alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §300h–9. Secure geologic storage permitting

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Administrator

The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

#### (2) Class VI well

The term "Class VI well" means a well described in section 144.6(f) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations for geologic sequestration permitting

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for the permitting of Class VI wells by the Administrator for the injection of carbon dioxide for the purpose of geologic sequestration in accordance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) and the final rule of the Administrator entitled "Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells" (75 Fed. Reg. 77230 (December 10, 2010)), $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

#### (c) State permitting program grants

#### (1) Establishment

The Administrator shall award grants to States that, pursuant to section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h–1), receive the approval of the Administrator for a State underground injection control program for permitting Class VI wells for the injection of carbon dioxide.

#### (2) Use of funds

A State that receives a grant under paragraph (1) shall use the amounts received under the grant to defray the expenses of the State related to the establishment and operation of a State underground injection control program described in paragraph (1).

#### (3) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

(Pub. L. 117–58, div. D, title III, §40306, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1002.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Safe Drinking Water Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is title XIV of act July 1, 1944, as added Dec. 16, 1974, Pub. L. 93–523, §2(a), 88 Stat. 1660, which is classified generally to subchapter XII (§300f et seq.) of chapter 6A of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 201 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Wage Rate Requirements

For provisions relating to rates of wages to be paid to laborers and mechanics on projects for construction, alteration, or repair work funded under div. D or an amendment by div. D of Pub. L. 117–58, including authority of Secretary of Labor, see section 18851 of this title.
#### Kings Oaks Terrace Co-Operative Apts., Inc., Respondent, v. Zee Construction Corp. et al., Appellants.

In an action for an accounting of wrongful profits derived from a conspiracy to defraud holders of stock in a corporation conducting a co-operative dwelling project with moneys procured in part from a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Authority, defendants appeal from parts of an order of Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 30, 1962, which denied or otherwise disposed of their motion to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence on the trial or to direct plaintiff to submit a further bill of particulars. Order modified by adding provisions directing: (1) that as to the response in the bill of particulars to item 1 (b) (i) of the demand, insofar as such item is addressed to subdivision H in paragraph *“*Fourteenth ” of the amended complaint, the plaintiff shall set forth specifically the particulars demanded; (2) that as to so much of the response in the bill to item 1 (e) of the demand as refers to “ acts and writings elsewhere referred to in this bill of particulars,” the plaintiff shall set forth specifically such acts and writings; and (3) that as to the response in the bill to item 5 of the demand, the plaintiff shall furnish specifically the *“*full ” particulars to which it refers. As so modified the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Plaintiff is directed, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, to serve a supplemental bill of particulars setting forth the additional particulars, information and writings required to be furnished hereunder. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Geological Survey

# AGENCY:

U.S. Geological Survey.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 106-503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its ninth meeting. The meeting location is the U.S. Geological Survey, John Wesley Powell National Center, Rm. 3B457, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192. The Committee is comprised of members from academia, industry, and State government. The Committee shall advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on matters relating to the USGS's participation in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

The Committee will review the overall direction of the U.S. Geological Survey's Earthquake Hazards Program in the current and next fiscal years. They will also discuss the reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

Meetings of the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee are open to the public.

# DATES:

January 11, 2005, commencing at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 5 p.m. on January 12, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. David Applegate, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6714.

Dated: December 17, 2004.

James F. Devine,

Senior Advisor for Science Applications.

[FR Doc. 04-28244  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-Y7-M
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is 
announcing a public meeting of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public 
Advisory Committee.

DATES: January 27, 2005, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Hilton Anchorage, 500 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Mutter, Department of the 
Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 ``C'' 
Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501, (907) 271-5011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Public Advisory Committee was created by 
Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree 
entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on 
August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for 
the District of Alaska in settlement of United States of America v. 
State of Alaska, Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will 
feature an orientation for new Committee members and discussions about 
the Trustee Council's proposed invitation to bid on projects for fiscal 
year 2006.

    Dated: December 21, 2004.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-28279 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P
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

GARRICK S. LEW (State Bar No. 61889)

Design Center East

600 Townsend Street, Suite 329E

San Francisco, CA 94103-4957

Telephone: (415) 575-3588

Facsimile: (415) 522-1506

gsl@defendergroup.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Jee Fong Low

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JEE FONG LOW,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-0269 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND DOCUMENTING

WAIVER

The United States, through its counsel AUSA Christine Wong, and defendant Jee Fong

Low, through his counsel Garrick Lew, hereby agree and stipulate to a continuance of the status

conference for change of plea in this case presently scheduled for Monday April 26, 2010 to

Monday May 3, 2010 at 11 a.m. before this Court. With the agreement of the parties and with

the consent of the defendant, the Court enters this order confirming the exclusion of time under

the Speedy Trial Act from April 26, 2010 through May 3, 2010. The parties agree and stipulate,

and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The Court previously had ordered the United States Probation Office to prepare a

pre-plea sentence report and referred the parties to a Magistrate Judge for settlement conference.

Case 3:09-cr-00269-MHP Document 52 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 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

The next status conference before the Court is scheduled for April 26, 2010, at 10 a.m. 

2. Defense counsel is unavailable to appear at the status conference on April 26,

2010 at 10 a.m. due to other state court cases scheduled for hearings at the same time. 

3. The parties have arrived at a negotiated a settlement and defendant has executed a

Plea Agreement to resolve the case. 

4. The parties requested, and the Court previously ordered, the exclusion of time

under the Speedy Trial Act through April 26, 2010, to refer the parties to a Magistrate Judge for

settlement, for further status conference finding that the ends of justice outweighs the best

interest of the public by continuing this matter and that the additional time be excluded for

effective preparation of counsel.

5. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the

period from April 26, 2010 to May 3, 2010 from Speedy Trial Act calculations outweighs the

interests of the public and the defendant to a speedy trial, by ensuring the effective preparation of

counsel, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B).

STIPULATED:

DATED: April 23, 2010 

GARRICK LEW, ESQ.

Attorney for JEE FONG LOW

DATED:April 23, 2010 /s/ 

CHRISTINE Y. WONG

Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April ____, 2010 

HON. MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Judge

-2-

27

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00269-MHP Document 52 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2
### §300gg–16. Prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals

#### (a) In general

A group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of title 26 (relating to prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals).

#### (b) Rules and definitions

For purposes of this section—

#### (1) Certain rules to apply

Rules similar to the rules contained in paragraphs (3), (4), and (8) of section 105(h) of title 26 shall apply.

#### (2) Highly compensated individual

The term "highly compensated individual" has the meaning given such term by section 105(h)(5) of title 26.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2716, as added and amended Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1001(5), title X, §10101(d), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 135, 884.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–148, §10101(d), amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

"(a) In General.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.

"(b) Limitation.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation."

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective for plan years beginning on or after the date that is 6 months after Mar. 23, 2010, see section 1004 of Pub. L. 111–148, set out as a note under section 300gg–11 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 279 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 279

  To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to include nurse 
practitioners and domestic partners within the scope of coverage of the 
  Act and to extend the period of family or medical leave for spouses 
                     employed by the same employer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2005

    Ms. Millender-McDonald introduced the following bill; which was 
   referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in 
   addition to the Committees on House Administration and Government 
 Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to include nurse 
practitioners and domestic partners within the scope of coverage of the 
  Act and to extend the period of family or medical leave for spouses 
                     employed by the same employer.

    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 ``Family and Medical Leave Protection 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993.

    (a) Inclusion of Nurse Practitioner Within Definition of Health 
Care Provider.--Section 101(6) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611(6)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(B) a nurse practitioner; or'';
    (b) Inclusion of Domestic Partner Within Definition of Spouse.--
Section 101(13) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2611(13)) is amended by 
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``and includes a 
domestic or civil partner registered or recognized under the applicable 
domestic or civil partnership State or local law''.
    (c) Extension of Period of Family or Medical Leave for Spouses 
Employed by Same Employer.--Section 102(f) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
2612(f)) is amended by striking ``12 workweeks'' and inserting ``24 
workweeks''.
                                 <all>
```
### §7372. "Secretary" and "renewable energy resource" defined

For purposes of this subchapter—

(1) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy; and

(2) the term "renewable energy resource" means any energy resource which has recently originated in the sun, including direct and indirect solar radiation and intermediate solar energy forms such as wind, ocean thermal gradients, ocean currents and waves, hydropower, photovoltaic energy, products of photosynthetic processes, organic wastes, and others.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title IV, §403, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 716.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 96–294, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 715, known as the Renewable Energy Resources Act of 1980, which enacted this subchapter, amended sections 8255, 8271, and 8274 to 8276 of this title and sections 2705 and 2708 of Title 16, Conservation, and enacted a provision set out as a note under section 2701 of Title 16. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7371 of this title and Tables.
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

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, a

Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARCO VENTURES, INC., a California

Corporation, dba FORD OF MARIN,

Defendants. /

No. C-08-4906 MMC

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING

VENABLE LLP’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AND CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING STIPULATIONS;

DIRECTIONS TO VENABLE LLP;

VACATING JUNE 4, 2010 HEARING

On April 23, 2010, Venable LLP (“Venable”) filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for

Marco Ventures, Inc., dba Ford of Marin (“Ford of Marin”) and Robert A. Brutyn (“Brutyn”). 

Thereafter, on May 7, 2010, Venable and Ford of Marin filed a stipulation, in which the

parties thereto agreed that Venable may withdraw as counsel for Ford of Marin, and, on

that same date, Venable and Brutyn filed a stipulation, in which the parties thereto agreed

that Venable may withdraw as counsel for Brutyn.

By order filed May 14, 2010, the Court directed Ford of Marin and Brutyn to

supplement their respective stipulations, no later than May 28, 2010, by setting forth their

respective current addresses and telephone numbers, and advised said parties that in the

event of a failure to do so, the Court would approve such stipulations only on the condition

that Venable continue to accept service on their behalf. Neither Ford of Marin nor Brutyn

Case 3:08-cv-04906-MMC Document 68 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 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

2

has filed a supplement.

Accordingly, having read and considered Venable’s motion, as well as the abovereferenced stipulations, the Court hereby VACATES the June 4, 2010 hearing, and rules as

follows.

Good cause appearing, the motion to withdraw is hereby GRANTED, and the

above-referenced stipulations are hereby APPROVED, on the condition that Venable

continue to accept service on behalf of both Ford of Marin and Brutyn. See Civil L.R. 11-

5(b).

Venable LLP is hereby DIRECTED to serve this order on both Ford of Marin and

Brutyn.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04906-MMC Document 68 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Juvondi R. PENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION OF C.S.E.A., Defendant, *18State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Brooklyn Developmental Disabilities Services Office, Defendants-Appellees.*

No. 06-3606-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 25, 2007.

Juvondi R. Pender, New York, N.Y., pro se.

David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor General (Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, Division of Appeals & Opinions, of counsel), for Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. RALPH K. WINTER, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

*

This caption varies from the official caption, which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Juvondi R. Pender, proceeding *pro se,*initiated this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, *J.),*alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101*et seq.*Pen-der alleges that Defendants-Appellees-— State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and its Brooklyn Developmental Disabilities Services Office — failed to promote him, illegally terminated him, and otherwise discriminated against him based on his race and national origin, gender, age, religion, and disability. On July 18, 2006, in a careful, thorough memorandum and order, Judge Bianco granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. *Pender v. State of N.Y. Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,*No. 02-CV-2438, 2006 WL 2013863 (E.D.N.Y. July 18, 2006); *see also Pender v. State of N.Y. Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,*No. 02-CV-2438, 2006 WL 2620631 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2006) (denying Pender’s motion for reconsideration).

Pender now appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims. In considering his arguments, we review *de novo*the district court’s grant of summary judgment and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *Jenkins v. City of New York,*478 F.3d 76, 85 n. 4 (2d Cir.2007). And for purposes of the present order, we assume the reader’s familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, as well as with the issues raised on appeal.

For substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s July 18, 2006 memorandum and order, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Pender’s Title VII claim based on race discrimination and Pender’s ADA claim. With respect to Pender’s allegations of discrimination based upon his gender, national origin, and religion, we note that Pender has seemingly abandoned those claims on appeal and we do not consider them.

*19We have carefully reviewed Pender’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.