McSorley, Ely, NV, pro se.

Susan K. Stewart, DAG, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This appeal from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion for preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. *See Gregorio T. v. Wilson,*59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). The record before us shows that the court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or the threat of imminent irreparable harm and in denying preliminary injunctive relief. *See id.*The court’s factual findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. *See id.*

Although appellant has raised some very serious allegations about his medical care, appellant is currently housed in the infirmary at Ely State Prison and is receiving medical treatment. He has not sufficiently demonstrated that he is currently receiving a level of care that would violate constitutional standards such that he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.17a-19 Form X-17A-19 Report by national securities exchanges and registered national securities associations of changes in the membership status of any of their members.

Every national securities exchange and every registered national securities association shall file with the Commission at its principal office in Washington, DC, and with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation such information as is required by § 249.635 of this chapter on Form X-17A-19 within 5 business days of the occurrence of the initiation of the membership of any person or the suspension or termination of the membership of any member. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to relieve a national securities exchange or a registered national securities association of its responsibilities under § 240.17a-5(b)(5) except that, to the extent a national securities exchange or a registered national securities association promptly files a report on Form X-17A-19 including therewith, inter alia, information sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 240.17a-5(b)(5), it shall not be required to file a report pursuant to § 240.17a-5(b). Upon the occurrence of the events described in this paragraph, every national securities exchange and every registered national securities association shall notify in writing such member of its responsibilities under § 240.17a-5(b).

[45 FR 39841, June 12, 1980]
### §300c–14. Report to Congress

#### (a) In general

Not later than 2 years after December 31, 2020, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that contains, with respect to the reporting period—

(1) information regarding the incidence and number of sudden unexpected infant death and sudden unexpected death in childhood (including the number of such infant and child deaths that remain unexplained after investigation), including, to the extent practicable—

(A) a summary of such information by racial and ethnic group, and by State;

(B) aggregate information obtained from death scene investigations and autopsies; and

(C) recommendations for reducing the incidence of sudden unexpected infant death and sudden unexpected death in childhood;

(2) an assessment of the extent to which various approaches of reducing and preventing sudden unexpected infant death and sudden unexpected death in childhood have been effective; and

(3) a description of the activities carried out under section 300c–11 of this title.

#### (b) Definitions

In this section, the terms "sudden unexpected infant death" and "sudden unexpected death in childhood" have the meanings given such terms in section 300c–11 of this title.

(Pub. L. 116–273, §3, Dec. 31, 2020, 134 Stat. 3354.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Scarlett's Sunshine on Sudden Unexpected Death Act, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
### §2383. Date of transfer

Transfers of municipal installations may be made at any time, not later than five years after August 4, 1955, in the case of Oak Ridge and Richland, or, in the case of Los Alamos, not later than June 30, 1998.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 8, §83, 69 Stat. 481; Pub. L. 87–719, §23, Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 666; Pub. L. 104–106, div. C, title XXXI, §3161(b), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 627.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–106 substituted "not later than June 30, 1998" for "not later than five years after the date it is included within this chapter".

1962—Pub. L. 87–719 inserted "in the case of Oak Ridge and Richland, or, in the case of Los Alamos, not later than five years after the date it is included within this chapter" after "August 4, 1955,".