alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 518.61 Termination. ( a ) Awards may be terminated in whole or in part only if the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1), (2) or (3) of this section apply. ( 1 ) By the Federal awarding agency, if a recipient materially fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an award.
( 2 ) By the Federal awarding agency with the consent of the recipient, in which case the two parties shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated.
( 3 ) By the recipient upon sending to the Federal awarding agency written notification setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. However, if the Federal awarding agency determines in the case of partial termination that the reduced or modified portion of the grant will not accomplish the purposes for which the grant was made, it may terminate the grant in its entirety under either paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
( b ) If costs are allowed under an award, the responsibilities of the recipient referred to in § 518.71(a), including those for property management as applicable, shall be considered in the termination of the award, and provision shall be made for continuing responsibilities of the recipient after termination, as appropriate.
### §§4361, 4361a. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title II, §2021(k)(1), (2), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 728

Section 4361, Pub. L. 94–475, §5, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2071, related to 5-year plan for research, development, and demonstration.

Section 4361a, Pub. L. 95–155, §4, Nov. 8, 1977, 91 Stat. 1258, related to budget projections in annual revisions of the plan for research, development, and demonstration.
#### § 518.1 Purpose.

This part establishes uniform administrative requirements for Federal grants and agreements awarded to institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations. Federal awarding agencies shall not impose additional or inconsistent requirements, except as provided in §§ 518.4 and 518.14 or unless specifically required by Federal statute or executive order. Non-profit organizations that implement Federal programs for the States are also subject to State requirements.
#### § 224.11 Referral of complaint and answer to the ALJ.

Upon receipt of an answer, the reviewing official shall file the complaint and answer with the ALJ.
### §5714–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5714–2 was editorially reclassified as section 11222 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO CHAIDEZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SUSAN HUBBARD, Director; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15885

D.C. No. 4:17

- cv

- 01032

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Roberto Chaidez appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

of discretion a dis missal for failure to comply with court orders. Ferdik v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15885

Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chaidez’s action

because Chaidez failed to file an amended complaint that co mplied with the district

court’s instructions to give a short and clear description of the wrongful conduct

and each defendant ’ s involvement

. See id. at 1260

- 61 (setting forth factors for

determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed for failure to comply with

the district court’s orders ; where the district court does not make explicit findings

concerning these factors, we “review the record independently to determine if [it]

has abused its discretion” ).

We reject as without merit Chaidez’s conte ntions that the district court

lacked authority to screen his complaint and erred by imposing a page limit on

Chaidez’s second amended complaint.

We reject as unsupported by the record Chaidez’s contention concerning

bias of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Wood, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Che-mung County, rendered January 16, 1976, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, to the crime of arson in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed seven years. As the result of a fire in an apartment house in the City of Elmira, New York, on March 7, 1975, defendant was indicted by the adjourned February 1975 Term of the Chemung County Grand Jury for the crime of arson in the second degree (Penal Law, § 150.15). Subsequently, he pleaded guilty to the crime as charged and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed seven years. On this appeal, defendant contends only that the County Court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender treatment and that his sentence was harsh and excessive. We disagree. In view of the seriousness and hostile nature of the crime involved, there was no abuse of the court’s discretionary power (CPL 720.20) in its denial of youthful offender status to defendant. Similarly, for the class B felony conviction here, a maximum sentence of 25 years was authorized (Penal Law, § 70.00, subd 2, par [b]), and there was no "clear abuse of discretion” in the imposition of the seven-year term *(People v Dittmar,*41 AD2d 788). Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P, Kane, Mahoney, Main and Larkin, JJ, concur.
#### James A. Hughes, Appellant, v. Melvin D. Beecher, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara Trial Term for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §§3071 to 3074. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–646, title II, §220(a)(8), title III, §306, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1903, 1907

Section 3071, Pub. L. 89–117, title IV, §401, Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 485; Pub. L. 90–19, §22(f), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 27, related to definitions.

Section 3072, Pub. L. 89–117, title IV, §402, Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 485; Pub. L. 90–19, §22(a), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 26, related to acquisition of realty by eminent domain.

Section 3073, Pub. L. 89–117, title IV, §403, Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 485, related to financing of payments in eminent domain where amount is in dispute.

Section 3074, Pub. L. 89–117, title IV, §404(a), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 485; Pub. L. 90–19, §22(a), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 26, related to relocation payments under federally assisted development programs.

Subject matter is covered by section 4601 et seq. of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal not applicable to any State so long as sections 4630 and 4655 of this title are not applicable in such State; but such sections completely applicable to all States after July 1, 1972, but until such date applicable to a State to extent the State is able under its laws to comply with such sections, see section 221 of Pub. L. 91–646, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4601 of this title.

#### Savings Provision

Any rights or liabilities existing under sections 3071 to 3074 as not affected by such repeal, see sections 220(b) and 306 of Pub. L. 91–646, set out as Savings Provision notes under sections 4621 and 4651 of this title.
§ 35.47 Limitations. ( a ) The notice of hearing with respect to a claim or statement must be served in the manner specified in § 35.8 within six years after the date on which such claim or statement is made.
( b ) If the defendant fails to file a timely answer, service of notice under § 35.10(b) shall be deemed a notice of hearing for purposes of this section.
( c ) The statute of limitations may be extended by agreement of the parties.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter Edwards, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying without a hearing petitioner’s application for writ of error *coram nobis*to vacate judgment rendered November 26, 1956, on which sentence was pronounced November 30, 1956.) Present—Williams, P .J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Raroor inc. 

6321 NE 175th Street, Kenmore, WA 98028 

Kenmore Air, "The Seaplane Airline" • Kenmore Air Express • Kenmore Air Cargo • EDO Floats 

1 

CO 

V 

— o ' 

October 28, 2010 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington DC 20590 

Regarding extension of Exemption No. 25280 

Dear Sirs: 

Kenmore Air Harbor, a 64 year-old Seattle, Washington based Part 135 operator 

requests an extension of Exemption No 25280 from Part 135.203 (a)(1), of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) which permits Kenmore Air Harbor to 

conduct operations in,seaplanes under visual flight rules (VFR) outside of 

controlled airspace, over water, at altitudes below 500 feet. 

Kenmore states that the circumstances, conditions, and need in regard to safety 

and public interest, which warranted the original and subsequent extensions of 

this exemption, continue to exist. Kenmore has operated safely and successfully 

under this exemption for more than 32 years. 

Kenmore additionally requests that the renewal of this exemption not be delayed 

by publishing in the Federal Register and states that this will not set a precedent. 

Yourtimely extension of this exemption, which expires on March 31, 2011, will 

allow us to continue to provide safe, efficient and timely service to the traveling 

public. 

Your assistance in thismatteris appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

KENMORE AIR HARBOR, INC. 

Tim Brooks 

Vice President, Flight Operations 

,•—-1 \j— I 

m-Pr n 

CO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7774

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KELDA S. DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00316-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Allen’s motion for a transcript at government 

expense and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen v. Davis, No. 1:20-

cv-00316-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §300gg–95. Uniform fraud and abuse referral format

The Secretary shall request the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to develop a model uniform report form for private health insurance issuer 1 seeking to refer suspected fraud and abuse to State insurance departments or other responsible State agencies for investigation. The Secretary shall request that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners develop recommendations for uniform reporting standards for such referrals.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2795, formerly §2794, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title VI, §6603, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 780; renumbered §2795, Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title I, §1331(b), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5698.)

1 So in original. Probably should be "issuers".
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID PEREZ GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:01

- cr - 00036

- FDW

- 1 )

Submitted : September 28 , 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER , and R USHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. David Perez Garcia, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6427 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: David Perez Garcia appeals the district court’s order denying his motions as supplemented for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub.
L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, and for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s rulings on these motions. See United States v. Reed , 58 F.4th 816, 819 (4th Cir. 2023) (providing standard of review of the denial of relief under § 404(b) of the First Step A ct); United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review for compassionate release motions ) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.
Garcia , No. 3:01

- cr - 00036

- FDW

- 1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2023). We deny Garcia’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6427 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 910.3 Exceptions. ( a ) *Bona fide sales of business.* The requirements of this part shall not apply to a non-compete clause that is entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person's ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity's operating assets.
( b ) *Existing causes of action.* The requirements of this part do not apply where a cause of action related to a non-compete clause accrued prior to the effective date.
( c ) *Good faith.* It is not an unfair method of competition to enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause or to make representations about a non-compete clause where a person has a good-faith basis to believe that this part is inapplicable.
#### § 309.23 Discharge.

Once a debt has been closed out for accounting purposes and collection has been terminated, the debt is discharged. Peace Corps will report discharged debt as income to the debtor to the Internal Revenue Service per 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 26 CFR 1.6050P-1.
§ 231.04 Guarantee eligibility. ( a ) Eligible Notes only are guaranteed hereunder. Notes in order to achieve Eligible Note status: ( 1 ) Must be signed on behalf of the Borrower, manually or in facsimile, by a duly authorized representative of the Borrower;
( 2 ) Must contain a certificate of authentication manually executed by a Fiscal Agent whose appointment by the Borrower is consented to by USAID in the Fiscal Agency Agreement; and
( 3 ) Shall be approved and authenticated by USAID by either: ( i ) The affixing by USAID on the Notes of a guarantee legend incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID or
( ii ) The delivery by USAID to the Fiscal Agent of a guarantee certificate incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID.
( b ) The authorized USAID representatives for purposes of the regulations in this part whose signature(s) shall be binding on USAID shall include the USAID Chief and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Administrator and Deputy, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, Director and Deputy Director, Office of Development Credit, and such other individual(s) designated in a certificate executed by an authorized USAID Representative and delivered to the Fiscal Agent. The certificate of authentication of the Fiscal Agent issued pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall, when manually executed by the Fiscal Agent, be conclusive evidence binding on USAID that an Eligible Note has been duly executed on behalf of the Borrower and delivered.
Name of Subsidiary
    
    OwnershipSouth Glen Eagles Drive, LLC
    
    
    51
    %Hwy 46 and Bluffton Pkwy, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD LECA LSS Lonestar, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD LECA VL1, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Charmar Greeley, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Charmar Greeley Firestone, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Econo Lube Stonegate, LLC
    
    
    51
    %Buckeye AZ, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD-Cypress Sound, LLC
    
    
    51
    %AARD Esterra Mesa 1, LLC
    
    
    100
    %CapTerra Fund I, LLC
    
    
    100
    %
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4413 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4413

 To extend temporarily the reduction of duty on certain undyed acrylic 
                             staple fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

Mr. Bishop of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the reduction of duty on certain undyed acrylic 
                             staple fibers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN UNDYED ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.24 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain undyed acrylic 
staple fibers) is amended by striking ``12/31/2012'' and inserting 
``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
AFS

- 13

- 395

- E July 1, 2013

Exemption No. 10816

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0 4 83

Ms

. Elizabeth Swarthout

Parent of John Swarthout

215 Winding Way

Horseheads, NY 14845

Dea r Ms. S wart hout :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decisi on

By letter received May 26 , 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion (FAA)

on behalf of John Swarthout for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. That exemp tion , if granted, would all ow John to exceed the

specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by

AmSafe Corporation ) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good ca use exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exem ption would not set a precedent and any

delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to John

.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circ umstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that numerous p eople with physical challenges had previously completed flights using

restraint systems that addres sed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition , if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems b y persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exempti on also apply to the

situation you present ; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant John Swarthout an exe mption from § 121.311(b). In

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while John is aboard

its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow

him to use an FAA

- approved CRS aboar d a U.S. aircraft

.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted w ith at least one of John ’s parents or a caregiver accompanying h im

. John Swarthout may only occupy a passenger seat with no

passenger se ated behind h im

. In addition, John ’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this

exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on June 30 , 201 8 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincere ly,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
#### § 902.1 Chairperson and deputy chairperson.

The chairperson presides over meetings of the Board. The chairperson shall select one of the Board members as deputy. In the absence of the chairperson, the deputy chairperson, or in his or her absence, another member designated by the chairperson, may act for him or her.

[50 FR 31354, Aug. 2, 1985]
#### Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corf., Respondent, v Murray Leinwand et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence presented a question of fact for the court, sitting without a jury, as to whether defendants owed to M & T Construction Company (M & T) an amount in excess of M & T’s indebtedness to plaintiff. It is apparent that the court treated the assignment as security for such indebtedness, and hence did not award to plaintiff the full amount which plaintiff claimed was owing by defendants to M & T. Since plaintiff is not cross-appealing, there is no basis for us to disturb the judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court—materials furnished, etc.) Present—Marsh, P.J., Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.