alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2598 

To suspend temporarily the duty on steel leaf spring leaves. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on steel leaf spring leaves. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STEEL LEAF SPRING LEAVES. 

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: 
2 

•HR 2598 IH 

‘‘ 9902.73.21 Leaf spring leaves of alloy 

steel of grades SAE5160, 

SAE5160H or 

SAE51B60H, each measuring from 132 cm to 163 

cm in length and approximately 10.2 cm in width 

(provided for in subheading 

7320.10.60), the foregoing 

for multi-leaf or taper-leaf 

construction units, each leaf 

weighing from 40.8 kg to 

113.4 kg and designed for 

use in Class 7 and 8 trucks 

only ...................................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 192.33 Dispute.

Any dispute between the Office and eligible persons concerning whether medical or health care is required in a given case, whether required care is incident to the captivity, or whether the cost for any authorized care is reasonable and customary, shall be referred to the Medical Director, Department of State, for a determination. If the person bringing the claim is not satisfied with the decision of the Medical Director, the dispute shall be referred to a medical board composed of three physicians, one appointed by the Medical Director, one by the eligible person and the third by the first two members. A majority decision by the board shall be binding on all parties.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEPSI AMERICAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-02742-SI 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT 

TESTIMONY AND FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 280

Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment is scheduled 

for a hearing on February 26, 2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that 

this motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. 

Defendants move to exclude in part the expert testimony of Dr. Vera Byers, Dr. Rod 

O'Connor, and Dr. Linda Remy. Defendants contend that these experts' testimony is unreliable 

and does not provide evidence in support of plaintiff Smith's claims of reproductive injuries and

for medical monitoring. Based upon the record before the Court, as well as the procedural history 

of this case,1the Court concludes that defendants' arguments go to the weight and not the 

admissibility of the expert testimony, that they are the proper subjects for cross-examination, and 

 

1

 On April 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to exclude in part the expert testimony of 

Dr. Vera Byers, Dr. Rod O'Connor, and Dr. William Sawyer, as well as a motion for summary 

judgment on plaintiff’s claims. The Court granted the motion and entered summary judgment in 

favor of defendants. Plaintiff appealed, and on May 16, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part 

and reversed in part, and reinstated plaintiff’s claims based on exposure to hexavalent chromium. 

Dkt. No. 239. The Ninth Circuit held, inter alia, that the Court had improperly excluded certain of 

plaintiff’s experts’ opinions. 

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 308 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that there are triable issues of fact regarding plaintiff's claims. The Court also finds that plaintiff 

may rely on Dr. O'Connor's report that he prepared in the related Avila case. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES defendants' motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 308 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 710

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 710.15 Delegation of authority.

The functions of the President of DFC specified in §§ 710.2, 710.4 and 710.5 of this part are delegated to the General Counsel of DFC. An examiner shall be delegated authority on an *ad hoc* basis.
PUBLIC LAW 106–281—OCT. 6, 2000 114 STAT. 865

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5193:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Sept. 19, considered and passed House.

Sept. 28, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–281

106th Congress

An Act

To amend the National Housing Act to temporarily extend the applicability of

the downpayment simplification provisions for the FHA single family housing

mortgage insurance program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FHA Downpayment Simplification

Extension Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF APPLICABILITY OF DOWNPAYMENT SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS.

Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b)(10) of the National Housing

Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(10)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘executed

for insurance in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000’’ and inserting

‘‘closed on or before October 30, 2000’’.

Approved October 6, 2000.

12 USC 1701

note.

FHA

Downpayment

Simplification

Extension Act of

2000.

Oct. 6, 2000

[H.R. 5193]
### §2204a. Fission product contracts

#### (a) Authority to enter into contracts

Without regard to sections 1341, 1342, and 1349–1351 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, the Commission is authorized to enter into contracts for such periods of time as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable, for the purpose of making available fission products from Commission reactors, with or without charge for commercial application.

#### (b) Cancellation

Any contract entered into by the Commission pursuant to this section shall be subject to termination by the Commission upon payment of cancellation costs as provided in such contract, and any appropriation presently or hereafter made available to the Commission shall be available for payment of such costs which may arise from termination as the contract may provide.

#### (c) Submission to Energy Committees

Before the Commission enters into any arrangement or amendment thereto under the authority of this section, the basis for the proposed arrangement or amendment thereto which the Commission proposes to execute (with necessary background and explanatory data) shall be submitted to the Energy Committees (as defined by section 2014 of this title), and a period of forty-five days shall elapse while Congress is in session in computing such forty-five days, there shall be excluded the days on which either House is not in session because of adjournment of more than three days: Provided, however, That the Energy Committees, after having received the basis for the proposed arrangement or amendment thereto, may by resolution in writing waive the conditions of, or all or any portion of, such forty-five-day period.

(Pub. L. 88–332, §107, June 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 230; Pub. L. 103–437, §15(h), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4593.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Commission, referred to in text, probably means the Atomic Energy Commission in view of the fact that this section was enacted as part of the act authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission.

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "sections 1341, 1342, and 1349–1351 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31" substituted for "section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended [31 U.S.C. 665]" on authority of Pub. L. 97–258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1067, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.

Section was not enacted as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–437 substituted "Energy Committees (as defined by section 2014 of this title)" for "Joint Committee" after "submitted to the" and "Energy Committees" for "Joint Committee" after "That the".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See, also, notes set out under those sections.
#### § 213.5 Subdivision of claims not authorized.

USAID will not subdivide a claim to avoid the $100,000 limit on the Agency's authority to compromise a claim, suspend collection action on a claim, or terminate collection action on a claim. A debtor's liability that arises from a particular transaction or contract is a single claim.

[86 FR 31141, June 11, 2021]
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

August 13, 2007

                                                      /s/ H. Dean Cubley
                                                      ------------------
                                                      H. Dean Cubley
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
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 

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

)

)

)

Case No. 08-4966 SC 

ORDER DENYING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

This Order Relates to: 

 

CASE NOS. 08-4966 SC, 08-5027 SC, 

and 08-5273 SC 

)

)

)

)

)

)

 On May 6, 2010, one day prior to the Case Management 

Conference, Defendant Cadence Design Systems, Inc. ("Cadence") 

filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Judgment on the 

Pleadings. Docket No. 84 ("MPSJ"). Now before the Court is 

Plaintiff Alaska Electrical Pension Fund's Administrative Motion to 

continue indefinitely this MPSJ pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11. 

Docket No. 98. ("Motion"). Cadence has filed an opposition. 

Docket No. 101. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:08-cv-04966-SC Document 109 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 2
United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

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

ad

st

ju

li

7-

pr

DE

 

Civil

dministra

tatute, F

udge," su

mitation

11. The

rocedure 

NIES Pla

IT IS

Dated

l Local R

ative mat

Federal o

uch as "m

ns or mot

e Federal

here. S

aintiff's

S SO ORDE

d: June 2

Rule 7-11

tters, no

or local 

motions t

tions to 

l Rules o

See Fed. 

s Motion.

ERED. 

2, 2010 

2

1 is inte

ot otherw

rule or 

to exceed

file doc

of Civil 

R. Civ. 

 

U

2

ended for

wise gove

standing

d otherwi

cuments u

Procedur

P. 56(f)

UNITED ST

r "miscel

erned by 

g order o

ise appli

under sea

re provid

. Accor

TATES DIS

llaneous 

a federa

of the as

icable pa

al." Civ

de the ap

rdingly, 

STRICT JU

al 

ssigned 

age 

v. L. R.

ppropriat

the Cour

UDGE

e 

t 

Case 3:08-cv-04966-SC Document 109 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3796aa. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796aa was editorially reclassified as section 10331 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §285a–1. Cancer control programs

The Director of the Institute shall establish and support demonstration, education, and other programs for the detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer and for rehabilitation and counseling respecting cancer. Programs established and supported under this section shall include—

(1) locally initiated education and demonstration programs (and regional networks of such programs) to transmit research results and to disseminate information respecting—

(A) the detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer,

(B) the continuing care of cancer patients and the families of cancer patients, and

(C) rehabilitation and counseling respecting cancer,

to physicians and other health professionals who provide care to individuals who have cancer;

(2) the demonstration of and the education of students of the health professions and health professionals in—

(A) effective methods for the prevention and early detection of cancer and the identification of individuals with a high risk of developing cancer, and

(B) improved methods of patient referral to appropriate centers for early diagnosis and treatment of cancer; and

(3) the demonstration of new methods for the dissemination of information to the general public concerning the prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment and control of cancer and information concerning unapproved and ineffective methods, drugs, and devices for the diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and control of cancer.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §412, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 832.)
Editorial Note on Part 42
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 42.83 Termination of registration. ( a ) *Termination following failure of applicant to apply for visa.* In accordance with INA 203(g), an alien's registration for an immigrant visa shall be terminated if, within one year after transmission of a notification of the availability of an immigrant visa, the applicant fails to apply for an immigrant visa.
( b ) *Termination following visa refusal.* An alien's registration for an immigrant visa shall be terminated if, within one year following the refusal of the immigrant visa application under INA 221(g), the alien has failed to present to a consular officer evidence purporting to overcome the basis for refusal.
( c ) *Notice of termination.* Upon the termination of registration under paragraph (a) of this section, the National Visa Center (NVC) shall notify the alien of the termination. The NVC shall also inform the alien of the right to have the registration reinstated if the alien, before the end of the second year after the missed appointment date if paragraph (a) applies, establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer at the post where the alien is registered that the failure to apply for an immigrant visa was due to circumstances beyond the alien's control. If paragraph (b) applies, the consular officer at the post where the alien is registered shall, upon the termination of registration, notify the alien of the termination and the right to have the registration reinstated if the alien, before the end of the second year after the INA 221(g) refusal, establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer at such post that the failure to present evidence purporting to overcome the ineligibility under INA 221(g) was due to circumstances beyond the alien's control.
( d ) *Reinstatement of registration.* If the consular officer is satisfied that an alien, as provided for in paragraph (c) of this section, has established that failure to apply as scheduled for an immigrant visa or to present evidence purporting to overcome ineligibility under INA 221(g) was due to circumstances beyond the alien's control, the consular officer shall reinstate the alien's registration for an immigrant visa. Any petition approved under INA 204(b) which had been automatically revoked as a result of the termination of registration shall be considered to be automatically reinstated if the registration is reinstated.
( e ) *Interpretation of “circumstances beyond alien's control”.* For the purpose of this section, the term “circumstances beyond the alien's control” includes, but is not limited to, an illness or other physical disability preventing the alien from traveling, a refusal by the authorities of the country of an alien's residence to grant the alien permission to depart as an immigrant, and foreign military service.
[52 FR 42613, Nov. 5, 1987, as amended at 56 FR 49682, Oct. 1, 1991; 73 FR 11028, Feb. 29, 2008]
### §6618. Major science and technology proposals

The Director shall identify and provide an annual report to Congress on each major multinational science and technology project, in which the United States is not a participant, which has a total estimated cost greater than $1,000,000,000.

(Pub. L. 94–282, title II, §209, as added Pub. L. 102–245, title V, §502, Feb. 14, 1992, 106 Stat. 24.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 6618, Pub. L. 94–282, title II, §209, May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 468, directed President to transmit annually to Congress a report on science and technology to be prepared by Office of Science and Technology Policy, and directed Director of Office to make the report available as a public document, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 97–375, title II, §215(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1826. See section 6615 of this title.
§ 96.63 Renewal of accreditation or approval. ( a ) The accrediting entity must advise accredited agencies and approved persons that it monitors of the date by which they should seek renewal of their accreditation or approval so that the renewal process can reasonably be completed prior to the expiration of the agency's or person's current accreditation or approval. If the accredited agency or approved person does not wish to renew its accreditation or approval, it must immediately notify the accrediting entity and take all necessary steps to complete its intercountry adoption cases and to transfer its pending intercountry adoption cases and adoption records to other accredited agencies, approved persons, or a State archive, as appropriate, under the oversight of the accrediting entity, before its accreditation or approval expires.
( b ) The accredited agency or approved person may seek renewal from a different accrediting entity than the one that handled its prior application. If it changes accrediting entities, the accredited agency or approved person must so notify the accrediting entity that handled its prior application by the date on which the agency or person must (pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section) seek renewal of its status. The accredited agency or approved person must follow the new accrediting entity's instructions when submitting a request for renewal and preparing documents and other information for the new accrediting entity to review in connection with the renewal request.
( c ) The accrediting entity must process the request for renewal in a timely fashion. Before deciding whether to renew the accreditation or approval of an agency or person, the accrediting entity may, in its discretion, advise the agency or person of any deficiencies that may hinder or prevent its renewal and defer a decision to allow the agency or person to correct the deficiencies. The accrediting entity must notify the accredited agency, approved person, and the Secretary in writing when it renews or refuses to renew an agency's or person's accreditation or approval.
( d ) Sections 96.24, 96.25, and 96.26, which relate to evaluation procedures and to requests for and use of information, and § 96.27, which relates to the substantive criteria for evaluating applicants for accreditation or approval, other than § 96.27(e), will govern determinations about whether to renew accreditation or approval. In lieu of § 96.27(e), if the agency or person has been suspended by an accrediting entity or the Secretary during its most current accreditation or approval cycle, the accrediting entity may take the reasons underlying the suspension into account when determining whether to renew accreditation or approval and may refuse to renew accreditation or approval based on the prior suspension.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
### §5777. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5777 was editorially reclassified as section 11297 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Vilma C. Miller, as Administratrix of the Estate of Annemarie Miller, Deceased, Plaintiff, v Kristina P. Higgins et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Rehbein Motors, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 29, 1976 in Schoharie County, which, *inter alia,*denied third-party defendant Rehbein Motors’ motion for summary judgment. On June 4, 1974 third-party defendant Rehbein Motors performed a New York State motor vehicle inspection on a 1970 Ford pick*1011up truck at the request of a co-third-party defendant, William S. Hinkley and Sons, Inc. No defects were found and a certificate of inspection was issued. Later that day, the truck was sold by Hinkley to the third-party plaintiff, Miles J. Higgins. On January 28, 1975 his wife, Kristina Higgins, while driving the truck, struck and killed Annemarie Miller, a pedestrian. .The accident apparently was caused by brake failure. The decedent’s administratrix commenced an action against the Higgins for personal injuries and wrongful death. The Higgins commenced third-party actions against the seller of the truck (Hinkley) and the inspector (Rehbein Motors), seeking indemnification or contribution. Examinations before trial revealed that the truck had been driven seven or eight thousand miles during the period between purchase and accident, and that no difficulty with the brakes had been experienced prior to the accident. Rehbein Motors moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (CPLR 3212) on the ground that with such a great number of miles traveled after the inspection it cannot be reasonably inferred that the brake defects were discoverable at the time of the inspection.* Special Term denied the motion. The third-party plaintiffs’ verified bill of particulars alleges that at the time of the inspection the brake warning light was inoperable and that the brake mechanism itself was badly worn and otherwise defective. These allegations were apparently based on the inference that if these defects existed at the time of the accident, they or their causes should have been discoverable 7,000 miles earlier at the time of the inspection. No proof submitted by the movant conclusively refutes this inference, and therefore the condition of the brakes at the time of the inspection is a question of fact not resolvable upon summary judgment. Further, third-party defendant Rehbein Motors inspected the subject vehicle and was required to notify the vehicle owner if repairs were necessary (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 304). Since a violation of a statute can be the proximate cause of an accident, on this record we cannot say that proof at trial might not establish such a statutory violation. Order affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Larkin, JJ., concur.

*

 At Special Term Rehbein Motors also asserted that it had no duty of care to the Higgins. Rehbein does not reassert the point on appeal, and it therefore will not be considered.