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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institute of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         February 10-11, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Gaithersburg Marriott Washington Center, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gerald G. Lovinger, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Special Review and Resources Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer                               ( print page 75330)                            Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8101, Rockville, MD 20892-7405. (301) 496-7987.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 39.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

Dated: December 9, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-27497 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.104 Passport requirements. ( a ) *Passports defined.* “Passport” as defined in INA 101(a)(30) is not limited to a national passport or to a single document. A passport may consist of two or more documents which, when considered together, fulfill the requirements of a passport, provided that the documentary evidence of permission to enter a foreign country has been issued by a competent authority and clearly meets the requirements of INA 101(a)(30).
( b ) *Passport requirement.* Except for certain persons in the A, C-3, G, and NATO classifications and persons for whom the passport requirement has been waived pursuant to the provisions of INA 212(d)(4), every applicant for a nonimmigrant visa is required to present a passport, as defined above and in INA 101(a)(30), which is valid for the period required by INA 212(a)(7)(B)(i)(I).
( c ) *A single passport including more than one person.* The passport requirement for a nonimmigrant visa may be met by the presentation of a passport including more than one person, if such inclusion is authorized under the laws or regulations of the issuing authority and if a photograph of each visa applicant 16 years of age or over has been attached to the passport by the issuing authority.
( d ) *Applicants for diplomatic visas.* Every applicant for a diplomatic visa must present a diplomatic passport, or the equivalent thereof, having the period of validity required by INA 212(a)(7)(B)(i)(I), unless such requirement has been waived pursuant to the authority contained in INA 212(d)(4) or unless the case falls within the provisions of § 41.21(b).
[52 FR 42597, Nov. 5, 1987, as amended at 56 FR 30428, July 2, 1991; 61 FR 1522, Jan. 22, 1996; 61 FR 53058, Oct. 10, 1996; 66 FR 38543, July 25, 2001; 67 FR 66046, Oct. 30, 2002]
### §300j–23. Drinking water coolers containing lead

#### (a) Publication of lists

The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, identify each brand and model of drinking water cooler which is not lead free, including each brand and model of drinking water cooler which has a lead-lined tank. For purposes of identifying the brand and model of drinking water coolers under this subsection, the Administrator shall use the best information available to the Environmental Protection Agency. Within 100 days after October 31, 1988, the Administrator shall publish a list of each brand and model of drinking water cooler identified under this subsection. Such list shall separately identify each brand and model of cooler which has a lead-lined tank. The Administrator shall continue to gather information regarding lead in drinking water coolers and shall revise and republish the list from time to time as may be appropriate as new information or analysis becomes available regarding lead contamination in drinking water coolers.

#### (b) Prohibition

No person may sell in interstate commerce, or manufacture for sale in interstate commerce, any drinking water cooler listed under subsection (a) or any other drinking water cooler which is not lead free, including a lead-lined drinking water cooler.

#### (c) Criminal penalty

Any person who knowingly violates the prohibition contained in subsection (b) shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

#### (d) Civil penalty

The Administrator may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States District Court (as determined under the provisions of title 28) to impose a civil penalty on any person who violates subsection (b). In any such action the court may impose on such person a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 ($50,000 in the case of a second or subsequent violation).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIV, §1463, as added Pub. L. 100–572, §2(a), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2885; amended Pub. L. 104–182, title V, §501(f)(9), Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1692.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–182 made technical amendment to section catchline and subsec. (a) designation.
December 16, 2010 

Mr. Benjamin L. Buck 

Director QC/Chief Inspector 

Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. 

7100 TPC Drive, Suite 200 

Orlando, FL 32822 

Dear Mr. Buck: 

We have received your December 9, 2010, correspondence withdrawing your 

November 16, 2010, petition on behalf of Capital Cargo International for an exemption from 

§ 121.1109 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

We have closed docket No. FAA-2010-1177 and no further action will be taken on your 

petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
### §290kk–2. Limitations on use of funds for certain purposes

No funds provided under a designated program shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §583, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(7) [title I, §144], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–622.)
WEETWATER

(9) Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

w
plu
ZS
==
ale
qs

1°) 10 20 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
aaa
Miles
Map 2-40

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals
Alternative 3
GERALDC.MMIi Aunnnr as. TEXAIW Maroh 27, 1939

Mr. E. R. I;lndlay qlief C+-k Rouse t$ Reprssentatiws Austin,Texas DearMr.Lindley:

. . opinion No. o-547 Rer QueI.iflo&lon'of voters for eleotion

to amend Constitution. Reoeipt~lir

aakimwledged

of your letterof this $ats enolosing a 06~~oP-Roti.SimpleResolution lb 186, wh%oh resolution requests

an Opinion

of;this~Oepartmsnt

upon the question

whetheronly tax peysm who have riindijred

propSty fbr taxation, and are otheimise

qualified,

CPII' vote in-theproposed sleotion

on the Constitutional Pmendmnt provided~ for 3n-joikt

%esoluk~o:on- ‘ND.:~

18 if it is sulmfttsd tothe'peopler

~: The resolution

requesting

the opinionatatesthat underkrtiole 8,~Seotlon Sa of the &m?titutionthsla is a very serious quo&Ion as to whc~muld be entiUIed

to vote, if said'Constitutlona1 amendment

is suhnittedto the pooplo,Inview of the fast that the propped amendment provides

for certaintaxes.

..~. .&Mole 17 of fhe Constitution provides

that muendmnts to the

_ Condtiitriti~nm~im pfopawd to be voted upon by the qualified eleotors for members of the bgislature.

-...~ ArEioli6, S?oSion2 of the Constitution provides'who

are q&fied eleotdrs

tith~oertain

requiranwntfr

and~also

osrtain

mstrlotions set out in reation1, none of nhioh requires the eleotorto own taxable

prop*.

. ~I16iole

8; &otion 3i ofthe Constitution mentionedin the resolution

plearlyis not applioable to p &ate wide &s&ion, which hisnecessary

to amend%he Constitution, but applies

only to elections held by oouiitiea

or mAdiv~sions named in said seotion. The only part of said'seotion

whichmight be aonstrued ~a8including

an election

by the state as a whole is that part of the seotion reading 'pny member of counties.*'.

Ilb do not believe,

however,

that this provision of the Constitution.nas

'intended

to inolude

the state a8 a ahole. Inultfis rst plaoe,the Constitution reoo&zes that there are oertain provisions

of the Constitution

and laws Wioh authorize ssWral'coui&ias

to issue 'bonds, suoh as &%iole 3;'Beotion 52, whioh authorites'a9g nwber of adjoining

ca&ies" to -issue

bonds for certain

parposes. In the next plPoei~we'believe

fhat if it had bean the intention of this provisionHon. E. R. Idndley, Page 2 (O-547)

of the Constitution to make the phrase 'any numberof counties" mean the State as a whole, it would have been easierfor the provision to have used the word "Staten.

You am, therefore, advised

that it is the opinionof this Department

that all voterswhD are qualified undertbs provisions of A~%iols 6, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, are qualified

to vote on the proposed

amendment

to the Constitution.
Yoursvery truly



## k Grady 

### .ChaSler .k3,ssistmt
#### In the Matter of Salvatore S. Mantione, Petitioner, v Insurance Department of State of New York et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 547]

—Order unanimously vacated without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memoran-' dum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to vacate or modify the penalty imposed by respondent Superintendent in a disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner admitted that he committed the acts alleged in the charges. Supreme Court acknowledged that neither party raised the issue whether the determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence but *953stated that it must “independently analyze the case to decide whether the substantial evidence test is properly applicable.” The court *sua sponte*determined that transfer was mandated pursuant to CPLR 7803 (4) and 7804 (g). We disagree. In view of petitioner’s admissions, the court erred as a matter of law in finding an issue of substantial evidence. The proceeding should not have been transferred. Thus, we vacate the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court to review the penalty imposed *(see,*CPLR 7803 [3]). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fahey, J.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.
§ 224.14 Separation of functions. ( a ) The investigating official, the reviewing official, and any employee or agent of A.I.D. who takes part in investigating, preparing, or presenting a particular case may not, in such case or a factually related case: ( 1 ) Participate in the hearing as the ALJ;
( 2 ) Participate or advise in the initial decision or the review of the initial decision by the A.I.D. Administrator, except as a witness or representative in public proceedings; or
( 3 ) Make the collection of penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( b ) The ALJ shall not be responsible to, or subject to, the supervision or direction of the investigating official or the reviewing official.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the representative for the Government may be employed anywhere in A.I.D., including in the offices of either the investigating official or the reviewing official.
### §300mm–32. Followup monitoring and treatment of certified-eligible WTC survivors for WTC-related health conditions

#### (a) In general

Subject to subsection (b), the provisions of sections 300mm–21 and 300mm–22 of this title shall apply to followup monitoring and treatment of WTC-related health conditions for certified-eligible WTC survivors in the same manner as such provisions apply to the monitoring and treatment of WTC-related health conditions for enrolled WTC responders.

#### (b) List of WTC-related health conditions for survivors

The list of health conditions for screening-eligible WTC survivors and certified-eligible WTC survivors consists of the following:

#### (1) Aerodigestive disorders

(A) Interstitial lung diseases.

(B) Chronic respiratory disorder—fumes/vapors.

(C) Asthma.

(D) Reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS).

(E) WTC-exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

(F) Chronic cough syndrome.

(G) Upper airway hyperreactivity.

(H) Chronic rhinosinusitis.

(I) Chronic nasopharyngitis.

(J) Chronic laryngitis.

(K) Gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD).

(L) Sleep apnea exacerbated by or related to a condition described in a previous clause.

#### (2) Mental health conditions

(A) Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

(B) Major depressive disorder.

(C) Panic disorder.

(D) Generalized anxiety disorder.

(E) Anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified).

(F) Depression (not otherwise specified).

(G) Acute stress disorder.

(H) Dysthymic disorder.

(I) Adjustment disorder.

(J) Substance abuse.

#### (3) Additional conditions

Any cancer (or type of cancer) or other condition added to the list in section 300mm–22(a)(3) of this title pursuant to paragraph (5) or (6) of section 300mm–22(a) of this title, as such provisions are applied under subsection (a) with respect to certified-eligible WTC survivors.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXXIII, §3322, as added Pub. L. 111–347, title I, §101, Jan. 2, 2011, 124 Stat. 3652.)
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW CLAYTON,

Petitioner,

 v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, 

Corcoran State Prison,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1542 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Certificate of Appealability

On July 2, 2010, the court denied petitioner Andrew Clayton’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Docket No. 10 (Order). Petitioner has applied for a certificate

of appealability (“COA”) under 28 U.S.C. section 2253. Docket No. 13 (Application).

28 U.S.C. section 2253 requires a petitioner to obtain a COA from the district court prior to

filing an appeal. A COA may issue when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The “substantial showing” may be

satisfied when the petitioner demonstrates “that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000)

(quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)).

In its denial of petitioner’s petition, the court found that petitioner could not demonstrate that

the hearsay statement he sought to introduce bore persuasive assurances of trustworthiness. In his

application for a COA, petitioner argues that the excluded hearsay statement is substantially

consistent with the prosecution’s theory of the case. That is not the standard by which admissibility

Case 3:08-cv-01542-MHP Document 14 Filed 08/03/10 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

is determined. Due to the lack of persuasive assurance, as required by Chambers v. Mississippi, 410

U.S. 284, 302 (1973), the state court’s exclusion of the hearsay statement was not contrary to or an

unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 

Consequently, reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment debatable or wrong.

Petitioner’s request for a COA is DENIED. The Clerk shall forward the case file to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-01542-MHP Document 14 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND PERIOD FOR NOTIFYING COURT RE COND. DISM. - 1 –

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

Wayne Johnson, SBN: 112588

Law Offices of Wayne Johnson

P.O. Box 19157 

Oakland, CA 94619

(510) 451-1166

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELTON LLOYD, CIVIL NO: NO: C 08-2942 MHP

PLAINTIFF, STIPULATION TO EXTEND 90 

DAY CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL AND 

v. ORDER

H. JOSHI, ET. AL.

 

DEFENDANTS.

__________________________________________/

1. Good cause appearing therefor, the parties hereby stipulate that the period to 

notify the court of the failure of consideration as stated in the Conditional Dismissal entered by 

the court on December 11, 2009, is hereby extended so that the date for notifying the court of the 

failure of consideration is extended up to and including May 11, 2010.

 It is so stipulated. 

DATED: January 23, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE JOHNSON

S/

____________________________

WAYNE JOHNSON

Attorney for Plaintiff

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 3:08-cv-02942-MHP Document 96 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND PERIOD FOR NOTIFYING COURT RE COND. DISM. - 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

DATED: January 25, 2010 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

 ______/S/_________________________

 ARLENE M. ROSEN 

 Senior Deputy City Attorney for

 Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ________________________

______________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

1/26/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cv-02942-MHP Document 96 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1506.21 I am a USADF employee; when will the Agency offset my salary to satisfy a debt against me?

Any amount advanced to an employee for allowable travel expenses but not used for such purposes is recoverable from the employee, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5705, by salary offset without regard to the due process provisions in § 1506.22. This section does not apply to debts where collection by salary offset is explicitly prohibited by another statute. Collection of debt by salary offset will be in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5514.
### §290ee–9. Services for families and patients in crisis

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Health and Human Services may make grants to entities that focus on addiction and substance use disorders and specialize in family and patient services, advocacy for patients and families, and educational information.

#### (b) Allowable uses

A grant awarded under this section may be used for nonprofit national, State, or local organizations that engage in the following activities:

(1) Expansion of resource center services with professional, clinical staff that provide, for families and individuals impacted by a substance use disorder, support, access to treatment resources, brief assessments, medication and overdose prevention education, compassionate listening services, recovery support or peer specialists, bereavement and grief support, and case management.

(2) Continued development of health information technology systems that leverage new and upcoming technology and techniques for prevention, intervention, and filling resource gaps in communities that are underserved.

(3) Enhancement and operation of treatment and recovery resources, easy-to-read scientific and evidence-based education on addiction and substance use disorders, and other informational tools for families and individuals impacted by a substance use disorder and community stakeholders, such as law enforcement agencies.

(4) Provision of training and technical assistance to State and local governments, law enforcement agencies, health care systems, research institutions, and other stakeholders.

(5) Expanding upon and implementing educational information using evidence-based information on substance use disorders.

(6) Expansion of training of community stakeholders, law enforcement officers, and families across a broad-range of addiction, health, and related topics on substance use disorders, local issues and community-specific issues related to the drug epidemic.

(7) Program evaluation.

(Pub. L. 114–198, title VII, §709, as added Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, §8212, Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4115.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Substance Use–Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act, also known as the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and the Substance Abuse Prevention Act of 2018, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
Case 3:07-md-01841-EMC Document 169 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:07-md-01841-EMC Document 169 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:07-md-01841-EMC Document 169 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bertha Thomas, Petitioner, v. Superintendent of Western Reformatory for Women, Respondent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation.