alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3821. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §105, as added Pub. L. 93–415, title IV, §401(4), Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1132, which related to grants for demonstrations of innovative approaches to youth development, was omitted in view of appropriations not being authorized for fiscal years after 1975.

Prior sections 3821 to 3845 were omitted in the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 532.

A prior section 3821, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §111, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 463, set out Congressional statement of purpose of rehabilitative services.

A prior section 3822, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §112, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 463; Pub. L. 92–31, §2(a), June 30, 1971, 85 Stat. 84, related to authorization of grants.

A prior section 3823, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §113, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 464; Pub. L. 92–31, §2(b), June 30, 1971, 85 Stat. 84, related to assurances and information required to be presented in applications for grants.

A prior section 3831, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §121, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 465, related to Congressional statement of purpose of preventive services.

A prior section 3832, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §122, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 465, related to authorization of grants.

A prior section 3833, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §123, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 465, related to assurances and information required to be presented in application for grants.

A prior section 3841, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §131, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 466, related to requirements, procedure for approval, and approval of State plans for grants.

A prior section 3842, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §132, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 468, related to making of grants directly to public and other agencies.

A prior section 3843, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §133, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 468, related to use of funds and labor standards.

A prior section 3844, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §134, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 469, related to submission of copies of applications for grants to State officials and evaluation of projects by them.

A prior section 3845, Pub. L. 90–445, title I, §135, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 469, related to considerations for approval of applications.

Title IV of Pub. L. 93–415 was repealed by Pub. L. 95–115, §10, Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1061, and Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title II, §12221(a)(4), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1894.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2441 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on BOPA. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on BOPA. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BOPA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.14 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 BOPA) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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

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

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

11 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### §§ 219.171-219.999 [Reserved]
### §3797ff–6. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797ff–6 was editorially reclassified as section 10707 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 236.11 Subrogation of USAID.

In the event of payment by USAID to a Noteholder under the Guarantee, USAID shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all of the rights of such Noteholder against the Borrower under the related Note.
### §19054. Climate change research

The Director shall make awards, on a competitive basis, to institutions of higher education or non-profit organizations (or consortia of such institutions or organizations) to support research to improve our understanding of the climate system and related human and environmental systems.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10345, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1560.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,403
<SECURITIES>                                    15,431
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,335
<ALLOWANCES>                                       166
<INVENTORY>                                        257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,866
<PP&E>                                           4,177
<DEPRECIATION>                                     880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,362
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,253
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,237
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    367
<INCOME-TAX>                                       139
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       228
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-530 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EMPLOYMENT 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BOLIVIA 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

La Paz May 9 and 30, 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.” 
 BOLIVIA 

 Employment 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 La Paz May 9 and 30, 2005; 

 Entered into force May 30, 2005.
#### Toliver *v.*The State.

May 14, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Worrill. Miller superior court. February 3, 1912.

*William I. Geer,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. 8. Felder, attorney-general;*and J. *A. Laing, solicitor-general,*by *B. B. Arnold,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

1. Where the prosecution introduces testimony that the deceased was heard to have made certain exclamations at the time the mortal wound was inflicted, indicating an unprovoked assault upon him. by the accused, and his dying declaration that the accused shot him, and testimony that the accused admitted the killing, stating that he did not know “how come him to shoot him” (the deceased), a conviction does not depend entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and therefore it is not erroneous to omit an instruction on the law of circumstantial evidence. ■

2. The evidence did not authorize a charge on the law of voluntary manslaughter.

3. The "evidence warranted the verdict. The charge was explicit and comprehensive, and no reason appears for the granting of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justiees concur.*
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20890 

Conference Calendar

__________________

KAAZIM ABUL UMAR,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT MCVEA; KEITH L. STEELE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-1443

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kaazim Abul Umar, a/k/a Wesley Lynn Pittman, appeals the

district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint as

improvidently filed. He argues that the district court abused

its discretion and denied him access to the courts by applying

its policy of enforcing sanctions imposed by other Texas federal

district courts.

We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinion,

and appellant's brief and discern no reversible error. Further, 
No. 95-20890

-2-

we hold that Umar's appeal is frivolous, and, accordingly, we

DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Umar was warned in

Pittman v. Shaw, No. 94-41262 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 1995) that

additional frivolous appeals would result in the imposition of

sanctions. Umar is hereby BARRED from filing any pro se, in

forma pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, in

forma pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is

subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written

permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court

and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are

directed to return to Umar, unfiled, any attempted submission

inconsistent with this bar. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Eugene Scott.

Motion for leave to reargue granted and upon reargument motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., of 100 Centre Street, New York, New York, is assigned as counsel for the appellant for the purposes of the appeal. The order of this court entered on October 29, 1959, dismissing said appeal is vacated. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2499 

To provide that members of the National Guard who served in the counties 

declared Federal disaster areas in response to the September 11, 2001, 

terrorist attacks on the United States, and who served under State 

duty so that they could immediately assist in the response to the terrorist 

attacks should have that service counted as Federal active duty for 

purposes of military retirement credit under chapter 1223 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005 

Mrs. MALONEY (for herself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. 

FOSSELLA, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. OWENS, Mr. 

HINCHEY, Mr. SERRANO, and Mrs. MCCARTHY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide that members of the National Guard who served 

in the counties declared Federal disaster areas in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on 

the United States, and who served under State duty 

so that they could immediately assist in the response 

to the terrorist attacks should have that service counted 

as Federal active duty for purposes of military retirement 

credit under chapter 1223 of title 10, United States 

Code. 
2 

•HR 2499 IH 

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

3 SECTION 1. MILITARY RETIREMENT CREDIT FOR CERTAIN 

4 SERVICE BY NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS 

5 PERFORMED WHILE IN A STATE DUTY STA6 TUS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TERRORIST 

7 ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. 

8 (a) RETIREMENT CREDIT.—Service of a member of 

9 the Ready Reserve of the Army National Guard or Air 

10 National Guard described in subsection (b) shall be 

11 deemed to be service creditable under section 

12 12732(a)(2)(A)(i) of title 10, United States Code. 

13 (b) COVERED SERVICE.—Service referred to in sub14 section (a) is full-time State active duty service that a 

15 member of the National Guard performed on or after Sep16 tember 11, 2001, and before October 1, 2002, in any of 

17 the counties specified in subsection (c) to support a Fed18 eral declaration of emergency following the terrorist at19 tacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. 

20 (c) COVERED COUNTIES.—The counties referred to 

21 in subsection (b) are the following: 

22 (1) In the State of New York: Bronx, Kings, 

23 New York (boroughs of Brooklyn and Manhattan), 

24 Queens, Richmond, Delaware, Dutchess, Nassau, 
3 

•HR 2499 IH 

1 Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk, Sullivan, Ul2 ster, and Westchester 

3 (2) In the State of Virginia: Arlington. 

4 (d) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect 

5 as of September 11, 2001. 

Æ
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSE R. BARTONICO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEARS HOME IMPROVEMENT PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Defendant.

/

No. C 08-04667 SI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON

SETTLEMENT

The parties to the action, by their counsel, have advised the court that they have agreed

to a settlement. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, that

if any party hereto certifies to this court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel,

within ninety days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, the foregoing order

shall be vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04667-SI Document 51 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 120.22 Advisory opinions and related authorizations. ( a ) *Preliminary authorization determinations.* A person may request information from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) as to whether it would likely grant a license or other approval for a particular defense article or defense service to a particular country. Such information from DDTC is issued on a case-by-case basis and applies only to the particular matters presented to DDTC. These opinions are not binding on the Department of State and may not be used in future matters before the Department. A request for an advisory opinion must be made in writing and must outline in detail the equipment, its usage, the security classification (if any) of the articles or related technical data, and the country or countries involved.
( b ) *Related authorizations.* DDTC may, as appropriate, in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, provide export authorization, subject to all other relevant requirements of this subchapter, both for transactions that have been the subject of advisory opinions requested by prospective U.S. exporters, or for the Directorate's own initiatives. Such initiatives may cover pilot programs, or specifically anticipated circumstances for which the Directorate considers special authorizations appropriate.
( c ) *Interpretations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations in this subchapter.* Any person may request an interpretation of the requirements set forth in this subchapter in the form of an advisory opinion. A request for an advisory opinion must be made in writing. Any response to an advisory opinion provided by DDTC pursuant to this paragraph (c) shall not be an authorization to export and shall not bind the Department to grant or deny any such authorization.
#### In the Matter of Harry W. Voccola, as Acting Director of the Parking Violations Bureau of the City of New York, Respondent, v Norman H. Shilling, as Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Respondent, and Stephen F. Browne, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to prohibit the respondent Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York from conducting further proceedings in a certain action pending before him in which the appellant herein is the defendant, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 12, 1976, which, *inter alia,*granted the petition and directed the respondent Judge to cease further proceedings in the action in question. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to petitioner payable by appellant, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Monteleone at Special Term. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur. [88 Misc 2d 103.]
#### FOLEY v. YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Pleadings—Effect as Evidence—Comments by Court.

Pleadings are before the court and jury, and may be read and commented upon for the purpose of defining the issue, and showing what part of the allegations is admitted, without having been formally put in evidence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, §§ 279-283.]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Matthew Foley against the Young Men’s Christian Association of New York. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Nadal & Carrere, for appellant.

B. Patterson, for respondent.

O’GORMAN, J.

Upon the former appeal in this case (90 N. Y. Supp. 406) we held that it was for the jury, to determine whether the invitation given by Walker was within the scope of his authority, expressly or by implication. Upon the second trial this question was properly submitted to the jury, and its finding for the plaintiff is amply supported by the evidence. There was no impropriety in the reference made by the trial justice to the pleadings. Pleadings in a case are before the court and jury, and may be read and commented upon for the purpose of defining the issue, and showing what part of the allegations is admitted, without having been formally put in evidence. Abb. Trial Brief, 301. In Holmes v. Jones, 121 N. Y. 466, 24 N. E. 702, the court said:

> “Statements, admissions, and allegations in pleadings are always in evidence for all the purposes of the trial of the action. They are made for the purposes of the trial, and are before the court and jury, and may be used for any legitimate purpose.”

The jury could not have misapprehended the court’s instructions. The learned justice repeatedly impressed upon them that the plaintiff could not recover unless his allegations were clearly established by the evidence.

There is no merit in the exceptions, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
### §300c–21. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title XXI, §2193(b)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 827

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XI, §1131, as added July 29, 1975, Pub. L. 94–63, title VI, §606, 89 Stat. 350; amended Aug. 1, 1977, Pub. L. 95–83, title III, §306(b), 91 Stat. 389; Nov. 10, 1978, Pub. L. 95–626, title II, §206(a), 92 Stat. 3584; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–35, title XXI, §2193(a)(1)(D), 95 Stat. 827, related to comprehensive hemophilia diagnostic and treatment centers.

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

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment and Repeal, Savings, and Transitional Provisions

For effective date, savings, and transitional provisions relating to the amendment and repeal of this section by Pub. L. 97–35, see section 2194 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 701 of this title.
# Federa l Aviatio n

Administratio n 

# Memorandu m Date : To : From : Prepare dby : Decembe r 23 , 200 9 FA A Docke t

No . 16-08-1 2 Ann e Torgerso n ,;^ l Deandr aBrook s Subject : Inde x o f Administrativ e Recor d O nDecembe r

18 , 2009 , th e FA A maile dth e Director' s Determinatio nt o al l partie s associate d wit hFA A Docke t

No . 16-08-1 2 usin g th e U.S . Posta l Service' s certified , retur nreceip t requeste d mai l service. Th e Inde x o f Administrativ e Recor dwa s inadvertentl y omitte dfromthi s mailing . O nDecembe r

22 , 2009 , th e FA A maile dth e Inde x o f Administrativ e Recor dt o al l partie s associate dwithFA A Docke t No . 16-08-1 2 usin g th e U.S . Posta l Service' s firs t clas s mai l service .
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Charles Warner, Respondent.

Same decision as in ease of *People*v. *Sink*(16 A D 2d 868). (Appeal by plaintiff from order and amended order of Onondaga County Court dismissing an indictment charging conspiracy. The amended order directed resubmission to the Grand Jury.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
§ 20.4 Retirement benefits. ( a ) *Type of benefits.* ( 1 ) A former spouse who meets the qualification requirements of § 20.3 is entitled to a share of any Foreign Service annuity (other than a disability annuity) or any supplemental annuity computed under section 806(a), 823 or 824 of the Act to which the principal is entitled under FSRDS and to any Foreign Service annuity (other than a disability annuity) or annuity supplement computed under section 824 or 855 of the Act of 5 U.S.C. 8415 to which the principal is entitled under FSPS.
( 2 ) A former spouse of a disability annuitant is entitled to a share of benefits to which the annuitant would qualify under paragraph (a) of this section, he or she not been disabled based on the actual age and service of the annuitant.
( b ) *Share.* The share of a participant's benefits to which a qualified former spouse is entitled is— ( 1 ) 50 percent of the benefits described in § 20.4(a) if the former spouse was married to the participant throughout the latter's creditable service; or
( 2 ) A pro rata share of 50 percent of such benefits if the former spouse was not married to the participant throughout such creditable service.
( c ) *Reduction of benefits.* If retirement benefits of a principal are reduced because of reemployment, attainment of eligibility for Social Security benefits or for any other reason, the amount of the share payable to a former spouse is correspondingly reduced during the period of the reduction.
( d ) *Commencement, termination and suspension.* ( 1 ) Entitlement to retirement benefits under this section (except for a former spouse of a disability annuitant) shall commence on the latter of— ( i ) The day the principal becomes entitled to benefits described in § 20.4(a); or
( ii ) December 22, 1987.
( 2 ) Entitlement to retirement benefits under this section for a former spouse of a disability annuitant shall commence on the latter of— ( i ) The date the principal would qualify for benefits (other than a disability annuity) described in § 20.4(a) on the basis of the principal's actual age and service;
( ii ) The date the disability annuity begins; or
( iii ) December 22, 1987.
( 3 ) Entitlement to retirement benefits under this section shall terminate or be suspended on the earlier of— ( i ) Last day of the month before the former spouse dies or remarries before attaining age 55;
( ii ) Date benefits of the principal terminate or are suspended because of death, recall, reemployment, recovery from disability or for any other reason.
( 4 ) Entitlement to benefits under this section shall be resumed for a former spouse, following their suspension, or the date they are resumed for the principal.