alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §300mm–33. Followup monitoring and treatment of other individuals with WTC-related health conditions

#### (a) In general

Subject to subsection (c), the provisions of section 300mm–32 of this title shall apply to the followup monitoring and treatment of WTC-related health conditions in the case of individuals described in subsection (b) in the same manner as such provisions apply to the followup monitoring and treatment of WTC-related health conditions for certified-eligible WTC survivors.

#### (b) Individuals described

An individual described in this subsection is an individual who, regardless of location of residence—

(1) is not an enrolled WTC responder or a certified-eligible WTC survivor; and

(2) is diagnosed at a Clinical Center of Excellence with a WTC-related health condition for certified-eligible WTC survivors.

#### (c) Limitation

#### (1) In general

The WTC Program Administrator shall limit benefits for any fiscal year under subsection (a) in a manner so that payments under this section for such fiscal year do not exceed the amount specified in paragraph (2) for such fiscal year.

#### (2) Limitation

The amount specified in this paragraph for—

(A) the last calendar quarter of fiscal year 2011 is $5,000,000;

(B) fiscal year 2012 is $20,000,000; or

(C) a succeeding fiscal year is the amount specified in this paragraph for the previous fiscal year increased by the annual percentage increase in the medical care component of the consumer price index for all urban consumers.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXXIII, §3323, as added Pub. L. 111–347, title I, §101, Jan. 2, 2011, 124 Stat. 3652.)
§ 513.115 Policy. ( a ) In order to protect the public interest, it is the policy of the Federal Government to conduct business only with responsible persons. Debarment and suspension are discretionary actions that, taken in accordance with Executive Order 12549 and these regulations, are appropriate means to implement this policy.
( b ) Debarment and suspension are serious actions which shall be used only in the public interest and for the Federal Government's protection and not for purposes of punishment. Agencies may impose debarment or suspension for the causes and in accordance with the procedures set forth in these regulations.
( c ) When more than one agency has an interest in the proposed debarment or suspension of a person, consideration shall be given to designating one agency as the lead agency for making the decision. Agencies are encouraged to establish methods and procedures for coordinating their debarment or suspension actions.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-620 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TELECOMMUNICATION 

Radio Frequencies 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CANADA 

Amending the Agreement of 

October 24, 1962, as Amended 

 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Washington June 15 and 20, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 CANADA 

 Telecommunication: Radio Frequencies 

 Agreement amending the agreement of 

 October 24, 1962, as amended. 

 Effected by exchange of notes at Washington 

 June 15 and 20, 2005; 

 Entered into force June 20, 2005.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.123 Discontinuance of granting nonimmigrant visa pursuant to INA 243(d). ( a ) *Grounds for discontinuance of granting a visa.* Consular officers in a country subject to an order by the Secretary under INA 243(d) shall discontinue granting nonimmigrant visas for categories of nonimmigrant visas specified in the order of the Secretary (or his or her designee), and pursuant to procedures dictated by the Department.
( b ) *Discontinuance procedure* — ( 1 ) *Applications refused or discontinued only.* Starting on the day the Secretary's (or designee's) order to discontinue granting visas takes effect (effective date), no visas falling within the scope of the order, as described by the order, may be issued in the referenced country to an applicant who falls within the scope of the order, except as otherwise expressly provided in the order or related Department instructions. Beginning on the effective date, a consular officer must refuse the visa if the individual is not eligible for the visa under INA 212(a), INA 221(g), or other applicable law, but if the applicant is otherwise eligible, must process the application by discontinuing granting, regardless of when the application was filed, if the applicant falls within the scope of the order and no exception applies. The application processing fee will not be refunded. The requirement to discontinue issuance may not be waived, and continues until the sanction is terminated as described below.
( 2 ) *Geographic applicability.* Visa sanctions under INA 243(d) only apply to visa issuance in the country that is sanctioned. If a consular officer has a reason to believe that a visa applicant potentially subject to INA 243(d) sanctions is applying at a post outside the sanctioned country to evade visa sanctions under INA 243(d) (e.g., the applicant provides no credible explanation for applying outside the country), the consular officer will transfer the case to the consular post in the consular district where INA 243(d) sanctions apply, review any other applicable Department instructions, and proceed accordingly. When cases are transferred to a consular district where INA 243(d) sanctions apply, the adjudication will be subject to the discontinuation of issuance under the sanctions.
( c ) *Termination of sanction.* The Department shall notify consular officers in an affected country when the sanction under INA 243(d) has been lifted. After notification, normal consular operations may resume consistent with these regulations and guidance from the Department. Once the sanction under INA 243(d) is lifted, no new application processing fee is required in cases where issuance has been discontinued pursuant to an INA 243(d) order, and consular officers in the affected post must adjudicate the visa consistent with regulations and Department guidance. Consular officers may require applicants to update the visa application forms, must conduct any necessary adjudicatory steps, and may re-interview the applicant to determine eligibility.
[84 FR 16612, Apr. 22, 2019]
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10805

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE JESUS TERRONES-LOPEZ, also known as Jose Jesus 

Terrones-Vasquez,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:06-CR-55)

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Jesus Terrones-Lopez appeals his sentence for illegal

reentry after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §

1326(a) and (b). He was sentenced to 50 months in prison.

Terrones contends the district court erred by increasing his

base offense level under the advisory Guidelines by 16 levels,

having found that his Texas conviction of delivery of cocaine was

a “drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i).
2

Because Terrones preserved this issue in district court, we review

it de novo. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th

Cir. 2005). 

The indictment from Terrones’ prior conviction, the only

document introduced at sentencing in support of the 16-level

increase, stated he “did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally

deliver, to-wit: actually transfer, constructively transfer, and

offer to sell a controlled substance”. Despite the pleading’s

conjunctive language, the statute is disjunctive, and the jury

could have convicted Terrones based only on an offer to sell.

United States v. Gonzales, No. 05-41221, 2007 WL 1063993, at *2

(5th Cir. 7 Mar. 2007). Offering to sell a controlled substance,

however, is not a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2. Id. at

*1; United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 273-74 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Accordingly, resentencing is

required. See Gonzalez, 2007 WL 1063993, at *2.

Terrones also challenges the constitutionality of the

treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) as sentencing factors rather than elements of

the offense that must be found by a jury. Terrones’ constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Terrones properly concedes this; he raises

the issue only to preserve it for further review.
3

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR 

RESENTENCING
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBasic experimental study of the coupling between flow instabilities and incident soundWhether a solid trailing edge is required to produce efficient coupling between sound and instability waves in a shear layer was investigated. The differences found in the literature on the theoretical notions about receptivity, and a need to resolve them by way of well-planned experiments are discussed. Instability waves in the shear layer of a subsonic jet, excited by a point sound source located external to the jet, were first visualized using an ensemble averaging technique. Various means were adopted to shield the sound reaching the nozzle lip. It was found that the low frequency sound couples more efficiently at distances downstream of the nozzle. To substantiate the findings further, a supersonic screeching jet was tested such that it passed through a small opening in a baffle placed parallel to the exit plane. The measured feedback or screech frequencies and also the excited flow disturbances changed drastically on traversing the baffle axially thus providing a strong indication that a trailing edge is not necessary for efficient coupling between sound and flow.Document ID19840013207Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsAhuja, K. K.*(Lockheed-Georgia Co. Marietta, GA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1984Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:3789LG83ER0137NASA-CR-3789Accession Number84N21275Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-31-3BCONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-23286Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840013207.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §6347. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §591, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 761, authorized appropriations to Secretary of Energy of $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 1981 and 1982, for industrial energy conservation demonstration projects designed to substantially increase productivity in industry.

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Security Act, and not as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which comprises this chapter.
#### Michael J. Fazio, Plaintiff, v Barnett Freedman et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, Stuart E. Liebowitz, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Defendants.

. In amortgage foreclosure action in which, by a third-party action, defendants Freedman *inter alia*seek exoneration, the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered February 8, 1977, as denied his motion to dimiss the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 1003. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant agreed to guarantee a loan made by plaintiff to Claridge Travel, Inc. They also agreed to execute bonds in the amount of $85,000, and mortgages on their respective homes. The indemnity agreement provided that the balance of principal and interest would become due if Claridge defaulted in its payments to plaintiff. Upon Claridge’s default, plaintiff commenced an action for foreclosure and a deficiency judgment against the third-party plaintiffs who, in turn, sought exoneration from the third-party defendant, their cosurety. The third-party defendant moved to dismiss the *642third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 1003 on the ground that he was not a proper party defendant. The motion was denied by Special Term. Depending upon the terms of the agreement, if any, between the cosureties, when the third-party plaintiffs pay a judgment to plaintiff, the third-party defendant will become liable to them for contribution or for complete indemnity (see 57 NY Jur, Suretyship and Guaranty, §§ 339, 373). The third-party defendant was properly impleaded pursuant to CPLR 1007, since he is a party who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiffs for all or part of their liability to plaintiff. Appellant’s reliance upon CPLR 1003 is misplaced. That section bars dismissal of actions on the ground of misjoinder. It is also clear that sections 1311 and 1313 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law only apply to the main action for foreclosure; they do not. apply to third-party actions for indemnity and contribution. Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2522 

To extend the suspension of duty on filter blue green photo dye. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on filter blue green photo 

dye. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FILTER BLUE GREEN PHOTO DYE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.62 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 iron chloro-5,6-diamino-1,3-naphthalenedisulfonate com7 plexes) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘12/31/2010’’. 

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

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

•HR 2522 IH 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 267 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 267

To require amounts remaining in Members' representational allowances at 
the end of a fiscal year to be used for deficit reduction or to reduce 
               the Federal debt, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2005

   Mr. Camp introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require amounts remaining in Members' representational allowances at 
the end of a fiscal year to be used for deficit reduction or to reduce 
               the Federal debt, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL 
              ALLOWANCES TO BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO REDUCE 
              THE FEDERAL DEBT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
amounts appropriated for the Members' Representational Allowance of a 
Member of the House of Representatives for a fiscal year which remain 
after all payments are made under such Allowance for the year shall be 
deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, except that 
in the case of a fiscal year for which there is no Federal budget 
deficit, such amounts shall be used to reduce the Federal debt (in such 
manner as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to 
fiscal year 2006 and each succeeding fiscal year.

SEC. 2. PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT.

    After each session of Congress or other period for which the 
Members' Representational Allowance is made available, there shall be 
published in the Congressional Record a statement showing, with respect 
to such session or period, the amount deposited with respect to each 
Member under section 1 and the total deposited with respect to all 
Members.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

    The Committee on House Administration of the House of 
Representatives shall have authority to prescribe regulations to carry 
out this Act.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

    As used in this Act, the term ``Member of the House of 
Representatives'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.15c1-8 Sales at the market.

The term *manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance,* as used in section 15(c)(1) of the Act, is hereby defined to include any representation made to a customer by a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer who is participating or otherwise financially interested in the primary or secondary distribution of any security which is not admitted to trading on a national securities exchange that such security is being offered to such customer “at the market” or at a price related to the market price unless such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that a market for such security exists other than that made, created, or controlled by him, or by any person for whom he is acting or with whom he is associated in such distribution, or by any person controlled by, controlling or under common control with him.

[41 FR 22826, June 7, 1976]
Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 4 of 5
A further case management conference has been

scheduled to occur on October 5, 2010, at 3:00 p.m.

with a statement due one week prior.

Case 3:08-cv-03894-SI Document 77 Filed 08/23/10 Page 5 of 5
#### Edith M. Tuttle and Another, Suing in Behalf of Themselves and All Other Stockholders of American District Telegraph Company, a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Respondents, v. Western Union Telegraph Company and Another, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 277]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ277.106]

Public Law 106-277
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
     To authorize the payment of rewards to individuals furnishing 
   information relating to persons subject to indictment for serious 
 violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other 
             purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 2, 2000 -  [S. 2460]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF REWARDS PROGRAM TO INCLUDE RWANDA.

    Section 102 of the Act of October 30, 1998 (Public Law 105-
323) <<NOTE: 22 USC 2708 note.>> is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``or rwanda'' after 
        ``yugoslavia'';
            (2) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``or the 
        International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda'' after 
        ``Yugoslavia''; and
            (3) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after 
                ``Reference.--''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:

    ``(2) For the purposes of subsection (a), the statute of the 
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda means the statute contained 
in the annex to Security Council Resolution 955 of November 8, 1994.''.

    Approved October 2, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2460:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            June 23, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 19, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```