alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 100.90 Discrimination in the provision of brokerage services. ( a ) It shall be unlawful to deny any person access to or membership or participation in any multiple listing service, real estate brokers' organization or other service, organization, or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings, or to discriminate against any person in the terms or conditions of such access, membership or participation, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( b ) Prohibited actions under this section include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Setting different fees for access to or membership in a multiple listing service because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 2 ) Denying or limiting benefits accruing to members in a real estate brokers' organization because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 3 ) Imposing different standards or criteria for membership in a real estate sales or rental organization because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 4 ) Establishing geographic boundaries or office location or residence requirements for access to or membership or participation in any multiple listing service, real estate brokers' organization or other service, organization or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 5 ) Conditioning access to brokerage services on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 6 ) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that has the effect of discouraging or denying access to brokerage services.
[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 81 FR 63074, Sept. 14, 2016]
§ 96.26 Protection of information and documents by the accrediting entity. ( a ) The accrediting entity must protect from unauthorized use and disclosure all documents and information about the agency or person it receives including, but not limited to, documents and proprietary information about the agency's or person's finances, management, and professional practices received in connection with the perf ormance of its accreditation or approval, oversight, enforcement, renewal, data collection, or other functions under its agreement with the Secretary and this part.
( b ) The documents and information received may not be disclosed to the public and may be used only for the purpose of performing the accrediting entity's accreditation or approval functions and related tasks under its agreement with Secretary and this part, or to provide information to the Secretary, the Complaint Registry, or an appropriate Federal, State, or local authority, including, but not limited to, a public domestic authority or local law enforcement authority unless: ( 1 ) Otherwise authorized by the agency or person in writing;
( 2 ) Otherwise required under Federal or State laws; or
( 3 ) Required pursuant to subpart M of this part.
( c ) Unless the names and other information that identifies the birth parent(s), prospective adoptive parent(s), and adoptee(s) are requested by the accrediting entity for an articulated reason, the agency or person may withhold from the accrediting entity such information and substitute individually assigned codes in the documents it provides. The accrediting entity must have appropriate safeguards to protect from unauthorized use and disclosure of any information in its files that identifies birth parent(s), prospective adoptive parent(s), and adoptee(s). The accrediting entity must ensure that its officers, employees, contractors, and evaluators who have access to information or documents provided by the agency or person have signed a non-disclosure agreement reflecting the requirements of § 96.26(a) and (b). The accrediting entity must maintain an accurate record of the agency's or person's application, the supporting documentation, and the basis for its decision.
#### § 903.5 Service of documents.

Any party submitting documents to the Board in connection with a case shall send a copy to the other parties and to the exclusive representative, if any. The Board shall send copies of its correspondence concerning the case to the parties and the exclusive representative, if any.
§ 904.2 Preliminary determinations. ( a ) If an Agency, in its final review, has questioned whether a complaint constitutes a grievance, the Board will make a preliminary determination of its jurisdiction unless the Board concludes that resolution of the question of jurisdiction should be deferred until the Board has compiled a record of proceedings or held a hearing on the merits of the case.
( b ) The Board may also make a preliminary determination on any question raised by a Party concerning the timeliness of a grievance, the election of other remedies under § 904.3, or any other issue whose resolution might avoid the necessity of further proceedings.
( c ) Before making a preliminary determination under this section, the Board shall obtain the views of the other parties and transmit those views to all parties.
( d ) Where an issue presented for preliminary determination under this section is contested by a party or would result in the termination of a case, a panel of three members of the Board shall decide the issue.
[50 FR 31355, Aug. 2, 1985, as amended at 56 FR 55459, Oct. 28, 1991]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2795]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900-AL38


Testimony Certified or Under Oath

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a proposed rule that would have 
removed the adjudication regulation that requires written and oral 
testimony to be certified or given under oath or affirmation in most 
cases. This proposed rule was erroneously published in the Federal 
Register on July 31, 2002, at 67 FR 49646, under a previously deleted 
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN 2900-AK24). The proposal is being 
withdrawn because the Department of Veterans Affairs is revising and 
republishing its part 3 compensation and pension regulations to make 
them easier to understand and apply. To ensure that this proposal is 
consistent with other related regulations being rewritten and published 
in that project, it is being withdrawn at this time. The Regulation 
Rewrite Project plans to republish this proposed rulemaking within one 
of its packages of regulations, ``General Evidence Requirements, 
Effective Dates, Revision of Decisions, and Protection of Existing 
Ratings.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Russo, Chief of C&P Rewrite 
Projects (00REG2), Office of Regulation Policy and Management, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20420, telephone (202) 273-9515. This is not a toll-free number.

    Approved: February 3, 2004.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-2795 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.86 Certain spouses and children of lawful permanent resident aliens. ( a ) *Definition of “remains pending”.* For the purposes of this section, a visa application “remains pending” if the applicant has applied for an immigrant visa in accordance with the definition in part 40, § 40.1(l)(2) and the visa has neither been issued, nor refused for any reason under applicable law and regulation.
( b ) *Entitlement to classification.* A consular officer may classify an alien as a nonimmigrant under INA 101(a)(15)(V) if: ( 1 ) The consular officer has received notification from the Department of State or the Department of Justice that a petition to accord status to the alien as a spouse or child pursuant to INA 203(a)(2)(A) was filed on or before December 21, 2000; or
( 2 ) The alien is eligible to derive benefits pursuant to INA 203(d) as a child of an alien described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and such alien has qualified for V classification; and
( 3 ) It has been three years or more since the filing date of the petition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and applicable to paragraph (b)(2) of this section and either: ( i ) The petition has not been approved; or
( ii ) If it has been approved, either no immigrant visa number is immediately available or the alien's application for adjustment of status or the alien's application for a visa remains pending.
( c ) *Eligibility as an immigrant required.* The consular officer, insofar as practicable, must determine the eligibility of an alien described in paragraph (b) of this section to receive a nonimmigrant visa under INA 101(a)(15)(V), other than an alien who previously has been granted V status in the United States by DHS, as if the alien were an applicant for an immigrant visa, except that the alien is exempt from the vaccination requirement of INA 212(a)(1), the labor certification requirement of INA 212(a)(5) and the unlawful presence ineligibility of INA 212(a)(9)(B).
( d ) *Place of application.* Notwithstanding the requirements of § 41.101, in determining the place of application for an alien seeking a visa pursuant to INA 101(a)(15)(V) the requirements of part 42, §§ 42.61(a) and (b)(1) of this chapter will apply.
[66 FR 19393, Apr. 16, 2001]
#### In the Matter of Jack Sterngass.

Motion by a suspended attorney, whose period of suspension has expired, for reinstatement to the Bar, referred: (a) to the Committee on Character and Fitness of the Second Judicial District for investigation and report as to the applicant’s character and fitness and as to his activities and conduct since his suspension, and for the committee’s recommendation; and (b) to the District Attorney of Kings County, the petitioner in the prior disciplinary proceeding, for a statement with his comments and recommendation. The motion will be held in abeyance pending the filing of said report and statement. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §3797u. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797u was editorially reclassified as section 10611 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Study by the Government Accountability Office

Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title II, §2303, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1799, directed the Comptroller General to issue a report to Congress on the effectiveness and impact of grants authorized by part EE of title I of Pub. L. 90–351 on or before January 1, 2005.
### §4101e. Exemption from fees for certain map change requests

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a requester shall be exempt from submitting a review or processing fee for a request for a flood insurance rate map change based on a habitat restoration project that is funded in whole or in part with Federal or State funds, including dam removal, culvert redesign or installation, or the installation of fish passage.

(Pub. L. 113–89, §22, Mar. 21, 2014, 128 Stat. 1028.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, and not as part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.
#### Elliot Gaberman et al., Respondents, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 597]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated November 16, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant created the dangerous condition which caused the accident, or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of that condition and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time *(see, Mercer v City of New York,*88 NY2d 955; *Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*64 NY2d 670; *Birthwright v Mid-City Sec.,*268 AD2d 401; *Huber v East 149th Parking Corp.,*266 AD2d 43). We agree with the Supreme Court that an issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant had a reasonable time to remedy the condition which caused the injured plaintiffs fall after it received actual notice of the condition. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### § 511.7 Investigations.

The Board may request any other Federal agency to investigate a claim filed under section 2672 of the Act, or to conduct a physical or mental examination of the claimant and provide a report of such examination.
### §6372i. Records

Each recipient of assistance under this part shall keep such records, provide such reports, and furnish such access to books and records as the Secretary may by rule prescribe.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §400J, as added Pub. L. 95–619, title III, §311(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3253.)
#### Gohar MILITONYAN; Sona Militonyan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72323.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 21, 2007.

*629Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esq., Hollywood, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark R. Freeman, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gohar and Sona Militonyan (“petitioners”), mother and daughter, and natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion to reopen due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

Five months after being ordered removed *in absentia,*petitioners filed a motion to reopen claiming that they failed to receive notice of their hearing. The IJ denied the motion, following an evidentiary hearing, on the grounds that the notice was sent to lead petitioner’s last known address, but she failed to receive it because she did not keep the court and her counsel apprised of her address changes. Because the IJ’s determination is supported by the evidence, we deny the petition.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §300h–5. Regulation of State programs

Not later than 18 months after June 19, 1986, the Administrator shall modify regulations issued under this chapter for Class I injection wells to identify monitoring methods, in addition to those in effect on November 1, 1985, including groundwater monitoring. In accordance with such regulations, the Administrator, or delegated State authority, shall determine the applicability of such monitoring methods, wherever appropriate, at locations and in such a manner as to provide the earliest possible detection of fluid migration into, or in the direction of, underground sources of drinking water from such wells, based on its assessment of the potential for fluid migration from the injection zone that may be harmful to human health or the environment. For purposes of this subsection, a class I injection well is defined in accordance with 40 CFR 146.05 as in effect on November 1, 1985.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIV, §1426, as added Pub. L. 99–339, title II, §201(b), June 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 653; amended Pub. L. 104–66, title II, §2021(f), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 104–182, title V, §501(f)(2), Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1691.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–182 directed technical amendment of section catchline and subsec. (a) designation. The provision directing amendment of subsec. (a) designation could not be executed because section does not contain a subsec. (a).

1995—Pub. L. 104–66 struck out subsec. (a) designation and heading before "Not later than" and struck out heading and text of subsec. (b). Text read as follows: "The Administrator shall submit a report to Congress, no later than September 1987, summarizing the results of State surveys required by the Administrator under this section. The report shall include each of the following items of information:

"(1) The numbers and categories of class V wells which discharge nonhazardous waste into or above an underground source of drinking water.

"(2) The primary contamination problems associated with different categories of these disposal wells.

"(3) Recommendations for minimum design, construction, installation, and siting requirements that should be applied to protect underground sources of drinking water from such contamination wherever necessary."
Third Department,

July, 1977

(July 1, 1977)

#### In the Matter of Adrian R. McDonald, an Attorney, Respondent.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on June 23, 1965, was convicted of the crime of larceny in the second degree in the St. Lawrence County Court and a certificate of that conviction has been filed pursuant to section 486-a of the Judiciary Law. Having been convicted of a felony, respondent is no longer competent to practice law. Respondent’s name stricken from roll of attorneys and counselors at law of the State of New York pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Larkin, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2477 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain bicycle parts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain bicycle parts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN BICYCLE PARTS. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.90.29 Bicycle speedometers (provided for in subheading 

9029.20.20) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

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

•HR 2477 IH 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-04371-MMC 

ORDER APPROVING FILING OF 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Re: Dkt. No. 206

Before the Court is the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filed October 25, 

2016, by plaintiff United States of America, purportedly “pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) [of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].” (See SAC at 1:27-28.) 

Contrary to plaintiff’s asserted authority for such filing, however, Rule 15 provides 

no such support. Rather, after a first amended complaint has been filed, “a party may 

amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here, the docket reflects no such stipulation or motion for 

such leave. Nevertheless, given the nature of the amendment, the Court hereby 

APPROVES the filing nunc pro tunc.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

1 Additionally, the Court deems answers filed in response to the First Amended 

Complaint to be responsive to the SAC.

Case 3:08-cv-04371-MMC Document 208 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 1
west virginia department of environmental protection --- -- -- 

Executive Office 

601 57'h Street SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

Joe Manchin 111, Governor 

Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary 

www.wvdep.org 

July 20,2009 

Mr. William C. Early 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region I11 (3RA00) 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029 

Re: Revision to the West Virginia State 

Implementation Plan to Remove the 

NO, SIP Call Rules 45CSR1 and 

45CSR26 

Dear Administrator Early: 

On behalf of the State of West Virginia, I am herein requesting that EPA remove from the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) the State rules 45CSR1 - Control and Reduction of Nitrogen 

Oxidesfrom Non-Electric Generating Units As a Means to Mitigate Transport of Ozone 

Precursors and 45CSR26 - NOx Budget Trading Program as a Means of Control and Reduction 

of Nitrogen Oxidesfrom Electric Generating Units. These rules were part of our NOx SIP Call 

package which has been subsumed by our CAIR SIP package that EPA proposed for approval on 

June 1 1,2009 (74 FR 2773 1). Included in this current submittal is appropriate documentation 

which validates that proper state and federal administrative procedural requirements have been 

fulfilled. 

West Virginia's fully-adopted 2008 legislative rules 45CSR39,45CSR40 and 45CSR41 

address respectively the NOx annual, NOx ozone season, and the SO, annual trading programs 

under CAIR. Applicable industrial boilers in West Virginia will participate in the CAIR NOx 

ozone season trading program, carrying over their ozone season trading budget from the NOx 

SIP Call. 45CSR40 will also carry forth the NOx SIP Call ozone season NOx reduction 

requirements for internal combustion engines and cement kilns. West Virginia's former NOx SIP 

Call rules 45CSR1 and 45CSR26 have been repealed, with NOx SIP Call ozone season NOx 

reduction requirements continuing under CAIR. 

West Virginia requests that 45CSR1 and 45 CSR26 be removed from the SIP, as approved 

by EPA respectively on November 1 1,2006 at 71 FR 5688 1 and July 9,2002 at 71 FR 5688 1. If 

Promoting a healthy environment. 
Letter to William C. Early 

July 20,2009 

page 2 

you have any questions regarding this submittal, or require additional information, please contact 

John A. Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality at (304) 926-0462. 

Sincerely, c----- 

Cabinet Secretary 

Enclosure 

cc: Diana Esher (3AP00) 

John A. Benedict, Director, WVDEP 

Promoting a healthy environment,