alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5903b. Environmental and safety research, development, and demonstration program

The Secretary shall conduct an environmental and safety research, development, and demonstration program related to fossil fuels.

(Pub. L. 94–187, title III, §316, Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1077; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), title VII, §§703, 707, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577, 606, 607.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as a part of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary", meaning Secretary of Energy, substituted in text for "Administrator", meaning Administrator of Energy Research and Development Administration, pursuant to sections 301(a), 703, and 707 of Pub. L. 95–91, which are classified to sections 7151(a), 7293, and 7297 of this title and which terminated Energy Research and Development Administration and transferred its functions and functions of Administrator thereof (with certain exceptions) to Secretary of Energy.
### §4630. Requirements for relocation payments and assistance of federally assisted program; assurances of availability of housing

Notwithstanding any other law, the head of a Federal agency shall not approve any grant to, or contract or agreement with, a displacing agency (other than a Federal agency), under which Federal financial assistance will be available to pay all or part of the cost of any program or project which will result in the displacement of any person on or after January 2, 1971, unless he receives satisfactory assurances from such displacing agency that—

(1) fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance shall be provided to or for displaced persons, as are required to be provided by a Federal agency under sections 4622, 4623, and 4624 of this title;

(2) relocation assistance programs offering the services described in section 4625 of this title shall be provided to such displaced persons;

(3) within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, comparable replacement dwellings will be available to displaced persons in accordance with section 4625(c)(3) of this title.

(Pub. L. 91–646, title II, §210, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1899; Pub. L. 100–17, title IV, §410, Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 254.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–17 in introductory provisions substituted "displacing agency (other than a Federal agency)" for "State agency" and "assurances from such displacing agency" for "assurances from such State agency", and in par. (3) substituted "comparable replacement dwellings" for "decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwellings".

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

#### Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–17 effective on effective date provided in regulations promulgated under section 4633 of this title (as amended by section 412 of Pub. L. 100–17), but not later than 2 years after Apr. 2, 1987, see section 418 of Pub. L. 100–17, set out as a note under section 4601 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section as completely applicable to all States after July 1, 1972, but until such date applicable to a State to extent the State is able under its laws to comply with this section, see section 221(b) of Pub. L. 91–646, set out as a note under section 4601 of this title.
Case 3:08-cv-01770-CRB   Document 12   Filed 04/07/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-01770-CRB   Document 12   Filed 04/07/10   Page 2 of 2
#### George R. Armitage, Jr., et al., Respondents, v James W. Heary, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Niagara County Supreme Court for a hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: Following commencement of an action for judicial dissolution of a partnership, plaintiffs and defendant stipulated, *inter alia,*to the appointment of a referee to prepare an accounting of partnership assets. The referee subsequently submitted his accounting, covering the period from the date of dissolution, February 5, 1972 through October 31, 1972, and an order was entered directing payment of the "net cash available for distribution”. Defendant did not appeal from this order which was satisfied by execution. Thereafter, plaintiffs prepared a supplemental report through October 31, 1974 setting forth the proportionate distributable shares of certain funds which were received after acceptance of the referee’s accounting. Defendant, however, objected to these computations and submitted a supplemental accounting of his own. Although the court subsequently scheduled a hearing to resolve the differences between these reports, because of various reasons none of which was the fault of the parties, that hearing was not held. Thereafter, an order was entered accepting plaintiffs’ figures. We find that in the interests of justice this matter should be remitted for a hearing to determine the propriety of the supplemental computations, except insofar as they adopt the figures origi*996nally used by the referee in his accounting. Defendant, by virtue of his failure to appeal the order implementing that accounting by directing payment of the "net cash available for distribution”, is bound by those figures. For the same reason, defendant is limited to contesting the distributable shares of assets solely from October 31, 1972 through October 31, 1974, the period not covered by the referee. Finally, the order providing for security in the amount of $4,000 pending this appeal shall be continued until the hearing is concluded and an order entered setting forth the distribution to be made to the parties; if an appeal is taken from that order an application may be made to the trial court for security pending that appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara Supreme Court—partnership accounting.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.
### §3797y–4. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §2989, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11027(b), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1835, which authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, was omitted as obsolete.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.3 Entry into areas under U.S. administration.

An immigrant or nonimmigrant seeking to enter an area which is under U.S. administration but which is not within the “United States”, as defined in INA 101(a)(38), is not required by the INA to be documented with a visa unless the authority contained in INA 215 has been invoked.
#### § 229.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.
#### Robert Boccaccio et al., Respondents, v Helen Longden, Appellant, and Vincent D. Andrus, Respondent.

Appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered February 28, 1977 in Madison County, upon a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, rendered at a Trial Term, as apportioned liability 100% against defendant Longden and dismissed her cross claim against defendant Andrus. This is an action based in negligence to recover for damages to plaintiffs’ property. The accident occurred at the intersection of Genesee Street and South Berkey Drive in the Village of Chittenango. It is undisputed that defendant-appellant Longden’s automobile, while proceeding in an easterly direction along Genesee Street, was about to make a left hand turn onto South Berkey Drive when it was struck from the rear by a tractor trailer driven by defendant Andrus. The Longden car continued on and struck plaintiffs’ fence and pool. The jury found for the plaintiffs solely against appellant. It also found that appellant had no cause of action against defendant Andrus for property damage to her automobile. This appeal ensued. Appellant raises several issues urging reversal. Primarily she contends that the court erred in refusing to charge the emergency doctrine with reference to her. Specifically, she contends that after her car was struck in the rear by the heavier and faster moving tractor trailer, she was confronted with an emergency situation and, therefore, entitled to a charge of the emergency doctrine. We disagree. It is implicit in the jury’s verdict that appellant was solely responsible for the collision between her car and defendant Andrus. This being so, she herself brought about the conditions in which she found herself and, consequently, was not entitled to the benefit of the emergency doctrine *(Rowlands v Parks,*2 NY2d 64). Appellant’s reliance on *Brennan v Felter*(48 AD2d 846) is misplaced. That case is factually distinguishable. We reject appellant’s contentions that the *852court erred in refusing to charge that if her operation of the automobile after the first collision was involuntarily caused by that impact defendant Andrus was responsible, and that the court erred in failing to incorporate the factual contentions of the parties in relation to the legal principles charged. Finally, considering the record in its entirety, we find no merit to appellant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to set the verdict aside *(Marshall v Mastodon,*51 AD2d 21). The verdict should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
OMB Control No. 2060-0347

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. Send comments on 

the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control 

number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.

EPA Form 5900-20
§ 15.201 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart contains the regulations of the Department concerning the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied when demand is issued in a legal proceeding among private litigants for the production or disclosure of any material, whether provided through production of material or provision of testimony.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to demands, which are covered by part 2004 of this title, for production of material in the files of the Office of Inspector General or provision of testimony by employees within the Office of Inspector General.
( c ) This subpart also provides guidance to persons engaged in private litigation, to which the United States is not a party, on the procedures to be followed when making a demand for documents or testimony on the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This subpart does not, and may not be relied upon to, create any affirmative right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable against HUD.
[72 FR 8582, Feb. 26, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 72205, Nov. 26, 2008]
DESCRIPTION OF THE CHAIRMAN’S AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE

OF A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 954,

A BILL TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO EXEMPT FROM 

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD COVERAGE 

UNDER A TERMINATED QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN FUNDED THROUGH THE 

CONSUMER OPERATED AND ORIENTED PLAN (CO-OP) PROGRAM

The Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 954 provides a short title 

for the bill, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016. In addition, the Chairman’s 

amendment in the nature of a substitute revises the proposal to provide an exemption from the 

requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage, in the case of an individual who was 

enrolled in minimum essential coverage (not only a qualified health plan) offered by a qualified 

nonprofit health insurance issuer under the CO-OP program that was terminated during a 

calendar year in the area in which the individual resides, for any month that is included in that 

calendar year and that ends after the date on which the coverage was terminated. Thus, the 

exemption applies as of the first month for which the coverage was terminated and the remaining 

months in the calendar year. Finally, under the Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, the proposal is effective for months beginning after December 31, 2013.

The following presents the estimated Federal fiscal year budget effects of the Chairman’s 

amendment:

Fiscal Years

[Millions of Dollars] [1]

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017-21 2017-26

-3 -1 [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] -4 -4

NOTE: Details do not add to totals due to rounding. 

[1] Estimate includes a reduction of less than $500,000 in outlays.

[2] Loss of less than $500,000.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

September 7, 2016

JCX-69-16
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

VINCENT MERTES,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00790-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY

Re: Dkt. No. 46

The father of defendant Vincent Mertes has contacted the Court asking for appointment of 

an attorney to look into whether California’s Proposition 47 might provide defendant any relief. 

Docket No. 46. 

In August 2009, defendant entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Docket No. 32. Under this agreement, defendant waived his 

right to file any collateral attacks on his conviction or sentence. Id. at 5. Further, it is not apparent 

that defendant is eligible for relief under Proposition 47 due to a history of sex offense; or that, if 

he is, it would have any effect on his federal sentence. See Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18(i); Bogan v. 

United States, No. 91-cr-551-SI, 2016 WL 948742, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016). If 

defendant still wishes to pursue this further, he should contact the Public Defender’s Office in El 

Dorado County regarding his Proposition 47 eligibility.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the request for appointment of an attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00790-SI Document 47 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

) 

AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF ) 

AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AIRLINES FOR ) 

AMERICA, et al., ) 

) 

Complainants, ) 

v. ) 

) 

PORT OF PORTLAND, OREGON, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER 

Docket No. 16-16-04 

On May 27,2016, counsel for Respondent filed a Motion for an Extension of Time under 

14 Code ofFederal Register (CFR) § 16.19(e), requesting a 30 day extension of time until 

June 24, 2016 to file its Rebuttal to the Reply to the Answer to the Complaint. 

Counsel advised that additional time is needed to investigate, gather evidence and prepare a 

rebuttal to the new 300 pages introduced in the Reply. Counsel advised that the 

Complainants do not oppose an extension. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. See Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airports (Retrospective 

Regulatory Review) Final Rule, 78 Federal Register (FR) 56135 (Sept. 12, 2013); Rules of 

Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings Final Rule, 61 FR 53998 

(Oct. 16, 1996). Parties may file a written motion for an extension of time under 14 CFR 

§ 16.19( e). The Director may issue an order extending any time period prescribed where 

necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency. 

14CFR§ 16.11(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the 

Respondents' motion is hereby GRANTED. The Rebuttal shall be due on June 24,2016. 

Robin K. Hunt 

Acting Director, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 

Date i , 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 10, 2016, I have served a true copy of the foregoing 

ORDER on the following persons at the following addresses or email addresses: 

Counsel for Complainants: 

David Berg, Esq. 

Vice President & General Counsel 

Doug Mullen, Esq. 

Assistant General Counsel 

Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d/b/a Airlines for America 

1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1300 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

(202) 626-4234 

Email: dbergt@,airlines.org; dmullen@.airlines.org 

Roy Goldberg, Esq. 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP 

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 429-8028 

Email: rgoldberg@steptoc.com 

Counsel for Respondents: 

Daniel Blaufus, Esq 

General Counsel 

Ian Whitlock, Esq. 

Deputy General Counsel 

Wendy Hain, Esq. Assistant General Counsel 

THE PORT OF PORTLAND 

7200 NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97218 

Email: dan.blaufus@portofportland.com; ian.whitlock@portofportland.com; 

wendy.hain@portofportland.com 

Phone: 503-415-6062 

Pablo 0. Ni.iesch, Esq. 

SPIEGEL & MCDiARMID LLP 

1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone: 202-879-4000 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (A CO-l 00) 

~M-= Office of Airport Compliance
### §4005. Definitions applicable to Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014

For purposes of this title,1 the following definitions shall apply:

#### (1) Administrator

The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

#### (2) National Flood Insurance Program

The term "National Flood Insurance Program" means the program established under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).

(Pub. L. 113–89, §2, Mar. 21, 2014, 128 Stat. 1020.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This title, referred to in text, probably should read "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 113–89, Mar. 21, 2014, 128 Stat. 1020, known as the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, which does not contain titles. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2014 Amendment note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, referred to in par. (2), is title XIII of Pub. L. 90–448, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 572, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, and not as part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.

1 See References in Text note below.
TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKS

PSP 601A−5

EFFECTIVITY:ALL 

TEMPORARY REVISION NO. 5−275

INSERT IN SECTION 5−10−30

FACING PAGE 54

REASON FOR ISSUE: To revise the interval and add a PHASE−IN rule for task 57-40-00-174*.ACTION: Replace task 57-40-00-174* with the task that follows:

NOTE: Record the incorporation of this Temporary Revision on the yellow RECORD OF TEMPORARY 

and the LIST OF EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheets at the front of this publication
TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKS

PSP 601A−5

EFFECTIVITY:ALL 

MAINTENANCE

MANUAL − CH. 5

REFERENCE

ZONE A

CHECK INTERVAL CHAPTER 57 CHECKS DESCRIPTION

57−40−00−174* Outboard Flap − Hinge Box Forward Lugs.

NDT Check. 8000 T

(Ref. PSP 612, Part 6, ET−57−40−10, Part B) LANDINGS

3600 R

LANDINGS

See NOTE

PHASE-IN: For aircraft with more than 7500 Landings but not

more than 11350 Landings at the date of thisTemporary Revision, do this check within 500Landings but not later than 11600 Landings.For aircraft with more than 11350 Landings at thedate of this Temporary Revision, do this checkwithin the next 250 Landings.

584684

581−B584−B681−B684−B
### §5714–11. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5714–11 was editorially reclassified as section 11231 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
PUBLIC LAW 106–311—OCT. 17, 2000 114 STAT. 1247

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5362:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 6, considered and passed House.

Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000):

Oct. 17, Presidential statement.

Æ

Public Law 106–311

106th Congress

An Act

To increase the amount of fees charged to employers who are petitioners for the

employment of H–1B non-immigrant workers, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF FEES.

Section 214(c)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘(excluding’’ and all

that follows through ‘‘2001)’’ and inserting ‘‘(excluding any

employer that is a primary or secondary education institution,

an institution of higher education, as defined in section 101(a)

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a), a

nonprofit entity related to or affiliated with any such institution, a nonprofit entity which engages in established curriculum-related clinical training of students registered at any

such institution, a nonprofit research organization, or a governmental research organization) filing before October 1, 2003’’;

and

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘$500’’ and inserting

‘‘$1,000’’.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by section 1(2) shall apply only to petitions that are filed on or after the date that is 2 months after

the date of the enactment of this Act.

Approved October 17, 2000.

8 USC 1184 note.

Oct. 17, 2000

[H.R. 5362]