alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 63.3 Grants to foreign participants to observe, consult, demonstrate special skills, or engage in specialized programs. A citizen or national of a foreign country who has been awarded a grant to observe, consult with colleagues, demonstrate special skills, or engage in specialized programs, may be entitled to any or all of the following benefits when authorized by the Agency. ( a ) *Transportation.* Accommodations, as authorized, on steamship, airplane, railway, or other means of conveyance. For travel in a privately owned vehicle, reimbursement will be in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Travel Regulations.
( b ) *Excess baggage.* Excess baggage as deemed necessary by the Agency.
( c ) *Per diem allowance.* Per diem allowances in lieu of subsistence expenses while participating in the program in the United States, its territories or possessions and while traveling within or between the United States, its territories or possessions shall be established by the Secretary of State from time to time, within limitations prescribed by law. The participant shall be considered as remaining in a travel status during the entire period covered by his or her grant unless otherwise designated.
( d ) *Allowance.* A special allowance in lieu of per diem while traveling to and from the United States may be established by the Secretary of State, within limitations prescribed by law.
( e ) *Tuition and related expenses.* Tuition and related expenses in connection with attendance at seminars and workshops, professional meetings, or other events in keeping with the purpose of the grant.
( f ) *Books and educational materials allowance.* A reasonable allowance for books and educational materials.
( g ) *Advance of funds.* Advance of funds including per diem.
[44 FR 18019, Mar. 26, 1979, as amended at 49 FR 12214, Mar. 29, 1984. Redesignated at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999]
### §300jj–18. Transitions

#### (a) ONCHIT

To the extent consistent with section 300jj–11 of this title, all functions, personnel, assets, liabilities, and administrative actions applicable to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology appointed under Executive Order No. 13335 or the Office of such National Coordinator on the date before February 17, 2009, shall be transferred to the National Coordinator appointed under section 300jj–11(a) of this title and the Office of such National Coordinator as of February 17, 2009.

#### (b) National eHealth Collaborative

Nothing in sections 1 300jj–12 of this title or this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting the AHIC Successor, Inc. doing business as the National eHealth Collaborative from modifying its charter, duties, membership, and any other structure or function required to be consistent with section 2 300jj–12 and 300jj–13 3 of this title so as to allow the Secretary to recognize such AHIC Successor, Inc. as the HIT Advisory Committee.

#### (c) Consistency of recommendations

In carrying out section 300jj–12(b)(2) of this title, until recommendations are made by the HIT Advisory Committee,4 recommendations of the HIT Advisory Committee 4 shall be consistent with the most recent recommendations made by such AHIC Successor, Inc.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXX, §3008, as added Pub. L. 111–5, div. A, title XIII, §13101, Feb. 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 241; amended Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title IV, §4003(e)(2)(A)(i), (iii), (F), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1174, 1175.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Executive Order No. 13335, referred to in subsec. (a), is set out as a note under section 300u of this title.

Section 300jj–13 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was repealed, and a new section 300jj–13 was enacted by Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title IV, §4003(e)(1), (f), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1168, 1175.

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–255, §4003(e)(2)(F)(i), struck out "or 300jj–13" after "Nothing in sections 300jj–12".

Pub. L. 114–255, §4003(e)(2)(A)(iii), substituted "HIT Advisory Committee" for "HIT Policy Committee or the HIT Standards Committee".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–255, §4003(e)(2)(F)(ii), substituted "300jj–12(b)(2)" for "300jj–13(b)(1)(A)".

Pub. L. 114–255, §4003(e)(2)(A)(i), substituted "HIT Advisory Committee" for "HIT Policy Committee" after "recommendations are made by the" and "HIT Advisory Committee" for "HIT Standards Committee" after "recommendations of the". See section 300jj–12(a) of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section".

2 So in original. Probably should be "sections".

3 See References in Text note below.

4 So in original. See 2016 Amendment note below.
Editorial Note on Part 707
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 707 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 707.25 Appeals. An individual may appeal a denial made under §§ 707.21 through 707.23 within thirty (30) days of the notification of such denial. ( a ) *How to submit.* The appeal must be in writing, labeled “Privacy Act Appeal,” and should be addressed to the Executive Vice President. The request may either be mailed to DFC or delivered to the receptionist at 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527, during regular business hours, between 8:45 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding public holidays.
( b ) *Information to include.* All requests under this section must: ( 1 ) Be in writing and be signed by the requester;
( 2 ) Be clearly labeled “PRIVACY ACT APPEAL” on both the letter and the envelope;
( 3 ) Clearly reference the determination being appealed; and
( 4 ) Provide support for your information, including documentation provided in the initial determination and any additional information.
( b ) *Appeal determination.* The Executive Vice President will advise the individual of DFC's determination within thirty (30) business days. If the Executive Vice President is unable to provide a determination within thirty business days, the individual will be advised in writing of the reason before the expiry of the thirty business days. ( 1 ) *Overturn initial determination.* If the Executive Vice President grants the appeal and overturns the initial determination in whole or part, the individual will be notified in writing and the requested action taken promptly along with any other steps DFC would have taken had the initial determination come to the same result as the appeal.
( 2 ) *Uphold initial determination.* If the Executive Vice President denies the appeal and upholds the initial determination in whole or in part, the individual will be notified in writing and provided with an explanation. In cases where a denial of amendment or correction is upheld, the individual will also be notified of the ability to file a statement of disagreement under paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Statement of disagreement.* If an individual is denied a request to amend a record in whole or in part and that denial is upheld on appeal, the individual may file a statement of disagreement. Statements of disagreement must be concise, clearly identify each part of any record that is disputed, and should be no longer than one typed page for each fact disputed. The statement of disagreement will be placed in the system of records that contains the disputed record and the record will be marked to indicate that a statement of disagreement has been filed. The statement of disagreement will be attached to any future releases of the disputed record and may be accompanied by a concise statement from DFC explaining its denial.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FALASHA ALI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; JOSEPH CHRONISTER,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15193

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 02171

- KJD

- GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Former pretrial detainee Falasha Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations

arising from Ali ’s pretrial detention

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided b y Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 15193

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco , 535

F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal based on the statute of limitations)

. We

affirm.

The dist rict court properly dismissed Ali’s action as untimely because Ali

filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued. See Rosales

Martinez v. Palmer , 753 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that forum

state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims and Nevada’s

relevant statute of limitations is two years)

. Furthermore, Ali failed to establish

that his previous action was a basis for equitable tolling

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s third motion

for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss

because Ali failed to demonstrate good cause

. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures,

Inc. , 624 F.3d 125 3, 1258

- 60 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and

discussing good cause requirement for extensions of time).

T he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s motion under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Ali fai led to demonstrate any basis

for relief from the judgment

. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v.

ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 126 2

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) ( setting forth standard of

review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 18

- 15193

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider document s not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias

,

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFI R MED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2768 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2768

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on m-hydroxy benzaldehyde.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on m-hydroxy benzaldehyde.

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

SECTION 1. M-HYDROXY BENZALDEHYDE ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.67 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to m-hydroxy benzaldehyde) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7413

RICKEY BERNARD ROBERTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General, State

of Maryland,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, Secretary, Florida

Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

478-AMD)

Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 15, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Martin J. McClain, OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL

COUNSEL, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; H. Mark Stichel, Benjamin D.

Hinceman, GOHN, HANKEY & STICHEL, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellant. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland,

Ann N. Bosse, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

 The district court granted Roberts’ motion for a certificate

of appealability on September 21, 2002. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)

(requiring certificate as prerequisite to appeal from denial of

writ). We need not decide whether Roberts properly should have

requested a certificate of probable cause to appeal because the

standard for both are the same. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 483 (2000) (“Except for substituting the word ‘constitutional’

for the word ‘federal,’ § 2253 is a codification of the

[certificate of probable cause] standard.”).

3

PER CURIAM:

Rickey Bernard Roberts appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994)

(current version at 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)).* We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Roberts v. Curran, No. CA-96-

478-AMD (D. Md. Aug. 21, 2002); see also Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S.

320, 336-37 (1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### 219 Broadway Corp., Respondent, v Alexander’s, Inc., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 15, 1977, to the extent it denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. Appeal from that portion of the order awarding respondent priority in examination before trial is dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. The gravamen of the complaint is that appellant (landlord) refused to deliver to respondent (tenant) the 10-year lease for the parking lot allegedly executed by appellant. Absent delivery, the "lease” is ineffective *(Geraci v Jenrette,*53 AD2d 538, affd on other grounds 41 NY2d 660, 666; Real Property Law, §§244, 246). The complaint does not allege breach by appellant of an executory contract to enter into a lease for the parking lot. Accordingly, we are not concerned with a question whether such an agreement was enforceable against appellant (see *Geraci v Jenrette,*41 NY2d 660, 666, *supra;*see, also, *Church of God of Prospect Plaza v Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, of Brooklyn,*59 AD2d 732; see, also, General Obligations Law, § 5-703, subd 2). Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.
Order entered November 30 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01299

- CR
JEREMY LEONARD MAYS, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F06

- 71504

- H



### O RDER
Appellant ’s original appeal from his conviction was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely. Mays v. State , No. 05

- 08

- 00891

- CR (Tex. App.

– – Dallas July 11, 2008, no pet.). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted appellant an out

of

- time appeal on March 18, 2015 . In accordance with that court’s order, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by May 13, 2015. The notice of appeal filed with this Court was file

- stamped July 9, 2015. Theref

ore, we sent the parties a letter asking them to brief our jurisdiction over the appeal. In response, both appellant and the State assert the trial court conducted a hearing regarding the matter of the timeliness of appellant’s notice of appeal. Appellant states that on April 28, 2015, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals received a pro se notice of appeal and motion for appointment of counsel bearing cause no. 06

- 71504. On May 1, 2015, a notice of appeal was filed with the Criminal District Court No. 1. T hat notice of appeal bore the trial court number for this case, but had a W (for writ) rather than an F as the initial letter in the case umbersequence. The State agrees that appellant had the correct trial court number on his notice of

appeal it and tha t it was filed within thirty days of April 13, 2015 . The State also agrees that appellant should not be penalized for inadvertently using the W rather than F on the notice of appeal. Based on these assertions, it appears we have jurisdiction over the appea l. However, the record of the hearing conducted by the trial court has not been fil ed with this Court. Nor has this Court received a supplemental clerk’s records containing the documents presented at the hearing.
We ORDER the trial court to prepare a ce rtification of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings. Accordingly, we ORDER Crystal Jones, official court reporter of the Criminal District Court, to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, the report er’s record, including all exhibits, of the November 9, 2015 hearing conducted regarding the notice of appeal.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record containing all of the ite ms designated in appellant’s November 4, 2015 motion to supplement the record. After the Court has received the record of the hearing and the related documents, the Court will set the deadline for the reporter’s record.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies o f this order to the Honorable Robert Burns, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court; Crystal Jones, official court reporter, Criminal District Court; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### MENDOZA v. ROSE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Horse Racing—Recovery of Wager—Complaint—Demand.

The complaint in an action under 1 Rev. St. (1st Ed.) pt. 1, c. 20, tit. 8, p. 662, §§ 8, 9, to recover money wagered on a horse race with a bookmaker, need not allege a demand for return of the money.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see voi. 24, Cent. Dig. Gaming, § 87.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.

Action by Harry Mendoza against Joseph Rose and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

See 88 N. Y. Supp. 938.

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

Nicoll, Anable & Lindsay, for appellants.

Martin Dolphin, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff seeks in this action to recover the sum of $100, the amount of a wager which he claims he made on a horse race and lost. The wager was made with the defendant Rose, a so-called “bookmaker.” The action is brought under the provisions of sections 8, 9, 1 Rev. St. (1st Ed.) pt. 1, c. 20, tit. 8, p. 662 (1 Birdseye Rev. St. [3d Ed.] pp. 299, 300). The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff by the direction of the court.

At the opening of the trial, and again at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant, Rose, moved for a dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it failed to allege a demand for the payment of the amount of the wager. The motions were denied, and exceptions taken. The precise question raised by these exceptions has been recently decided adversely to the defendant in Mendoza v. Levy, 98 App. Div. 326, 90 N. Y. Supp. 748, and therefore need not be further considered here. The plaintiff’s evidence sufficiently establishes the cause of action under the statute, and, as none of the exceptions discloses any error calling for a reversal, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Nettles, Appellant, v. Police Commissioner of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Motion by appellant for a stay pending appeal, dismissed as academic in view of the decision on the appeal *(People ex rel. Nettles*v. *Police Comr., post,*p. 1068). Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §7381j. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–358, title IX, §901(a), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4044

Section, Pub. L. 101–510, div. C, title XXXI, §3175, as added Pub. L. 110–69, title V, §5003(d)(3), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 606, related to experiential-based learning opportunities.
o 

U,S.0*partman1 of Trantpwlation 

O.'T'ce of me Secr^G^voi TrcirsD^:-ji>on 

Chief. Documentary Services Div 

Department of Transporiation 

Washington. DC 20590 

United Air Lines, Inc. 

DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR 

SERVICE OF NOTICE, PROCESS, ORDERS 

DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 

V\RTMEMTOr 

ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION, C-55 

. having its principal 

(Name of Company, please print) 

office ai 77 W. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601 

(Address) 

hereby designates, pursunni lo section 4610.^ of Title 49 of the L'.S. Code (formerly section IOO?(b) of the Federal .-Xviaiion Act 

of 1958. us aineiided( the person named bel<iv\ as its Agent upon vAhoni .sen ice of ull notices and proiess. und ;ill orders, decisions, 

and requirements of the Dcpanment of'Transportation may he made foi- and on behalf of said earner, hereby canceling all pits ious 

designations of agents made by it to the DOT. 

Name of Agent 

Hershel I. Kamen, Senior Vice President - Alliances, Regulatory & Policy 

(Please Print) 

Address ^ ^^^ "^^^ ^°'^^ Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

The Agent so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space: 

Name Heni^gJ ZjT. Iccy^g-^ (Initiah), m:K 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 

United Air Lines, Inc. 

has caused these 

presents to be signed in its name by 

(Name of Company) 

Jeffery A. Smisek 

.. Prcsidcni 

(Please Prim) 

of said company, and to be attested under its corporate seal by 

on this \ \ ^ day of..llkLiMO|L-^, 201a::, 

(Secretary, or other Title) , j 

United Air Lines, Inc. 

ATfEST: 

(Secretary, or other officer) 

QSTF 1010.5(1-95)