alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Loretta C., an Infant. Cheri C., Appellant; Good Shepard Services, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 559]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about March 23, 2005, which, upon a finding of mental illness, terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject child and transferred the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of mental illness (Social Services Law § 384-b [6] *765[a]) is supported by clear and convincing evidence, namely, the uncontroverted testimony of a court-appointed psychiatrist (Social Services Law § 384-b [6] [c], [e]), that respondent suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid type, continuous (Axis I), rendering her presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for the child (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]). Although the expert’s examination of respondent lasted only 40 minutes due to respondent’s acute psychotic presentation, limited cooperation and failure to answer his questions, an extensive medical record, which shows a history of mental illness since childhood, numerous hospitalizations and a failure at times to take medication and cooperate with treatment (see *Matter of Victoria Lauren W.,*15 AD3d 165 [2005]; *Matter of Lashawn Shanteal R.,*14 AD3d 467 [2005]), provided a well-articulated basis for the expert’s testimony *(cf. Matter of Dochingozi B.,*57 NY2d 641 [1982]). The record also established that two weeks after the child’s birth, respondent was arrested for stabbing a woman on a bus, but that she has yet to stand trial because she was found unfit to do so. Although a dispositional hearing was not a prerequisite to terminating respondent’s parental rights *(see Matter of Jemanja B.,*287 AD2d 298 [2001]), Family Court nevertheless held one, which established that it is in the child’s best interests to be freed for adoption by her foster mother with whom she has bonded. We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
#### David Farrell SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG; James Hartman, County Administrator; Jennifer Wells, Assistant Solicitor; Harold W. Gowdy, III, Solicitor; Sheriff, Spartanburg County; Clay T. Allen, Public Defender; Sergeant Hopkins; Unknown Deputy; Loretta Roher; Shane Diedmon; Bill Blanton, Sheriff, Cherokee County; Unknown Deputies; Larry Powers, Administrator; Unknown Sergeant; Unknown Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-6531.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 14, 2007.

Decided: May 3, 2007.

David Farrell Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Farrell Sullivan appeals the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and *122dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm based upon the district court’s and magistrate judge’s conclusions that Sullivan’s claims are meritless. *See Sullivan v. County of Spartanburg,*No. 6:05-cv-01282-HFF (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
§ 127.11 Past violations. ( a ) *Presumption of denial.* Pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, licenses or other approvals may not be granted to persons who have been convicted of violating any of the U.S. criminal statutes enumerated in § 120.6 of this subchapter or who are ineligible to receive any export licenses from any agency of the U.S. Government, subject to a narrowly defined statutory exception. This provision establishes a presumption of denial for licenses or other approvals involving such persons. This presumption is applied by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to all persons convicted or deemed ineligible in this manner since the effective date of the Arms Export Control Act (Public Law 94-329; 90 Stat. 729) (June 30, 1976).
( b ) *Policy.* An exception to the policy of the Department of State to deny applications for licenses or other approvals that involve persons described in paragraph (a) of this section shall not be considered unless there are extraordinary circumstances surrounding the conviction or ineligibility to export, and only if the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, that the applicant has taken appropriate steps to mitigate any law enforcement and other legitimate concerns, and to deal with the causes that resulted in the conviction, ineligibility, or debarment. Any person described in paragraph (a) of this section who wishes to request consideration of any application must explain, in a letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls the reasons why the application should be considered. If the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs concludes that the application and written explanation have sufficient merit, the Assistant Secretary shall consult with the Office of the Legal Adviser and the Department of the Treasury regarding law enforcement concerns, and may also request the views of other departments, including the Department of Justice. If the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls does grant the license or other approval, subsequent applications from the same person need not repeat the information previously provided but should instead refer to the favorable decision.
( c ) *Debarred persons.* Persons debarred pursuant to § 127.7(b) (statutory debarment) may not utilize the procedures provided by paragraph (b) of this section while the statutory debarment is in force. Such persons may utilize only the procedures provided by § 127.7(d).
[71 FR 20550, Apr. 21, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 8088, Feb. 11, 2014; 81 FR 87430, Dec. 5, 2016; 87 FR 16425, Mar. 23, 2022]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4085 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to extend and 

improve the milk income loss contract program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 

Mr. WELCH (for himself, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. OWENS, Ms. HOCHUL, Mr. 

HIGGINS, and Mr. OLVER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

to extend and improve the milk income loss contract 

program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘MILC Continuation 

5 Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM. 

7 Section 1506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

8 Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8773) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (c)(3)— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4085 IH

1 (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘and’’ 

2 at the end; 

3 (B) in subparagraph (B)— 

4 (i) by striking ‘‘August 31, 2012’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘September 30, 2013’’; and 

6 (ii) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting 

7 a period; and 

8 (C) by striking subparagraph (C); 

9 (2) in subsection (d)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘August 

11 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 

12 2013’’; 

13 (B) by striking paragraph (2); and 

14 (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

15 paragraph (2); 

16 (3) in subsection (e)(2)(A)— 

17 (A) in clause (i), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the 

18 end; 

19 (B) in clause (ii)— 

20 (i) by striking ‘‘August 31, 2012’’ and 

21 inserting ‘‘September 30, 2013’’; and 

22 (ii) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting 

23 a period; and 

24 (C) by striking clause (iii); and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4085 IH

1 (4) in subsections (g) and (h)(1), by striking 

2 ‘‘2012’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 2, 2014

No. 04-12-00630-CV

THE HUFF ENERGY FUND, L.P., WRH Energy Partners, L.L.C., William R."Bill" Huff, 

Rick D'Angelo, Ed Dartley, Bryan Bloom, and Riley-Huff Energy Group, LLC,

Appellants

v.

LONGVIEW ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-09-12583-ZCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants The Huff Energy Fund, L.P. and WRH Energy Partners L.L.C.'s unopposed 

first motion for extension of time to file reply brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to 

May 28, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3915 

To consolidate programs at the Department of Justice and enact the 

CAMPUS Safety Act of 2011. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To consolidate programs at the Department of Justice and 

enact the CAMPUS Safety Act of 2011. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JUSTICE PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective 30 days after the date 

5 of enactment of this Act, the Office of Dispute Resolution 

6 of the Department of Justice and the jurisdiction and em7 ployees of such office shall be— 

8 (1) transferred to the Office of Legal Policy of 

9 the Department of Justice; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3915 IH

1 (2) funded through the general administration 

2 appropriation of the Office of Legal Policy. 

3 (b) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.—The Attorney General 

4 shall implement policies that will result in at least 

5 $1,000,000 in savings through consolidating ineffective or 

6 duplicative programs over the period of fiscal years 2012 

7 through 2016. 

8 SEC. 2. ENACTMENT OF THE CAMPUS SAFETY ACT OF 2011. 

9 The bill H.R. 2342 (112th Congress), as introduced 

10 in the House of Representatives on June 23, 2011, is here11 by enacted into law. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THOMAS J. VILSACK, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-00484 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

AUGUST 13, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the

parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings, or address any questions not

specifically raised in this notice. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their

briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties

submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities

only, with pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-

3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on

such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on

this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein.

Case 3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document 566 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. In the proposed order submitted by Plaintiffs on June 4, 2010, Plaintiffs propose the

following language be included in the Court’s order granting permanent relief: “For the

purposes of this order, RRSB planted before the date of this Order will not be

considered an introduction.” Does that mean that Plaintiffs do not object to the

harvesting and/or processing of the genetically engineered sugar beets that have already

been planted? If Plaintiffs do object, how does that not conflict with their proposed

language?

2. The Supreme Court stated in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S.Ct. 2743,

2761 (2010) that recourse to the “additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction”

was not warranted if a less drastic remedy, such as a vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation

decision, was sufficient to redress the plaintiff’s injury. Here, Plaintiffs’ only argument

that a vacatur would not be sufficient to redress their injury is that DefendantIntervenors or other third parties might violate the vacatur and APHIS might not be able

to enforce the reinstated regulated status of genetically engineered sugar beets. Why is

any injury from such conduct not speculative and dependant on future conduct?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00484-JSW Document 566 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
### §285e–7. Clearinghouse on Alzheimer's Disease

#### (a) Establishment; purpose; duties; publication of summary

The Director of the Institute shall establish the Clearinghouse on Alzheimer's Disease (hereinafter referred to as the "Clearinghouse"). The purpose of the Clearinghouse is the dissemination of information concerning services available for individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and their families. The Clearinghouse shall—

(1) compile, archive, and disseminate information concerning research, demonstration, evaluation, and training programs and projects concerning Alzheimer's disease and related dementias; and

(2) annually publish a summary of the information compiled under paragraph (1) during the preceding 12-month period, and make such information available upon request to appropriate individuals and entities, including educational institutions, research entities, and Federal and public agencies.

#### (b) Fee for information

The Clearinghouse may charge an appropriate fee for information provided through the toll-free telephone line established under subsection (a)(3).1

#### (c) Summaries of research findings from other agencies

The Director of the Institute, the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Director of the National Center for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Assessment shall provide to the Clearinghouse summaries of the findings of research conducted under part D.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §445E, formerly Pub. L. 99–660, title IX, §951, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3813; renumbered §445E of act July 1, 1944, and amended Pub. L. 100–607, title I, §142(a), (d)(4), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3057, 3058.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Part D, referred to in subsec. (c), probably means part D of title IX of Pub. L. 99–660, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3808, which is classified to subchapter IV (§11251 et seq.) of chapter 118 of this title. Prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 100–607, this section was part of title IX of Pub. L. 99–660.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 11281 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 100–607.

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–607, §142(a), renumbered section 11281 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–607, §142(d)(4)(A), substituted "the Institute" for "the National Institute on Aging" in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–607, §142(d)(4)(B), substituted "the Institute" for "the National Institute on Aging" and "part D" for "part E".

1 So in original. No subsec. (a)(3) has been enacted.
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 142.6 Remedial action, voluntary action, and self-evaluation. ( a ) *Remedial action.* ( 1 ) If the Secretary finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 of the Act or this part, the recipient shall take such remedial action as the Secretary deems necessary to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
( 2 ) Where a recipient is found to have discriminated against persons on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 of the Act or this part and where another recipient exercises control over the recipient that has discriminated, the Secretary, where appropriate, may require either or both recipients to take remedial action.
( 3 ) The Secretary may, where necessary to overcome the effects of discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Act or this part, require a recipient to take action (i) with respect to handicapped persons who are no longer participants in the recipient's program or activity but who were participants in the program when such discrimination occurred, or (ii), with respect to handicapped persons who would have been participants in the program or activity had the discrimination not occurred.
( b ) *Voluntary action.* A recipient may take steps, in addition to any action required by this part, to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity by qualified handicapped persons.
( c ) *Self-evaluation.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall, within six months of the effective date of this part: ( i ) Evaluate, with the assistance of interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, its current policies and practices and the effects thereof that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part;
( ii ) Modify, after consultation with interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, any policies and practices that do not meet the requirements of this part; and
( iii ) Take, after consultation with interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination that resulted from adherence to these policies and practices.
( 2 ) A recipient shall, for at least three years following completion of the evaluation required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, maintain on file, make available for public inspection, and provide to the Secretary upon request: ( i ) A list of the interested persons consulted,
( ii ) a description of areas examined and any problems identified, and
( iii ) a description of any modifications made and of any remedial steps taken.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.C.R., a child, * From the 2 20 th District Court

of Comanche County,

Trial Court No. DV17119

.

No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 0 70

- C V * July 28 , 20 2 2

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey

, C. J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error

in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the order of

the trial court is reversed, and we remand the cause for further proceedings

. A n y

p r o c ee di n g on re m a nd must be c omm e n ce d within 1 80 d a y s of this c ou r t ’ s m a nd a t e

.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40911 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CARLOS CLEMENTE RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-130-1 Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Clemente Rodriguez-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez-Martinez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s briefdiscloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave towithdrawis GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 16, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4158 

To confirm full ownership rights for certain United States astronauts to 

artifacts from the astronauts’ space missions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2012 

Mr. HALL (for himself, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SMITH

of Texas, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. 

COSTELLO, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. BROOKS, 

Mr. OLSON, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mrs. ADAMS, 

Mr. POSEY, Mr. RIGELL, and Mr. CLARKE of Michigan) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology 

A BILL 

To confirm full ownership rights for certain United States 

astronauts to artifacts from the astronauts’ space missions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF ARTIFACT. 

4 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘artifact’’ means, 

5 with respect to an astronaut described in section 2(a), any 

6 expendable item utilized in missions for the Mercury, 

7 Gemini, or Apollo programs through the completion of the 

8 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project not expressly required to be reVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:47 Mar 08, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4158.IH H4158

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4158 IH

1 turned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administra2 tion at the completion of the mission and other expend3 able, disposable, or personal-use items utilized by such as4 tronaut during participation in any such program. The 

5 term includes personal logs, checklists, flight manuals, 

6 prototype and proof test articles used in training, and dis7 posable flight hardware salvaged from jettisoned lunar 

8 modules. The term does not include lunar rocks and other 

9 lunar material. 

10 SEC. 2. FULL OWNERSHIP OF ARTIFACTS. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—A United States astronaut who 

12 participated in any of the Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo pro13 grams through the completion of the Apollo-Soyuz Test 

14 Project, who received an artifact during his participation 

15 in any such program, shall have full ownership of and 

16 clear title to such artifact. 

17 (b) NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLAIM.—The Fed18 eral Government shall have no claim or right to ownership, 

19 control, or use of any artifact in possession of an astro20 naut as described in subsection (a) or any such artifact 

21 that was subsequently transferred, sold, or assigned to a 

22 third party by an astronaut described in subsection (a). 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS