alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3a.1 Definitions. For purposes of this part— ( a ) *Applicant* means any person who requests approval under this part to accept any civil employment (and compensation therefor) from a foreign government and who is: ( 1 ) Any retired member of the uniformed services;
( 2 ) Any member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces; or
( 3 ) Any member of the commissioned Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service. The term “applicant” also includes persons described in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, who have already accepted foreign government employment and are requesting approval under this part to continue such employment.
( b ) *Uniformed services* means the Armed Forces, the commissioned Regular and Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
( c ) *Armed Forces* means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
( d ) *Secretary concerned* means: ( 1 ) The Secretary of the Army, with respect to retired members of the Army and members of the Army Reserve;
( 2 ) The Secretary of the Navy, with respect to retired members of the Navy and the Marine Corps, members of the Navy and Marine Corps Reserves, and retired members of the Coast Guard and members of the Coast Guard Reserve when the Coast Guard is operating as a service in the Navy;
( 3 ) The Secretary of the Air Force, with respect to retired members of the Air Force and members of the Air Force Reserve;
( 4 ) The Secretary of Transportation, with respect to retired members of the Coast Guard and members of the Coast Guard Reserve when the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy;
( 5 ) The Secretary of Commerce, with respect to retired members of the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
( 6 ) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with respect to retired members of the commissioned Regular Corps of the Public Health Service and members of the commissioned Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service.
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

281As defendant points out, the latter motion is noticed for hearing on April 30, 2010,

and, consequently, does not comply with the Civil Local Rules of this District.  See Civ. L.R.7-2(a).  The Court nonetheless has considered the motion.

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TSEGAI HAILE,

Plaintiff,    v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,     et al.,

Defendants.                                                                      /

No. 08-4149 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS OF MARCH 9, 2010AND APRIL 2, 2010; VACATINGHEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff Tsegai Haile’s “Motion for New Trial to Compel His

Attorney’s Obligation or Proceed in Pro Se & For Extension to Filing Notice of Appeal,” filed

March 9, 2010 and plaintiff’s “Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment,” filed April 2,

2010.1  Defendant Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital has filed opposition, to which plaintiff has

replied.

Having read and considered the parties’ respective written submissions, the Court

finds the motions appropriate for consideration thereon, hereby VACATES the April 30,

2010 hearing, and, for the reasons stated by defendant in its opposition, hereby DENIES

each such motion in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 14, 2010

                                                            MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC   Document 191   Filed 04/14/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T01:50:51-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2431 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,10-Diaminodecane. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. MOLLOHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,10-Diaminodecane. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1,10-DIAMINODECANE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.31 1,10-Diaminodecane (CAS 

No. 646–25–3) (provided for 

in subheading 2921.29.00) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2431 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §3732. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3732 was editorially reclassified as section 10132 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
OMB Control No. 2060 - 0336 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71 **FORM PTE -**  **POTENTIAL TO EMIT SUMMARY**

INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this form once for the facility. You may find it helpful to complete form **EMISS** for each emissions unit before completing

this form. For each emissions unit with emissions that count towards applicability, list the emissions unit ID and the PTE f or the air pollutants listed below. If there are other air pollutants not listed below for which the source is a major source, provide attachments naming the air pollutant and showing calculation of the total for that pollutant. Round values to the nearest tenth of a ton . Add all values together in each column and enter the total in the space provided at the bottom of the table. Also report these totals in section **J** of form **GIS** .

Emissions Unit ID Regulated Air Pollutants and Pollutants for which the Source is Major NOx (tons/yr) VOC

(tons/yr) SO2

(tons/yr) PM10

(tons/yr) CO

(tons/yr) Lead

(tons/yr) HAP

(tons/yr) 

### Tank 60 0.0512 4.98 E- 05 

### Tank 300 0.0287 2.71E - 05 

### Tank 302 0.1894 1.84E - 04 

### Tank 304 0.05 67 5.45E - 05 

### Tank 306 0.0993 9.59E - 05 

### Tank 308 0.2218 2. 15E- 04 

### Tank 310 0.2569 2. 48E- 04 

### Tank 312 0.3517 3.42E - 04 

### Tank 314 0.2117 2.05 E- 04 

### Bulk Solids Storage 2.56 0.0188 

### Fugitive Equipment Leaks 0.0738 0.00 01 

### Boiler 1 4.51 0.248 0.027 0.343 3.79 Emergency Generator #1 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.0071 Emergency Generator #2 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.0071TOTALS 74. 99 15.63 66. 25 12. 62 30.85 0. 0968 21.4
#### § 228.21 Ocean transportation.

When transporting commodities subject to the provisions of the Cargo Preference Act, 46 U.S.C. 55305, USAID will administer its programs in accordance with that act and its implementing regulations in 46 CFR part 381 (and any waivers applicable thereto). Subpart D of 22 CFR part 228 does not apply to this provision.
#### § 235.16 Governing Law.

The Guarantee shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States of America governing contracts and commercial transactions of the United States Government.
### §300d–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–183, title VI, §601(b)(1), Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2238; Pub. L. 105–392, title IV, §401(a)(1)(A), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3587

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XII, §1202, as added Nov. 16, 1990, Pub. L. 101–590, §3, 104 Stat. 2916, provided for establishment, membership, duties, etc., of Advisory Council on Trauma Care Systems.

A prior section 300d–1, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XII, §1202, as added Nov. 16, 1973, Pub. L. 93–154, §2(a), 87 Stat. 595; amended Oct. 21, 1976, Pub. L. 94–573, §3, 90 Stat. 2709; Dec. 12, 1979, Pub. L. 96–142, title I, §103, 93 Stat. 1067, set forth provisions relating to grants and contracts for feasibility studies and planning, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §902(d)(1), (h), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 560, 561, effective Oct. 1, 1981.
§ 232.05 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged to the performance of this Guarantee. The Guarantee shall be unconditional, and shall not be affected or impaired by: ( a ) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or
( b ) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder.
#### In the Matter of Paul M. Kaufman, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

May 4, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*James D. Porter, Jr.,*of counsel *(Michael Alan Schwartz*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*Ostwald & Weinberg*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent, an attorney, was admitted to practice in the First Judicial Department on December 3, 1956. On July 29, 1969, respondent was convicted in the United States District *135Court for the Southern District of New York, after a jury trial, of charges of securities fraud (US Code, tit 15, § 77q, subd [a]; § 77x) and conspiracy to defraud securities’ purchasers (US Code, tit 18, § 371), Federal felonies. Petitioner, the Committee on Grievances of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, seeks to have respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, contending that under *Matter of Chu*(42 NY2d 490), respondent may be subject to automatic disbarment.

Under the clear mandate of *Matter of Chu,*it is no longer necessary to determine whether New York expressly treats the same conduct in a similar manner. There is nothing in the circumstances underlying the Federal felony conviction herein, nothing of a compelling, mitigating nature which would serve as a basis of substantial merit sufficient to compel distinguishing between the conviction of the Federal felony and conviction in New York State. In light of *Matter of Chu (supra)*under the circumstances herein, the petition is granted and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys (see, also, *Matter of Peltz,*60 AD2d 587, mot for lv to app den 43 NY2d 844).

Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.
### §1971. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1971 was editorially reclassified as section 10101 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20666 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANTOS LEONARDO BARAHONA-GALIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-63-1

--------------------

December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santos Barahona-Galias appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Barahona argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.

Barahona acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but
No. 02-20666

-2-

asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his

argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.43 Diversion clause.

USAID may require that charter parties, bills of lading, or other ocean shipping documents covering USAID-financed commodities contain a clause substantially as follows:

USAID may at any time prior to unloading prescribe a different port of discharge from among the ports covered by the applicable tariff. Diversion charges shall apply in accordance with the tariff or contract of affreightment. Deviation insurance and extra handling costs actually incurred shall be reimbursed.
#### James Cairns, Respondent, v. George Welch, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Stanley D. Kraszewski, III, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Kim L. Kraszewski, et al., Respondents, v Mohawk Central School District, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 357]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by their eight-year-old son during a pee wee wrestling practice. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that the proof submitted by plaintiffs raises a triable issue of fact whether defendant possessed a sufficient degree of control over the pee wee wrestling program and its coaches to be charged with a duty of care to plaintiffs’ son *(see, Hores v Sargent,*230 AD2d 712; *see also, Alessi v Boys Scouts of Am. Greater Niagara Frontier Council,*247 AD2d 824, 825). We further conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raise triable issues of fact whether plaintiffs’ son assumed the risk of injury by participating in the pee wee wrestling program *(see, Utkin v Rademacher,*261 AD2d 840, *lv dismissed*94 NY2d 796; *Taylor v Massapequa Intl. Little League,*261 AD2d 396, 397) and whether the coaches exercised reasonable care in providing instruction and supervision to the wrestlers *(see, Merkley v Palmyra-Macedon Cent. School Dist.,*130 AD2d 937, 938-939; *Lorenzo v Monroe Community Coll.,*72 AD2d 945, 946). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Kirk, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Law-ton, JJ.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 247

To increase the numerical limitation on the number of asylees whose status 

may be adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To increase the numerical limitation on the number of 

asylees whose status may be adjusted to that of an 

alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

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 ‘‘Increase in Numerical 

5 Limitation for Asylees Adjustment Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN NUMERICAL LIMITATION ON ASYLEE 

7 ADJUSTMENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 209(b) of the Immigra9 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1159(b)) is amended 

10 by striking ‘‘10,000’’ and inserting ‘‘25,000’’. 
2

•HR 247 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to fiscal years beginning with 

3 fiscal year 2003.

Æ
```

[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Notices]               
[Page 22577-22578]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-52]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 
Proposed Rule of Agency Procedure No. 1: Procedures for Voting by 
Circulation Version 2.0

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for public comment on Proposed Rule of 
Agency Procedure No. 1: Procedures for Voting by Circulation Version 
2.0.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) seeks public 
comment on Proposed Rule of Agency Procedure No. 1: Procedures for 
Voting by Circulation Version 2.0. EAC's current Proposed Rule of 
Agency Procedure No. 1: Procedures for Voting by Circulation provide 
the public with the process, including timelines on how EAC 
Commissioners vote to approve matters requiring formal Commission 
action that has not been placed on a meeting agenda. The policy 
requires action within specified time periods to allow a thorough and 
predictable time period for EAC Commissioners to consider the matter. 
Because of the firm deadlines, the current policy limits EAC's ability 
to address the rare situations that require swift action. The proposed 
policy amends the Rule of Agency Procedure No. 1: Procedures for Voting 
by Circulation to provide for unforeseeable circumstances that may 
require deviation from the default timelines indicated.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on 
June 1, 2010.
    Comments: Public comments are invited on the information contained 
in the policy. Comments on the proposed policy should be submitted 
electronically to HAVAcomments@eac.gov. Written comments on the 
proposed policy can also be sent to the U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, 
ATTN: Proposed Rule of Agency Procedure No. 1: Procedures for Voting by 
Circulation Version 2.0.
    Obtaining a Copy of the Policy: To obtain a free copy of the 
policy: (1)

[[Page 22578]]

Access the EAC Web site at http://www.eac.gov; (2) write to the EAC 
(including your address and phone number) at U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, 
ATTN: Proposed Rule of Agency Procedure No. 1: Procedures for Voting by 
Circulation Version 2.0.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Guggenheim or Tamar Nedzar, 
Election Assistance Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, 
Washington, DC 20005; Telephone: 202-566-3100.

Donetta L. Davidson,
Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-9911 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of TS&B Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report),the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2     The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | TS&B Holdings, Inc.BY: /S/ James E. Jenkins
James E. JenkinsPresidentand Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 11, 2005
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 204.31 Prosecution of claims.

After an assignment to A.I.D. by the Lender or any Assignee pursuant to § 204.21(b), A.I.D. shall have exclusive power to prosecute all claims related to the outstanding Eligible Notes so assigned. If the Lender or such Assignee continues to have an interest in the outstanding Eligible Notes, the Lender or such Assignee and A.I.D. shall consult with each other with respect to their respective interests in such Eligible Notes and the manner of and responsibility for prosecuting claims.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1080

JOAN E. JACKSON, Ph.D.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANCIS J. HARVEY, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04-

1510-8-RWT)

Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 28, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mindy G. Farber, Mary E. Henry, FARBER LEGAL, L.L.C., Rockville,

Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney,

Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,

Maryland; Captain Steven M. Ranieri, UNITED STATES ARMY LEGAL

SERVICES AGENCY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joan E. Jackson appeals the district court’s order

awarding summary judgment to her employer on her claims of gender

discrimination, age discrimination, hostile work environment,

retaliation, and due process violation. This court reviews a grant

of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is

appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

(1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

We find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Jackson v. Harvey, No. CA-04-

1510-8-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2004). We deny Jackson’s motion to

supplement the record. 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
Case 3:08-cv-03651-SC Document 60 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 2
February 4, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:08-cv-03651-SC Document 60 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2