alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of George S. Moss, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Motion by petitioner to (1) vacate this court’s order dated April 25, 1977, which authorized the institution of this proceeding; and (2) strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that respondent has been disbarred by virtue of a felony conviction. Motion granted. Order dated April 25, 1977 authorizing the disciplinary proceeding against respondent is recalled and vacated. The respondent, admitted to practice before the Bar by this court on May 15, 1940 was convicted of a felony (violation of US Code, tit 18, §§ 152, 2, knowingly and fraudulently, with intent to defeat the Bankruptcy Law, concealing property belonging to another and of intentionally and fraudulently concealing from another, the Trustee, and from creditors in the proceeding, property belonging to the estate of the bankrupt, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 25, 1977). The clerk of this court is directed to strike his name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law forthwith by reason of said conviction *(Matter of Chu,*42 NY2d 490). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
§ 16.2 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions of 5 U.S.C. 552a apply in this part.
( b ) As used in this part: ( 1 ) *Act* means the *Privacy Act of 1974,* Pub. L. 93-579.
( 2 ) *Privacy Act Officer* means those officials, or their designees, who are authorized to receive and act upon inquiries, requests for access, and requests for correction or amendment.
( 3 ) *Privacy Appeals Officer* means the General Counsel.
( 4 ) *Inquiry* means a request by an individual that the Department determine whether it has any record in a system of records which pertains to that individual.
( 5 ) *Request for access* means a request by an individual or guardian to inspect and/or copy and/or obtain a copy of a record which is in a particular system of records and which pertains to that individual.
( 6 ) *Request for correction or amendment* means the request by an individual or guardian that the Department change (either by correction, addition or deletion) a particular record in a system of records which pertains to that individual.
( 7 ) *Appeal* means the request by an individual that an initial denial of a request for access or correction or amendment by that individual be reviewed and reversed.
[40 FR 39729, Aug. 28, 1975, as amended at 41 FR 13917, Apr. 1, 1976; 61 FR 5204, Feb. 9, 1996; 83 FR 26361, June 7, 2018]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2719 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that fill material 

cannot be comprised of waste. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. 

OLVER, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. FARR, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. 

DEFAZIO, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. LEE, Mr. HOLT, Mr. 

WAXMAN, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. OWENS, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. CASE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, 

Mr. BERMAN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HONDA, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. KENNEDY

of Rhode Island, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, 

Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. 

ALLEN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. SMITH

of Washington, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. STARK, 

Mr. GILCHREST, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, 

Mr. PAYNE, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mrs. CAPPS, and Mr. MILLER of North 

Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 

that fill material cannot be comprised of waste. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2719 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Water Protec3 tion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FILL MATERIAL. 

5 Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

6 Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(24) FILL MATERIAL.—The term ‘fill material’ 

9 means any pollutant which replaces portions of the 

10 waters of the United States with dry land or which 

11 changes the bottom elevation of a water body for 

12 any purpose. The term does not include any pollut13 ant discharged into the water primarily to dispose of 

14 waste.’’. 

Æ
Exhibit 32
 
 
 Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Arconic Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:
 
 The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2019 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated:March 30, 2020/s/ Timothy D. MyersTimothy D. MyersChief Executive OfficerDated:March 30, 2020/s/ Erick R. AsmussenErick R. AsmussenExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
§ 100.5 Scope. ( a ) It is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States. No person shall be subjected to discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin in the sale, rental, or advertising of dwellings, in the provision of brokerage services, or in the availability of residential real estate-related transactions.
( b ) This part provides the Department's interpretation of the coverage of the Fair Housing Act regarding discrimination related to the sale or rental of dwellings, the provision of services in connection therewith, and the availability of residential real estate-related transactions. The illustrations of unlawful housing discrimination in this part may be established by a practice's discriminatory effect, even if not motivated by discriminatory intent, consistent with the standards outlined in § 100.500.
( c ) Nothing in this part relieves persons participating in a Federal or Federally-assisted program or activity from other requirements applicable to buildings and dwellings.
[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 78 FR 11481, Feb. 15, 2013; 85 FR 60332, Sept. 24, 2020; 88 FR 19500, Mar. 31, 2023]
### §16782. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 109–155, title VI, §602, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2931, which related to secondary payload capability, was transferred and is set out as a note under section 70102 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.
(February 27, 1961)

#### In the Matter of Marie A. Beary, Appellant, v. Queens County Bar Association, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for an order correcting the record, for a stay pending appeal, and for leave to appeal on the original papers and on a typewritten brief, granted to the extent of permitting appellant to prosecute her appeals on the original papers and on a typewritten brief; in all other respects, motion denied.. Appellant is directed to submit, on the argument of the appeals, the entire County Clerk’s file in this proceeding. Appellant is directed to file six copies of her typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the respondent. The brief shall contain a copy of all the opinions rendered by the Special Term. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
§ 215.4 Times, places, and requirements for identification of individuals making requests. ( a ) Individuals making personal requests for notification, access or contest may do so at the place designated in paragraph (a) of § 215.3, which is open 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily, except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays.
( b ) Individuals making personal requests for notification, access or contest at offices outside the United States may do so at the overseas missions during the regular business hours of those offices.
( c ) An individual requesting such information in person shall provide such personal identification as is reasonable under the circumstances to verify the individual's identity; e.g. driver's license, employee identification card or medicare card. (The identification should contain a photograph of the individual.)
( d ) An individual requesting such information by mail shall include in his or her request a signed notarized statement to verify his or her identity and which stipulates that the individual understands that knowingly or willfully seeking or obtaining access to records about another individual under false pretenses is punishable by a fine up to $5,000, as provided in section (i)(3) of the Act.
( e ) Verification of identity as set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall not be required of individuals seeking access to records otherwise available to members of the public under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552; 88 Stat. 1561).
( f ) An individual who wishes to be accompanied by another person when reviewing a record shall furnish the Agency with a written statement authorizing discussion of his or her record in the presence of the accompanying person. Such statement need not contain any reasons for the access or for the accompanying person's presence.
#### § 1000.120 May a recipient use Indian preference or tribal preference in selecting families for housing assistance?

Yes. The IHP may set out a preference for the provision of housing assistance to Indian families who are members of the Indian tribe or to other Indian families if the recipient has adopted the preference in its admissions policy. The recipient shall ensure that housing activities funded under NAHASDA are subject to the preference.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2531 

To amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to provide for the use 

of gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005 

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to provide 

for the use of gold in the metal content of the Medal 

of Honor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GOLD CONTENT FOR MEDAL OF HONOR. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT FOR GOLD CONTENT.—Sections 

5 3741, 6241, and 8741 of title 10, United States Code, 

6 and section 491 of title 14, United States Code, are each 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘the metal content of which is 90 

8 percent gold and 10 percent alloy and’’ after ‘‘appropriate 

9 design,’’. 
2 

•HR 2531 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any award of 

3 the Medal of Honor after the date of the enactment of 

4 this Act. 

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLOTTE YEE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-04259 MMC ( JCS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RESCHEDULE

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, OR IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, COMPEL

DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT

COMPLIANCE WITH DOCKET NO. 170

[Docket No. 180]

On March 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reschedule Settlement Conference, or in the

alternative, Compel Declaration of Defendant Compliance with Docket 170 (the “Motion”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2010 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04259-MMC Document 183 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 1
|     |                                                                                                                                                  |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|     |                                                                                                                                                      |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   |   |   |   |   |
| Date:  | March 5, 2020 |   | By: | /s/ Christopher G. Scully |
|   |   |   |   | Christopher G. Scully |
|   |   |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00264

- CV

Ex Parte Ernesto Aleman
On Appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2017

- DCL

- 7034

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. No c osts are assessed as appellant is exempt from payment. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 26, 2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Maxwell, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered July 28, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed (see *People v Dixon,*29 NY2d 55; *People v Lowrance,*41 NY2d 303; *People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926; *People v Friedman,*39 NY2d 463). Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
1 

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE 

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

Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 

Dana L. Soong, State Bar No. 168160 

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 

The Waterfront Building 

2749 Hyde Street 

San Francisco, California 94109 

Telephone: (415) 353-0999 

Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF SUNNYVALE, 

CHRIS SEARLE and DARREN PANG 

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERIKA CANAS, JOSE CANAS, a minor, by 

and through his guardian ad litem, and JESUS 

CANAS, by and through his guardian ad litem, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF SUNNYVALE, CHRIS SEARLE, 

DARREN PANG and DOES ONE through 

TWENTY-FIVE, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: C08-05771 JF (PVT) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

The parties, acting by and through their respective legal counsel, herein stipulate for an Order 

continuing the Case Management Conference from Friday, 10:30 a.m., May 14, 2010 to a new 

hearing date of Friday, 10:30 a.m., July 9, 2010. The filing date of the Joint Case Management 

Statement is continued to July 2, 2010. 

Good cause exists for this stipulation because defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the 

plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint which is scheduled for hearing on Friday July 9, 2010. It is 

therefore presently uncertain which causes of action, if any, will proceed. The parties agree that said 

motion should be resolved and the case be “at issue” before the Case Management Conference is held 

with the Court. 

/// 

/// 

**E-Filed 5/6/2010**

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

AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

-------

9:00 a.m.

Case 3:08-cv-05771-TEH Document 65 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE 

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

So Stipulated: 

Dated: May 5, 2010 ROBERTS & ELLIOT LLP 

 By: /s/ 

 James Roberts, Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Dated: May 5, 2010 BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 

 By: /s/ 

Gregory M. Fox 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF SUNNYVALE, CHRIS SEARLE and 

DARREN PANG 

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION 

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a 

“conformed” signature (/s/) within this E-filed document. 

Dated: May 5, 2010 /s/ 

 Gregory M. Fox 

ORDER 

 Good cause appearing, the stipulation is so ordered. 

Dated: ____________, 2010 

 

Honorable Jeremy Fogel 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

5/6/2010

Case 3:08-cv-05771-TEH Document 65 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAMES TRACY CUNEO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30076

D.C. No. 6:09-cr-60060-AA-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 5, 2012** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-appellant James Cuneo appeals the district court’s revocation of

his probation and its imposition or maintenance of two conditions of his supervised

release.

FILED

APR 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

“The district court has broad discretion to revoke probation, and such

decisions are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Daly, 839

F.2d 598, 599 (9th Cir. 1988). Cuneo’s probation was subject to the special

condition that he submit to a computer search “at a reasonable time and in a

reasonable manner.” The conditions for the search set by the probation officer

were reasonable and properly within his discretion, see United States v. Stephens,

424 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir. 2005), and thus the district court’s revocation of

Cuneo’s probation for failure to abide by them was not an abuse of discretion.

This court “review[s] conditions of supervised release for abuse of

discretion,” and the petitioner “bears the burden of showing that the [conditions of

supervised release] set by the district court involve[] a greater deprivation of

liberty than is reasonably required.” United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042,

1046–47 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court’s refusal to permit Cuneo to use

marijuana was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). The district

court’s imposition of a condition requiring that Cuneo participate in a program for

monitoring his computer use connected to the Internet, as described in its oral

order of March 16, 2011, was also not an abuse of discretion. The court related the

condition to the purposes of supervised release, and the condition is not a greater

deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See United States v. Quinzon,
3

643 F.3d 1266, 1271–73 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087,

1089–90 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court’s written order of March 30, 2011,

however, differs from its oral order in that it places no limitations on the computer

monitoring to which Cuneo must submit. We vacate the computer monitoring

condition described in that written order and remand for the limited purpose of

allowing the district court to conform the written order describing the computer

monitoring condition to its prior oral order.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2775 

To suspend temporarily the duty on direct yellow 119. 

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 suspend temporarily the duty on direct yellow 119. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIRECT YELLOW 119. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.70 Direct yellow 119 (CAS No. 

102–71–6) provided for in 

subheading 3204.14.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

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

•HR 2775 IH 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1554

LA MONICA SAMUEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILLIAMSBURG JAMES CITY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, by Denise W. Koch,

Chairperson,

Defendant - Appellee, 

 and

WILLIAMSBURG JAMES CITY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL, Jeffrey Smith,

Assistant Superintendent; JAMESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL, Williamsburg

James City County, Andrew Cypress, Principal, Robert Nilson,

Director of Guidance, Diane Spearman, Counselor; LAFAYETTE

HIGH SCHOOL, Williamsburg James City County, Dan Fields,

Assistant Principal; COLONIAL UNISERVE BOARD, National

Education Association, Jami Chapman, Director, 

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Walter D. Kelley, District

Judge. (4:04-cv-00050-WDK-FBS)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008
 2 

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

La Monica Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville,

NORRIS, ST. CLAIR & LOTKIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 3 

PER CURIAM:

La Monica Samuel appeals the district court’s order

granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying

relief in her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Samuel v. Williamsburg James City

County Sch. Bd., No. 4:04-cv-00050-WDK-FBS (E.D. Va. Mar. 31,

2008). 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