alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4041. Implementation of program

Following such consultation with representatives of the insurance industry as may be necessary, the Administrator shall implement the flood insurance program authorized under subchapter I in accordance with the provisions of part A of this subchapter and, if a determination is made by him under section 4071 of this title, under part B of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title XIII, §1330, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 581; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, §451(d)(1)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1229; Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title II, §100238(b)(1), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 958.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–141 substituted "Administrator" for "Director".

1983—Pub. L. 98–181 substituted "Director" for "Secretary".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 120 days following Aug. 1, 1968, or such later date prescribed by the Secretary but in no event more than 180 days following Aug. 1, 1968, see section 1377 of Pub. L. 90–448, set out as a note under section 4001 of this title.

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENIED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cv-05049-MHP Document 69 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-05049-MHP Document 69 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-05049-MHP Document 69 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-05049-MHP Document 69 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-11-2005

USA v. Wright

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-1174

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Wright" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1215.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1215
-1-

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-1174

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

LARRY WRIGHT

Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 03-cr-00556)

District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

Wednesday, November 3, 2004

Before: ALITO, BARRY, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

(Filed:May 11, 2005)

 

OPINION

 
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Larry Wright pled guilty to a one count information charging him with robbery of a

United States Post Office, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2114(a) and (2) . The District Court

sentenced Wright, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, to a 150 month term

of imprisonment. Wright received a four level enhancement for “otherwise using” a

dangerous weapon while committing the offense in Count One of the information. On

appeal, he challenges his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). 

Having determined that the sentencing issues appellant raises are best determined by

the District Court in the first instance, we will vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing in accordance with Booker. Wright raises no challenge as to his conviction and

accordingly has waived any argument in this regard.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 40.61 Aliens present without admission or parole.

INA 212(a)(6)(A)(i) does not apply at the time of visa issuance.

[62 FR 67567, Dec. 29, 1997]
2nd Amend. to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”), dated as of February 1, 2006, is an
amendment to that certain Amendment dated October 25, 2005 (the “First Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of February 27, 2005, by and between i2 Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) and Michael E. McGrath (the “Employee or CEO”). Undefined capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  
 Whereas, in accordance with the Company’s 1995 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan (the “Stock Option Plan”), the Company may grant to any employee an option to purchase up to one million shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.00025 (the “Common Stock”) in such employee’s
initial year of employment with the Company ( the “Initial Year Limitation”); 
  
 Whereas, during 2005, the Company inadvertently granted to the Employee an option to purchase 220,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock in excess of the Initial Year Limitation (the “Excess Option
Shares”); 
  
 Whereas, the Company and the Employee have
agreed to cancel the Excess Option Shares; 
  
 Therefore, in
consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
  
 The Company and the Employee agree to cancel the 100,000 Option Shares that
may have vested on November 30, 2007, the 100,000 Option Shares that may have vested on August 31, 2007, and 20,000 of the 100,000 Option Shares that may have vested on May 31, 2007 for a total of 220,000 Option Shares being
cancelled. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Employee
have executed this Second Amendment on and as of the day and year first above written. 
  
 i2 Technologies, Inc. 
  

 Robert Donohoo 
 Senior Vice President and General Counsel 
  
 Employee 

 

 Michael E. McGrath 
 President and Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.41 Change of category. ( a ) The Department of State may, in its discretion, permit an exchange visitor to change his or her category of exchange participation. Any change in category must be clearly consistent with and closely related to the participant's original exchange objective and necessary due to unusual or exceptional circumstances.
( b ) A request for change of category along with supporting justification must be submitted to the Department of State by the participant's sponsor. Upon Department of State approval the sponsor shall issue to the exchange visitor a duly executed Form DS-2019 reflecting such change of category and provide a notification copy of such form to the Department of State.
( c ) Requests for change of category from research scholar to student will be evaluated recognizing the fact that, in some cases, research skills can be substantially enhanced by doctoral study.
( d ) An exchange visitor who applies for a change of category pursuant to these regulations is considered to be maintaining lawful status during the pendency of the application.
( e ) An exchange visitor who applies for a change of category and who subsequently receives notice from the Department of State that the request has been denied is considered to be maintaining lawful status for an additional period of thirty days from the day of such notice, during which time the exchange visitor is expected to depart the country, or for a period of thirty days from expiration of the exchange visitors' Form DS-2019, whichever is later.
#### Hilliard J. Rosencrantz, Appellant, Respondent, v. Gaston, Williams & Wigmore, Inc., Respondent, Appellant.

Order, so far as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present—'Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
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

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF KARL J. KRAMER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:09-CV-00602-SI

pa-1723323

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426)

RudyKim@mofo.com 

DANIEL C. HUBIN (CA SBN 278987) 

DHubin@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

755 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, California 94304-1018 

Telephone: 650.813.5600 

Facsimile: 650.494.0792 

Attorney for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

FUJITSU AMERICA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

NORTHPEAK WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

3COM CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants,

Case No. 3:09-cv-00602-SI

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF 

COUNSEL KARL J. KRAMER 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL 

Judge: Honorable Susan Illston 

Courtroom 10 - 19th Floor

Case 3:09-cv-00602-SI Document 634 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 3
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

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF KARL J. KRAMER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:09-CV-00602-SI

1

pa-1723323

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Rule 11-5 Karl J. Kramer withdraws as 

attorney of record for Defendant and Counterclaimant, FUJITSU AMERICA, INC. The ground 

for withdrawal is that Mr. Kramer has left his employment with Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Fujitsu’s counsel provided written notice of the withdrawal to Fujitsu and to the other parties to 

this case, and Fujitsu and the other parties to this case do not oppose the withdrawal. Morrison & 

Foerster LLP will continue to represent Defendant and Counterclaimant, FUJITSU AMERICA, 

INC.

Dated: December 29, 2015 RUDY Y. KIM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Rudy Y. Kim

 Rudy Y. Kim 

Attorney for Defendant and 

Counterclaimant 

FUJITSU AMERICA, INC. 

Case 3:09-cv-00602-SI Document 634 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 3
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

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF KARL J. KRAMER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:09-CV-00602-SI 2

pa-1723323

Before the Court is Defendant and Counterclaimant’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. 

There being good cause shown that Karl J. Kramer be withdrawn as counsel, the Court GRANTS 

the motion. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 

 Susan Illston, Judge 

 Northern District of California 

1/4/16

Case 3:09-cv-00602-SI Document 634 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 3
#### In re BROCK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 15, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of Eugene H. Brock for admission to the bar. No opinion. Application granted.
AND ORDER THEREON

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 72 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 2
-2- CASE NO. C 08-05770 MMC MEJ

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

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

SF/1692352v1

DATED: April 22, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

By: Rebecca A. Hull

Rebecca A. Hull

Attorneys for Defendant

Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________________________________

Hon. MAXINE M. CHESNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

April 26, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 72 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 171.2 Types of records maintained.

Most of the records maintained by the Department pertain to the formulation and execution of U.S. foreign policy. The Department also maintains certain records that pertain to individuals, such as applications for U.S. passports, applications for U.S. visas, records on consular assistance given abroad by U.S. Foreign Service posts to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and records on Department employees. Further information on the types of records maintained by the Department may be obtained by reviewing the Department's records disposition schedules, which are available on the Department's FOIA website at *www.foia.state.gov*.
Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 139 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 6Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 139 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 6Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 139 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 6Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 139 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 6Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 139 Filed 04/26/10 Page 5 of 6Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 139 Filed 04/26/10 Page 6 of 6
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Date oflssue: October 30, 2015
DUE NORTH PRODUCTIONS 2204 EUCLID ST SANTA MONICA, CA 90405-1511 11.1••11•••• 1 •• 111•••• 1.1•••• 11.1.1•••• 11••• 111.1•• 1.1••• 11•• 1 Flight Standards Service Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750

HAND DELIVERED TO AIC IN THE PD ROOM P.O. Box 25504 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125-0504 (405) 954-3116 Toll Free: 1-866-762-9434 WEB Address: http://registry.faa.gov

T158059 This facsimile must be carried in the Aircraft as a Temporary Certificate of Registration for N451DN HORIZON HOBBY INC CHROMA CAMERA DRONE Serial6751A and is valid until Nov 29, 2015. This is not an airworthiness certificate. For airworthiness information, contact the nearest Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards District Office.

# q~~WDAJ:,

____________________ for Jana L. Hammer Manager, FAA Aircraft Registry, AFS-750 Federal Aviation Administration

AFS-750-FAX-4 (01114)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERYL COTTERILL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SF CITY AND COUNTY, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-02295 JSW

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

On March 24, 2010, this Court received a notice of objections filed by Gregory M.

Haynes to Magistrate Judge Larson’s Report and Recommendation regarding Defendants’

motions for attorneys’ fees and expert costs. Mr. Haynes also moves for de novo determination

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and sets a hearing date of May 21, 2010. 

First, unless otherwise ordered by the District Judge, no response need be filed and no

hearing will be held concerning an objection to a Magistrate’s Order. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 72-2. 

The Court has not and shall not conduct a hearing on Mr. Haynes’ objections. Second, the

undersigned is not available on May 21, 2010 and parties should always check on the

availability of the Court before setting a proposed hearing date. Third, without a determination

of the merits of the objections and only to ensure a complete record on the issue, the Court

HEREBY ORDERS Defendants to submit a response to Mr. Haynes’ objections by no later

than April 2, 2010. The Court shall thereafter rule on the pending motions for attorneys’ fees

and 

Case 3:08-cv-02295-JSW Document 283 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

expert costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02295-JSW Document 283 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERYL COTTERILL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SF CITY AND COUNTY et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV08-02295 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 25, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter

listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an

inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Cheryl Cotterill

1505 Gough Street #10

San Francisco, CA 94109

Gregory M. Haynes

Law Offices of Gregory M. Haynes, Esq. 

2443 Fillmore, #194 

San Francisco, CA 94115 

Dated: March 25, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-02295-JSW Document 283 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3
#### § 1000.202 Who are eligible recipients?

Eligible recipients are Indian tribes, or TDHEs when authorized by one or more Indian tribes.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00407-CR

LANNEY DARRELL EAST APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1396968D

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

ON PERMANENT ABATEMENT OF APPEAL

----------

We have considered the “Motion To Abate Appeal” filed by counsel for 

appellant Lanney Darrell East, including the attached certificate of death showing 

that East died on November 17, 2015. Because we have not issued our 

mandate, we grant the motion and permanently abate the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 7.1(a)(2).

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and SUDDERTH, J. 

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 14, 2015
#### § 92.59 Recording of objections.

All objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other objection to the proceedings must be noted in the deposition. Evidence objected to will be taken subject to the objections. (Rules 30 (c) and 31 (b), Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States.)
#### Thomas Ullo v. New York Dock Company.

Application denied, with $10 costs. The stay contained in the order to show cause, dated June 17, 1960, is vacated. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT AND FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,049
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,934
<INVENTORY>                                     13,046
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,805
<PP&E>                                          54,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,545
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,953
<SALES>                                         57,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,254
<CGS>                                           54,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       112
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,183)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,680)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 | AGENDA

            FUTURE OF AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE                         FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, WESTERN PACIFIC REGION, LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA

    AGENDA

7:15‐8:30 AM REGISTRATION

8:30 AM     WELCOMING REMARKS; INTRODUCTION OF FAAC MEMBERS

9:00 AM    WORKFORCE/LABOR

 Subcommittee report‐out

 Public Comments  

 Committee Discussion  

  

10:15 AM    BREAK  

10:30 AM    FINANCING

 Subcommittee report‐out

 Public Comments  

 Committee Discussion

11:45 AM     LUNCH

12:30 PM    COMPETITION  

 Subcommittee report‐out

 Public Comments

 Committee Discussion
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 | AGENDA

            FUTURE OF AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE                         FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, WESTERN PACIFIC REGION, LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA

    AGENDA

1:45 PM    ENVIRONMENT  

 Subcommittee report‐out

 Public Comments  

 Committee Discussion

2:45 PM    BREAK

3:00 PM    SAFETY  

 Subcommittee report‐out

 Public Comments

 Committee Discussion

4:15 PM    CLOSING REMARKS

4:30 PM    ADJOURN
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2530 

To ensure that State and local law enforcement agencies execute warrants 

for the arrest of nonviolent offenders only when children are not present, 

unless overriding circumstances exist. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure that State and local law enforcement agencies 

execute warrants for the arrest of nonviolent offenders 

only when children are not present, unless overriding 

circumstances exist. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ISSUANCE OF GUIDELINES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Upon accepting Federal funds, a 

5 State or local law enforcement agency should issue guide6 lines under which— 

7 (1) each warrant for the arrest of a nonviolent 

8 offender executed by that agency is executed only— 
2 

•HR 2530 IH 

1 (A) during a time when, and at a location 

2 where, the agency reasonably believes no chil3 dren are present; or 

4 (B) in circumstances other than those 

5 specified in subparagraph (A), if a court first 

6 determines that overriding reasons, in further7 ance of the interests of children, exist (such as 

8 the interest in apprehending individuals who en9 gage in drug offenses with children or on school 

10 grounds); and 

11 (2) relevant counseling is made available to 

12 each child who witnesses the execution of an arrest 

13 warrant under circumstances other than those speci14 fied in paragraph (1)(A). 

15 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘non16 violent offender’’ means a person who has never been con17 victed of a violent offense, the arrest of whom is sought 

18 for a nonviolent offense. 

Æ