alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 40.4 Amendments to terms or conditions of enumerated agricultural products. ( a ) Notwithstanding the provisions of this part, a designated contract market must submit for Commission approval under the procedures of § 40.5, prior to its implementation, any rule or dormant rule that, for a delivery month having open interest, would materially change a term or condition, as defined in § 40.1(j), of a contract for future delivery in an agricultural commodity enumerated in Section 1a(9) of the Act, or of an option on such a contract or commodity.
( b ) The following rules or rule amendments are not material and should not be submitted under this section: ( 1 ) Changes that are enumerated in § 40.6(d)(2) may be implemented without prior approval or certification if implemented pursuant to the notification procedures of § 40.6(d);
( 2 ) Changes that are enumerated in § 40.6(d)(3)(ii) may be implemented without prior approval or certification or notification as permitted pursuant to § 40.6(d)(3);
( 3 ) Changes in no cancellation ranges and trading hours may be implemented without prior approval if implemented pursuant to the procedures of § 40.6(a);
( 4 ) Changes required to comply with a binding order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or a rule, regulation or order of the Commission or of another Federal regulatory authority, may be implemented without prior approval if implemented pursuant to the procedures of § 40.6(a);or
( 5 ) Any other rule: ( i ) The text of which has been submitted for review at least ten business days prior to its implementation and that has been labeled “Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change;”
( ii ) For which the designated contract market has provided an explanation as to why it considers the rule “non-material,” and any other information that may be beneficial to the Commission in analyzing the merits of the entity's claim of non-materiality; and
( iii ) With respect to which the Commission has not notified the contract market during the review period that the rule appears to require or does require prior approval under this section, may be implemented without prior approval if implemented under the procedures of § 40.6(a).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

W. SCOTT HARKONEN,

Defendant and Petitioner.

Case No. 08-cr-00164-RS-1 

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the order denying the petition for the writ of error coram nobis filed this date, 

judgment is hereby entered in favor of respondent, the United States of America. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cr-00164-RS Document 433 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Carter, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 354]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827). (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J.— Attempted Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lloyd Pendleton, Appellant, v Horace H. Albaugh, as Superintendent of Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 355]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The challenge of petitioner to the preliminary parole revocation hearing was rendered moot by the 1997 determination to revoke his parole following the final parole revocation hearing *(see, People ex rel. McIver v Murray,*275 AD2d 1009; *People ex rel. McCummings v DeAngelo,*259 AD2d 794, *lv denied*93 NY2d 810; *People ex rel. Chavis v McCoy,*236 AD2d 892). The challenges to the 1997 determination and the March 1998 determination denying petitioner release to parole supervision were rendered moot by the March 2000 determination denying petitioner release to parole supervision and directing that he be held for 24 months *(see, People ex rel. Southard v New York State Div. of Parole,*193 AD2d 991). The appeal must therefore be dismissed. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
### §242q–2. Administrative staff and support

The Secretary, acting through either the Assistant Secretary for Health or the Director of the National Institute on Aging, shall appoint an Executive Secretary for the Task Force and shall provide the Task Force with such administrative staff and support as may be necessary to enable the Task Force to carry out subsections (b) and (c) of section 242q of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–557, title III, §303, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2770.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Home Health Care and Alzheimer's Disease Amendments of 1990, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2255

CYNTHIA HOLMES, a/k/a C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia C. Holmes, M.D. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JAMES Y. BECKER, individually; M. M. CASKEY, individually; HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P. A.; MIKELL R. SCARBOROUGH, in official capacity and, as indicated, individually re: unofficial acts , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge. ( 2:17

- cv
- 02949

- BHH

- BM )

Submitted : April 4 , 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges

. *

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

* This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012)

.2 Cynthia C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Mary McFarland Caskey, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN, DAVIS & HUGHES, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, fo r Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Cynthia C. Holmes seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text order denying her motion to reconsider a June 13, 2018 , order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Holmes seeks to appeal is neit her a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees’
motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Holmes’ motion for an enlargement of time. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barry Lawrence, Also Known as Barry Fronerberger, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 8, 1974 (the date on the clerk’s extract is August 30, 1974), convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual misconduct and possession of a weapon as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions of sexual abuse in the first degree and sexual misconduct, and the sentences imposed thereon, and the said counts are dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The conviction of rape in the first degree required dismissal of the inclusory concurrent counts (see CPL 300.40, subd 3, par [b]). Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §2992a–1. Staff

In all personnel actions of the Administration, preference shall be given to individuals who are eligible for assistance under this subchapter. Such preference shall be implemented in the same fashion as the preference given to veterans referred to in section 2108(3)(C) of title 5. The Commissioner shall take such additional actions as may be necessary to promote recruitment of such individuals for employment in the Administration.

(Pub. L. 88–452, title VIII, §812A, as added Pub. L. 102–375, title VIII, §822(13), Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1299.)
#### § 192.10 Eligibility for benefits.

A person designated as a captive under subpart A of this subchapter shall be eligible for benefits under this subpart.
#### In the Matter of 221 West 16th Realty L. L. C., Appellant, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 54]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered December 13, 1999, denying petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), denying petitioner’s application for a building-wide rent restructuring, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner landlord contends that once the Federal low-interest mortgage upon its premises had been satisfied and the program under which it was granted concluded in 1987, the premises reverted to their pre-mortgage rent controlled status and, accordingly, that it was entitled to fair market rent increases when the purportedly rent controlled tenants ended their tenancies. Respondent DHCR, however, rationally determined that, upon the termination of the Federal mortgage and the attendant low-income housing program, petitioner’s premises became subject to rent stabilization *(see,*Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.11 [c]), and pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code, the initial stabilized rent, namely “the rent charged to and paid by the tenant in occupancy on the date [the Federal] regulation ends” (9 NYCRR 2521.1 [l]; *Matter of Brightwater Towers Assocs. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*212 AD2d 603), had to be contested, if at all, within 60 days from the time such rent was set (Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-513 [a]), which period had long since expired at the time of petitioner’s application to respondent DHCR for a building-wide rent restructuring. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.
### §14614. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14614 was editorially reclassified as section 40314 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §290gg. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXIII, §3301(c)(4), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1209

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §571, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title III, §301, July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 417, related to demonstration program in national capital area.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133358(74) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, STEVEN PRICE, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133358 COA: 257577 Court of Claims: 01-018063-MT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s June 26, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

C AVANAGH J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration.

d0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
### §299b–25. Technical assistance

The Secretary, acting through the Director, may provide technical assistance to patient safety organizations, including convening annual meetings for patient safety organizations to discuss methodology, communication, data collection, or privacy concerns.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IX, §926, formerly §925, as added Pub. L. 109–41, §2(a)(5), July 29, 2005, 119 Stat. 434; renumbered §926, Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3509(e)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 534.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 926 of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 927 and is classified to section 299b–26 of this title.

Another prior section 926 of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 946 and is classified to section 299c–5 of this title.

Another prior section 926 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 299c–5 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 106–129.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RICHARD D. LEE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-08-2595 JCS

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff United States of

America. Oral argument is scheduled for July 23, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

In this action to foreclose on property to satisfy outstanding tax obligations, Plaintiff argues that

Defendant taxpayer is not entitled to any offset on the stipulated amount of unpaid tax assessments.

Defendant argues that the United States owes him approximately $750,000 and that any sale of his

property should be offset by the amount owed to him by the United States. Plaintiff argues that this

“issue is not before this court as the taxpayer has not filed an action against the United States concerning

this contractual dispute.” United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 9. The United States cites

to no authority in support of this proposition, nor does it address whether a taxpayer may bring an offset

claim as an affirmative defense in a foreclosure action. Rather, the United States argues that the court

lacks jurisdiction to hear contract claims against the government in amounts exceeding $10,000. 

The United States is hereby ORDERED to file a supplemental reply brief on or before June 28,

2010, which shall address two issues and be supported be relevant legal authority: 

(1) Defendant’s affirmative defense that he is owed sums by the United States and that these

sums should be an offset or reduction in the tax assessment and lien in this case; and

Case 3:08-cv-02595-JCS Document 58 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(2) Defendant taxpayer’s argument that his request for an offset is an equitable remedy,

providing jurisdiction in this Court. 

Defendant may file a response on or before July 2, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02595-JCS Document 58 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4270 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4270

To amend title 39, United States Code, to suspend bonus authority with 
respect to the Postmaster General and certain other postal officials in 
any year in which a postal retail facility or mail processing facility 
                   is closed, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2012

   Ms. Hochul (for herself, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, and Mrs. Noem) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 39, United States Code, to suspend bonus authority with 
respect to the Postmaster General and certain other postal officials in 
any year in which a postal retail facility or mail processing facility 
                   is closed, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Executive Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON BONUS AUTHORITY.

    Section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(7) Restriction on Bonus Authority.--
            ``(A) In general.--No bonus or other reward may, under 
        authority of section 3686 or any other provision of law, be 
        made to the Postmaster General or any other officer of the 
        Postal Service in a senior executive position in any year in 
        which any postal retail facility or mail processing facility is 
        closed.
            ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
                    ``(i) the term `postal retail facility' means a 
                post office, post office branch, post office classified 
                station, or other facility which is operated by the 
                Postal Service, and the primary function of which is to 
                provide retail postal services; and
                    ``(ii) the term `mail processing facility' means a 
                processing and distribution center, processing and 
                distribution facility, network distribution center, or 
                other facility which is operated by the Postal Service, 
                and the primary function of which is to sort and 
                process mail.''.

SEC. 3. CAP ON EXECUTIVE PAY.

    (a) In General.--Subsections (b) and (c) of section 3686 of title 
39, United States Code, are repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3686(d) of such title is amended 
by striking ``period which would not have been allowable but for the 
provisions of subsection (b) or (c);'' and inserting ``period;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Sampath, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 895]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is .affirmed..

The defendant’s contention that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and incredible is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that *473the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
### §2000bb–3. Applicability

#### (a) In general

This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993.

#### (b) Rule of construction

Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter.

#### (c) Religious belief unaffected

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.

(Pub. L. 103–141, §6, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1489; Pub. L. 106–274, §7(b), Sept. 22, 2000, 114 Stat. 806.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 103–141, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000bb of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–274 struck out "and State" after "Federal".
### §285d–3. Data system and information clearinghouse

(a) The Director of the Institute shall establish the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Data System for the collection, storage, analysis, retrieval, and dissemination of data derived from patient populations with arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases, including where possible, data involving general populations for the purpose of detection of individuals with a risk of developing arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases.

(b) The Director of the Institute shall establish the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Information Clearinghouse to facilitate and enhance, through the effective dissemination of information, knowledge and understanding of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases, including juvenile arthritis and related conditions, by health professionals, patients, and the public.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §438, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 849; amended Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title III, §302, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1111.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–310 inserted ", including juvenile arthritis and related conditions," after "skin diseases".
#### Peter E. Low, Respondent, v. Theodore Garrand, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, by default, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.