alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.33 Nonresident alien Canadian border crossing identification card (BCC). ( a ) *Validity of Canadian BCC.* A Canadian BCC or the BCC portion of a Canadian B-1/B-2 Visa/BCC issued to a permanent resident of Canada pursuant to provisions of this section contained in the 22 CFR, parts 1 to 299, edition revised as of April 1, 1998, is valid until the date of expiration, if any, unless previously revoked, but not later than the date, currently October 1, 2001, on which a machine readable biometric identifier is required in order for a BCC to be usable for entry.
( b ) *Revocation of Canadian BCC.* A consular or immigration officer may revoke a BCC or a B-1/B-2 Visa/BCC issued in Canada at any time under the provisions of § 41.122, or if the consular or immigration officer determines that the alien to whom any such document was issued has ceased to be a permanent resident of Canada. Upon revocation, the consular or immigration officer shall notify the issuing consular office and if the revoked document is a card, the consular or immigration officer shall take possession of the card and physically cancel it under standard security conditions. If the revoked document is a stamp in a passport the consular or immigration officer shall write or stamp “canceled” on the face of the document.
( c ) *Voidance.* ( 1 ) The voiding pursuant to INA 222(g) of the visa portion of a B-1/B-2 Visa/BCC issued at any time by a consular officer in Canada under provisions of this section contained in the 22 CFR, parts 1 to 299, edition revised as of April 1, 1998, also voids the BCC portion of that document.
( 2 ) A BCC issued at any time by a consular officer in Canada under any provisions of this section contained in the 22 CFR, parts 1 to 299, edition revised as of April 1, 1998, is void if a consular or immigration officer finds that the alien has violated the conditions of the alien's admission into the United States, including the period of stay authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
( 3 ) A consular or immigration officer shall immediately take possession of a card determined to be void under paragraphs (c) (1) or (2) of this section and physically cancel it under standard security conditions. If the document voided under paragraphs (c) (1) or (2) is in the form of a stamp in a passport the officer shall write or stamp “canceled” across the face of the document.
[64 FR 45164, Aug. 19, 1999]
### §4843. Authorization of appropriations

(a) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter $10,000,000 for the fiscal year 1976, $12,000,000 for the fiscal year 1977, and $14,000,000 for the fiscal year 1978.

(b) Any amounts appropriated under this section shall remain available until expended when so provided in appropriation Acts; and any amounts authorized for one fiscal year but not appropriated may be appropriated for the succeeding fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 91–695, title V, §503, Jan. 13, 1971, 84 Stat. 2080; Pub. L. 93–151, §7(a)–(d), Nov. 9, 1973, 87 Stat. 567; Pub. L. 94–317, title II, §204(e), June 23, 1976, 90 Stat. 706.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–317, §204(e)(1), substituted provisions authorizing appropriations for this chapter of $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1976, $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1977, and $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1978 for provisions authorizing appropriations for subchapter I of this chapter not to exceed $3,330,000 for fiscal year 1971, $6,660,000 for fiscal year 1972, and $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1974 and 1975.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–317, §204(e)(1), (2), redesignated subsec. (d) as (b). Former subsec. (b), which provided authorization of appropriations for subchapter II of this chapter not to exceed $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1971, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1972, and $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1974 and 1975, was struck out.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–317, §204(e)(1), struck out subsec. (c) which provided for authorization of appropriations for subchapter III of this chapter not to exceed $1,670,000 for fiscal year 1971, $3,340,000 for fiscal year 1972, and $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1974 and 1975.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 94–317, §204(e)(2), redesignated subsec. (d) as (b).

1973—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 93–151, §7(a), provided for appropriations authorization of $25,000,000 for fiscal years 1974 and 1975 for carrying out subchapter I provisions.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 93–151, §7(b), provided for appropriations authorization of $35,000,000 for fiscal years 1974 and 1975 for carrying out subchapter II provisions.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 93–151, §7(c), provided for appropriations authorization of $3,000,000 for fiscal years 1974 and 1975 for carrying out subchapter III provisions.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 93–151, §7(d), substituted "amounts authorized for one fiscal year but not appropriated may be appropriated for the succeeding fiscal year" for "amounts authorized for the fiscal year 1971 but not appropriated may be appropriated for the fiscal year 1972".
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,461
<SECURITIES>                                    14,229
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                       308
<INVENTORY>                                        298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,082
<PP&E>                                           4,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,346
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,298
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,706
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,186
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,144
<INCOME-TAX>                                       814
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
#### Eugene M. Paeucki et al., Respondents, v Barry Williams, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Upon the discovery of the true identity of defendant Barry Williams no later than June 6, 1972 plaintiffs had available personal service without the State if defendant could be found, or substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308. Having failed to avail themselves of the statutory means available for obtaining in personam jurisdiction over defendant Barry Williams, the Statute of Limitations was not tolled between June 6, 1972 and October 30, 1975 when an order for substituted service was obtained from Special Term (see *Yarusso v Arbotowicz,*41 NY2d 516; *Goodemote v McClain,*40 AD2d 22). In excess of three years having expired between the time when plaintiffs ascertained the true identity of defendant and the effecting of substituted service by court order, plaintiffs’ action was time barred. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court —dismiss complaint.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Goldman, JJ.
#### § 513.215 Exception provision.

may grant an exception permitting a debarred, suspended, or voluntarily excluded person, or a person proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, to participate in a particular covered transaction upon a written determination by the agency head or an authorized designee stating the reason(s) for deviating from the Presidential policy established by Executive Order 12549 and § 513.200. However, in accordance with the President's stated intention in the Executive Order, exceptions shall be granted only infrequently. Exceptions shall be reported in accordance with § 513.505(a).

[60 FR 33041, 33045, June 26, 1995]
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 19, 2015 518591

________________________________ In the Matter of JOHN CHAMBLISS, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 20, 2015 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ John Chambliss, Alden, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Determination confirmed. No opinion. McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 518591

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Note: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RAYMOND E. STAUFFER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
BROOKS BROTHERS, INC., AND RETAIL BRAND ALLIANCE, INC., Defendants-Appellees ,

AND
UNITED STATES, Intervenor-Appellee.

______________________
2013-1180

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Yo rk in No. 08-CV-10369, Judge Sidney H. Stein.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________ Before P ROST , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R Raymond E. Stauffer moves without opposition for an extension of time to file his principal brief. Mr. Stauffer Case: 13-1180 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 06/27/2013RAYMOND STAUFFER v. BROOKS BROTHERS , INC

. 2 further moves for leave to file an enlarged principal brief as well as to supplement the record. Brooks Brothers, Inc. and Retail Brand Alliance, Inc. oppose. Mr. Stauffer replies. The court construes Mr. Stauffer’s June 20, 2013 letter as motion to withdraw his motion to supplement the record. Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : 1) The motion to withdraw the motion to supplement the record is granted. 2) The motion to file an enlarged principal brief is denied. 3) The motion for an extension of time is granted. Mr. Stauffer’s brief, not to exceed 30 pages, is due within 21 days of this order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel O’Toole Daniel O’Toole Clerk

s25 Case: 13-1180 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 06/27/2013
### §3619. Separability

If any provision of this subchapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the subchapter and the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, §820, formerly §819, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 89; renumbered §820, Pub. L. 100–430, §8(1), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1625.)
Case 3:08-cv-04019-EDL Document 123 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 2
14

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:08-cv-04019-EDL Document 123 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING EQUIPMENT THROUGH SECURITY

C-08-1564 MEJ 1 n:\lit\li2008\081342\00609774.doc 

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 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961

Chief Trial Deputy 

MEGHAN K. HIGGINS, State Bar #235685 

BLAKE P. LOEBS, State Bar #145790 

Deputy City Attorneys 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3896 (Higgins) 

Telephone: (415) 554-3868 (Loebs) 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

E-Mail: Meghan.Higgins@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

OFFICERS CHEUNG AND WU 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REMI TAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, OFFICER BOBBY C. 

CHEUNG (#208), OFFICER WU (#18), 

and DOES 1-40, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 08-1564 MEJ 

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR 

ORDER ALLOWING EQUIPMENT 

THROUGH SECURITY; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Trial Date: March 8, 2010 

Judge: Hon. Maria-Elena James 

 Pursuant to Rule 7-11 of the Northern District of California Civil Local Rules, defendants 

City and County of San Francisco et al. seek an Order from the Court directing the Federal Marshal 

and/or Federal Security Services to allow into the Federal Courthouse the following for use at trial in 

the above-referenced matter. 

 The parties request admission into the Federal Courthouse of the following: 

1. Laptop computers; 

2. Elmo; 

Case 3:08-cv-01564-MEJ Document 74 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING EQUIPMENT THROUGH SECURITY

C-08-1564 MEJ 2 n:\lit\li2008\081342\00609774.doc 

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 

3. Projector (with stand); 

4. Oversized Projector Screen; 

5. Extension cords; 

6. Speakers for use with laptop; 

7. Additional monitors 

Dated: February 10, 2010 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER 

Chief Trial Deputy 

MEGHAN K. HIGGINS 

 BLAKE P. LOEBS 

Deputy City Attorneys 

By: /s/ Meghan K. Higgins

MEGHAN K. HIGGINS 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

OFFICER WU 

Case 3:08-cv-01564-MEJ Document 74 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING EQUIPMENT THROUGH SECURITY

C-08-1564 MEJ 3 n:\lit\li2008\081342\00609774.doc 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the administrative motion is GRANTED. The Court Orders 

the United States Marshals Service to allow the following equipment through security: 

1. Laptop computers; 

2. Elmo; 

3. Projector (with stand); 

4. Oversized Projector Screen; 

5. Extension cords; 

6. Speakers for use with laptop; 

7. Additional monitors. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 HONORABLE MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

 Chief United States District Court Judge 

 

February 16, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-01564-MEJ Document 74 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 3
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

SELENE STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v.

WINSOR HOUSE CONVALESCENT 

HOSPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-00613-EDL 

ORDER RE DKT 54

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff, pro se, filed a complaint in this action alleging, among 

other claims, breach of a settlement agreement. (Dkt. 54.) However, this matter was dismissed 

with prejudice on November 10, 2008 following a settlement agreement that was placed on the 

record (Dkt. 49) and a stipulated dismissal (Dkt. 50). Plaintiff’s filing of a complaint in this case 

is improper and the Clerk of Court is ordered to return Plaintiff’s submission to her. If Plaintiff 

seeks to challenge Defendant’s compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, she must 

file a new action in the appropriate forum, likely state court as Plaintiff’s purported complaint 

appears to state no basis for federal jurisdiction, and properly serve Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015

______________________________________

Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00613-EDL Document 56 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 1
#### George D. Barnard & Co. v. Greer County.

(Filed Aug. 25, 1899.)

•Claims Asainst Counties. This cause is affirmed on the authority of *Ciarle & Courts v. Greer County,*this volume, p. 425.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from the District Court of Greer County; before B. F. Bunvell, District Judge.*

*Duncan G. Smith,*for plaintiffs in error.

*J. F. Mathews, County Attorney*and *J. Á. Powers,*for defendant in error.

Action by George D. Barnard & Co. against Greer •county. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

*702Per Curiam :

This cause was- submitted upon an agreement that the question® involved are identical with those in *Clark & Courts v. Greer County,*this volume, p. 425, and it is stipulated that the decision in that case-shall control the determination of this cause. On the authority of that case, the judgment of the district court of Greer county in this case is affirmed, at the costs of' plaintiffs in error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6010

MICHAEL FINCHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-01-371)

Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Fincham, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Fincham appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Fincham v. Angelone, No. CA01-371 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2001). Finding no exceptional

circumstances, we further decline to review Fincham’s claims raised

for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d

246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Sidney A. Horton, Deceased. A. Dorothy Horton, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edwin Horton, Deceased, Appellant; Lincoln G. Schmidt et al., as Executors of Sidney A. Horton, Deceased, Respondents.

Motion by respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to *657argue or submit it at the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 16, 1961. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2563 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within 

the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, 

and for other purposes. 

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


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

HR 2563 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUD2 IES. 

3 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Interior, act4 ing through the Bureau of Reclamation, is authorized to 

5 conduct feasibility studies on projects that address water 

6 shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River sys7 tems in Idaho, and deemed appropriate for further study 

8 by the 2006 Bureau of Reclamation Boise Payette water 

9 storage assessment report. Studies conducted under this 

10 section must comply with Bureau of Reclamation policy 

11 standards and guidelines for studies. 

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

13 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Inte14 rior $3,000,000 to carry out this section. 

15 (c) SUNSET OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the 

16 Secretary of the Interior to carry out this section shall 

17 terminate 10 years after the date of the enactment of this 

18 section. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
#### § 235.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of the Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ignac Horo, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Decision affirmed, without costs (see *Matter of Loeber [Levine],*51 AD2d 606, 607; *Matter of Reitman [Catherwood],*27 AD2d 678). Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### §5119b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5119b was editorially reclassified as section 40103 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 1508.320 Must I verify that principals of my covered transactions are eligible to participate?

Yes, you as a participant are responsible for determining whether any of your principals of your covered transactions is excluded or disqualified from participating in the transaction. You may decide the method and frequency by which you do so. You may, but you are not required to, check the *EPLS.*
#### § 46.7 Instructions from the Administrator required in certain cases.

In the absence of appropriate instructions from the Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, departure-control officers shall not exercise the authority conferred by § 46.2 in the case of any alien who seeks to depart from the United States in the status of a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) (A) or (G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or in the status of a nonimmigrant under section 11(3), 11 (4), or 11(5) of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (61 Stat. 756): *Provided,* That in cases of extreme urgency, where the national security so requires, a departure-control officer may preliminarily exercise the authority conferred by § 46.2 pending the outcome of consultation with the Administrator, which shall be undertaken immediately. In all cases arising under this section, the decision of the Administrator shall be controlling: *Provided,* That any decision to prevent the departure of an alien shall be based upon a hearing and record as prescribed in this part.

[26 FR 3069, Apr. 11, 1961; 26 FR 3188, Apr. 14, 1961]