alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 51.70 Request for hearing to review certain denials and revocations. ( a ) A person whose passport has been denied or revoked under 22 CFR 51.60(b)(1) through (10), 51.60(c), 51.60(d), 51.61(b), 51.62(a)(1), or 51.62(a)(2), or whose Consular Report of Birth Abroad is cancelled under § 51.62(c)(1) or § 51.62(c)(2), may request a hearing to review the basis for the denial, revocation, or cancellation, provided that the Department receives such a request, in writing, from such person or his or her attorney within 60 days of his or her receipt of the notice of the denial, revocation, or cancellation. Failure to timely request a hearing means the denial, revocation, or cancellation is the Department's final action.
( b ) The provisions of §§ 51.70 through 51.74 do not apply to any action of the Department denying, restricting, revoking, cancelling or invalidating a passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or in any other way adversely affecting the ability of a person to receive or use a passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad, for reasons not set forth in § 51.70(a), including, as applicable, those listed at: ( 1 ) Section 51.60(a) (instances where the Department may not issue a passport, except for direct return to the United States);
( 2 ) Section 51.60(f) (failure to provide a social security number, or purposefully providing an incorrect number);
( 3 ) Section 51.60(g) (denial of passport cards to certain convicted sex offenders);
( 4 ) Section 51.61(a) (denial of passports to certain convicted drug traffickers);
( 5 ) Section 51.62(b) (revocation of passports for non-U.S. nationals or where a certificate of citizenship or naturalization has been cancelled);
( 6 ) Section 51.62(c)(3) (cancellation of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad upon the Department's determination that the bearer is not a U.S. national or where a certificate of citizenship has been cancelled);
( 7 ) Section 51.62(d) (revocation of passports issued to certain convicted sex offenders);
( 8 ) Section 51.64 (specially validated passports);
( 9 ) Any other provision not listed at § 51.70(a).
( c ) If a timely request for a hearing is made by a person seeking a hearing in accordance with these regulations, the Department will make reasonable efforts to hold the hearing within 90 days of the date the Department receives the request.
( d ) Within a reasonable period of time prior to the hearing, the Department will give the person requesting the hearing written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing and copies of the evidence relied on in denying, revoking, or cancelling the passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
( e ) The person requesting the hearing may obtain one continuance, not to exceed an additional 90 days, upon written request. The request for a continuance must be received by the Department as soon as practicable and in no case less than five business days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Any further continuances are within the sole discretion of the Department.
[83 FR 21875, May 11, 2018]
#### § 239.8 Event of Default; Application for Compensation; payment.

At any time after an Event of Default, as this term is defined in an Eligible Note, any Noteholder hereunder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder hereunder, may file with USAID an Application for Compensation in the form provided in Appendix A to this part. USAID shall pay or cause to be paid to any such Applicant any compensation specified in such Application for Compensation that is due to the Applicant pursuant to the Guarantee as a Loss of Investment not later than the Guarantee Payment Date. In the event that USAID receives any other notice of an Event of Default, USAID may pay any compensation that is due to any Noteholder pursuant to the Guarantee, whether or not such Noteholder has filed with USAID an Application for Compensation in respect of such amount.
* 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. 98-41009 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS OLALDE-SERNA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-98-CR-162-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 25, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis

Olalde-Serna (“Olalde”) has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Olalde has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL

IS DISMISSED.
### §3797u–5. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797u–5 was editorially reclassified as section 10616 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131191 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131191 COA: 266882 Oakland CC: 2003-191040-FH ROBERT NEAL BISGEIER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appe als. The Court of Appeals shall then remand the case to th e Oakland Circuit Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v Ginther , 390 Mich 436 (1973), on the defendant’s claim that the failure to timel y seek appellate review was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel. If the trial c ourt finds in favor of the defendant’s claim, the Court of Appeals shall treat the defendant’s application as having been timely filed. It shall then either grant or deny the application.

0927 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 4, 2006

Clerk
### §4336c. Adoption of categorical exclusions

An agency may adopt a categorical exclusion listed in another agency's NEPA procedures for a category of proposed agency actions for which the categorical exclusion was established consistent with this paragraph. The agency shall—

(1) identify the categorical exclusion listed in another agency's NEPA procedures that covers a category of proposed actions or related actions;

(2) consult with the agency that established the categorical exclusion to ensure that the proposed adoption of the categorical exclusion to a category of actions is appropriate;

(3) identify to the public the categorical exclusion that the agency plans to use for its proposed actions; and

(4) document adoption of the categorical exclusion.

(Pub. L. 91–190, title I, §109, as added Pub. L. 118–5, div. C, title III, §321(b), June 3, 2023, 137 Stat. 43.)
Insert

image

HERE

Thank You, Mother!

Stop and think. If you’re pregnant, don’t drink.
#### In the Matter of Raymond T. Pachucki, Petitioner, v Carl J. Walters et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Guilderland, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination by the Town Board of the Town of Guilderland which dismissed petitioner from employment as a town police officer. This matter was previously before this court and, at that time, we withheld our decision and remitted the matter to the town board for a statement of their findings of fact *(Matter of Pachucki v Walters,*56 AD2d 677). On remittal the town board found petitioner guilty of charge number four based on the factual finding that "he did take and remove from the Guilderland town hall a quantity of motor oil belonging to the town with the intent of appropriating it to his own personal use”. Although three witnesses at the hearing testified that they had seen petitioner removing motor oil from the police offices, one of these witnesses stated specifically that she had seen petitioner place two cans of motor oil in his personal car after his shift had ended and then drive away. Petitioner challenges the *1012veracity and credibility of these witnesses. This court, however, may not weigh the evidence where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support the town board’s determination and, therefore, the board’s finding of petitioner’s guilt cannot be disturbed *(Matter of Collins v Codd,*38 NY2d 269). Petitioner also contends that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him was an abuse of discretion in that it was grossly excessive. Even though the amount of motor oil allegedly removed by petitioner is small, we cannot say, considering the nature of the offense, that the penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the misconduct as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness. Consequently, a modification with respect to the penalty imposed is not warranted *(Matter of Alñeri v Murphy,*38 NY2d 976; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). We find no merit in petitioner’s remaining contention that the town board failed to set forth its findings of fact in support of its determination. Therefore, the determination of the town board must be confirmed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### Clarice C. Sheffer, Appellant, v. Joel B. Coffin, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of Children’s Court, Columbia County. Defendant in this filiation proceeding is in military service. On December 3, 1954, he was allowed a leave from military duty to attend to this case. The request for the leave, which ran froln December 3d to December 26th, was made by the attorney for complainant. Defendant demanded and received a bill of particulars, but he opposed commencement of the trial during his leave because he felt he had not had time enough to prepare for trial and he wanted to examine witnesses after he had received the bill of particulars. His military service will terminate in September, 1955. The court, on December 17th, shortly before the December leave terminated, allowed an adjournment to next September 1st. The decision seems in part based on the fact that the bill of particulars, dated December 17th, came close to the termination of the leave. The decision also is expressly based on the view of the court that defendant needs time for personal investigation of the facts. We think if an early trial can be had consistently with defendant’s military duties, that such a trial is indicated. Complainant may, if so advised, apply to the proper military authorities for a further leave for defendant *983and if such a leave is obtained application should be made to the judge who has acquired jurisdiction in the ease to try it earlier than the date fixed in the order appealed from. We regard as unsubstantial the jurisdictional question raised. Order unanimously affirmed without prejudice to the application described in this memorandum. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.
### §5197f. Relation to Atomic Energy Act of 1954

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to alter or modify the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

(Pub. L. 93–288, title VI, §627, as added Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXIV, §3411(a)(3), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3110.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, referred to in text, is act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919, which is classified principally to chapter 23 (§2011 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 2262 of the former Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §3412(a).
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

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

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01383-CRB   Document 7   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T04:40:25-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08776]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank 
of the United States (Ex-Im Bank); Notice of Open Special Meeting

SUMMARY: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established by 
Public Law 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors 
on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed 
to support the expansion of the Bank's financial commitments in Sub-
Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee, and insurance programs of the 
Bank. Further, the Committee shall make recommendations on how the Bank 
can facilitate greater support by U.S. commercial banks for trade with 
Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Time and Place: Tuesday, April 30, 2013, between 11:00 a.m. and 
3:00 p.m. A break for lunch will be at the expense of the attendee. 
Security processing will be necessary for reentry into the building. 
The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 326, 
811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Presentation on recent developments in Sub-Saharan Africa 
markets by Ex-Im Bank staff; an update on the Bank's on-going business 
development initiatives in the region; and Committee discussion of 
current challenges and opportunities for U.S. exporters.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a 
photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance 
process into the building and you may contact Exa Richards to be placed 
on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a 
sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to April 22, 2013, Exa Richards, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3455.

Further Information:  For further information, contact Exa Richards, 
811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3455.

Sharon Whitt,
Director, Information Quality and Records Management.
[FR Doc. 2013-08776 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
### §4908. Imports

The Secretary of the Treasury shall, in consultation with the Administrator, issue regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter with respect to new products imported or offered for importation.

(Pub. L. 92–574, §9, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1242.)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20640 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

MARIO MORA SOSA, also known as Carmelino Sesa, also known as Mario Mora, also known as Mariano Sosa Mora

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 330

- 1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Mario Mora Sosa has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Mora Sosa h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 19, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20640 Document: 00514277692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2017No. 15

- 20640

2 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-20640 Document: 00514277692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2017
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.6 Basis for refusal.

A visa can be refused only upon a ground specifically set out in the law or implementing regulations. The term “reason to believe”, as used in INA 221(g), shall be considered to require a determination based upon facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant is ineligible to receive a visa as provided in the INA and as implemented by the regulations. Consideration shall be given to any evidence submitted indicating that the ground for a prior refusal of a visa may no longer exist. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish eligibility to receive a visa under INA 212 or any other provision of law or regulation.
#### Hyman Richer, Respondent, v. Alex Gersh, Doing Business as Gersh’s Auto Parts, et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal: (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 20, 1960, as denies their cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of diligent prosecution; and (2) from the decision of said court on which the order was made. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Appeal from decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
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

1

STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF ACTION AS AGAINST PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ONLY 

FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID, CSB NO. 96089

ATTORNEY AT LAW

177 POST STREET, SUITE 890

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108

TELEPHONE: (415) 788-5957

FACSIMILE: (415) 788-5958

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

GRANT MEYER AND MARILYN MEYER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANT MEYER AND MARILYN

MEYER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF CLEARLAKE, ALLAN McLAIN,

LEE LAMBERT, JANINE LOWE,

SCOTT SPIVEY, CURT GIAMBRUNO,

CHUCK LEONARD, JUDY THEIN, ROY

SIMONS, TODD MILLER, CARL

MILLER, JOSEPH RODD, SARGENT

RHODES, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC

COMPANY, AND ALL AMERICAN

TOWING,

Defendants.

______________________________/

No. C-08-4372 MEJ

STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION BY PLAINTIFFS AS 

AGAINST DEFENDANT PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ONLY

[FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 41] 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), plaintiffs Grant Meyer and

Marilyn Meyer voluntarily dismiss their claims against defendant Pacific Gas & Electric

Company with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and attorney fees. All

parties to this litigation have stipulated to said dismissal as indicated by signature of

counsel below representing all parties.

///

Case 3:08-cv-04372-MEJ Document 57 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF ACTION AS AGAINST PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ONLY 

DATED: March 17, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Frear Stephen Schmid Frear Stephen Schmid, Attorneys for

Plaintiffs GRANT MEYER AND

MARILYN MEYER 

DATED: March 17, 2010 LOW BALL & LYNCH

 /s/ Mark F. Hazelwood Mark F. Hazelwood, Attorneys for

Defendants CITY OF CLEARLAKE,

ALLAN McLAIN, LEE LAMBERT,

JANINE LOWER, SCOTT SPIVEY,

CURT GIAMBRUNO, CHUCK

LEONARD, JUDY THEIN, ROY

SIMONS, TODD MILLER, CARL

MILLER, JOSEPH RODD, and BRETT

RHODES

DATED: March 17, 2010 CLARENCE & DYER, LLP

 /s/ Craig Bessenger 

Craig H. Bessenger, Attorneys for

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Dated: March 17, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04372-MEJ Document 57 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2