alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 110–86—SEPT. 27, 2007 121 STAT. 979 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3528: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Sept. 17, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–86 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To provide authority to the Peace Corps to provide separation pay for host country 

resident personal services contractors of the Peace Corps. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR PEACE CORPS TO PROVIDE SEPARATION PAY FOR HOST COUNTRY RESIDENT PERSONAL 

SERVICES CONTRACTORS OF THE PEACE CORPS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—There is established in the 

Treasury of the United States a fund for the Peace Corps to provide 

separation pay for host country resident personal services contractors of the Peace Corps. 

(b) FUNDING.—The Director of the Peace Corps may deposit 

in the fund established under subsection (a)— 

(1) amounts previously obligated and not canceled to provide the separation pay described in such subsection; and 

(2) amounts obligated for fiscal years after fiscal year 2006 

for current and future costs of providing such separation pay. 

(c) AVAILABILITY.—Beginning in fiscal year 2007, amounts 

deposited in the fund established under subsection (a) shall be 

available without fiscal year limitation for severance, retirement, 

or other separation payments to host country resident personal 

services contractors of the Peace Corps in countries where such 

payments are legally authorized. 

Approved September 27, 2007. 

22 USC 2514a. 

Sept. 27, 2007 

[H.R. 3528] 


jbridges on GSDDPC57 with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 16.14 General exemptions. ( a ) Individuals may not have access to records maintained by the Department but which were provided by another agency which has determined by regulation that such information is subject to general exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j). If such exempt records are within a request for access, the Department will advise the individual of their existence and of the name and address of the source agency. For any further information concerning the record and the exemption, the individual must contact that source agency.
( b ) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has determined that the Office of the Assistant Inspector General for Investigation performs, as its principal function, activities pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. The records maintained by that office in a system identified as “HUD/DEPT-24, Investigation Files,” primarily consist of information compiled for the purpose of criminal investigations and are associated with identifiable individuals. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that this system of records shall be exempt, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), from all requirements of the Privacy Act except 5 U.S.C. 552a (b), (c) (1) and (2), (e)(4) (A) through (F), (e) (6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) unless elsewhere exempted.
[40 FR 39729, Aug. 28, 1975, as amended at 49 FR 20486, May 15, 1984]
§ 100.400 Prohibited interference, coercion or intimidation. ( a ) This subpart provides the Department's interpretation of the conduct that is unlawful under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act.
( b ) It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this part.
( c ) Conduct made unlawful under this section includes, but is not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Coercing a person, either orally, in writing, or by other means, to deny or limit the benefits provided that person in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling or in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 2 ) Threatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.
( 3 ) Threatening an employee or agent with dismissal or an adverse employment action, or taking such adverse employment action, for any effort to assist a person seeking access to the sale or rental of a dwelling or seeking access to any residential real estate-related transaction, because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of that person or of any person associated with that person.
( 4 ) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part.
( 5 ) Retaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Fair Housing Act.
( 6 ) Retaliating against any person because that person reported a discriminatory housing practice to a housing provider or other authority.
[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 81 FR 63075, Sept. 14, 2016]
#### Harry R. Defler Corporation, Appellant, v. Francis S. Kleeman et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements without prejudice to renewal of the motion if so advised, in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: Special Term properly refused to grant discovery and inspection of books and documents under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act for the moving papers contain no facts showing the materiality and necessity of the records sought. Plaintiff further failed to allege the relevancy of the specific records and documents or to demonstrate their admissibility in evidence on the trial of the issues. *(Milberg*v. *Lehrich,*2 A D 2d 860.) It is fundamental that discovery and inspection should be restricted to books and documents “relating to the merits of the action”. *(Paliotto*v. *Hartman,*2 A D 2d 866.) Plaintiff has not sought an examination before trial. It may well -be that such an examination would furnish plaintiff with all of the information it needs to prepare for trial. If after conclusion of an examination before trial plaintiff is advised to move again for discovery and inspection, the affirmance of the order herein is without prejudice to the remaking of the motion. (See *City Messenger Serv. of Hollywood*v. *Powers Photoengraving Co.,*7 A D 2d 213.) We do not, of course, pass on the merits of such a renewal of the motion. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying motion by plaintiff for discovery and inspection of certain books and papers of defendants.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Order entered September 30 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00843

- CV

IN RE JOSEPH DINGLER , Relator

O riginal Proceeding from the County Court at La w No. 1

D allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 20

- 05083

- A

O RDER Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator ’ s petition for

writ of mandamus.

/ s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
#### Everett E. Douthit and J. Frank Rose, appellees, v. E. T. Swiney, appellant.

Bill for dissolution of partnership on ground of fraud in formation thereof, and for all proper relief. Decree for complainants. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Shelby county; the Hon. Thomas M. Jett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 17, 1923.

*670Vause & Eiger and- Whitaker, Ward & Pugh, for appellant. Chew & Baker and Bryan H. Tivnen, for appellees; Thomas R. Figenbauru, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT KEY

, JR

., Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2105

[ March 22, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Krista Marx , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF006454AMB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III,

Assistant Attorney General, We st Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, T AYLOR and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DANNY SAN NICOLAS,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-00966 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STAY

The government has moved to stay this proceeding. See Mot. (dkt. 204). After

consideration of the parties’ submissions and the relevant authorities, and in light of the

Ninth Circuit’s actions in Jacob and Gardner, the Court DENIES the motion. See Jacob v.

United States, No. 15-73302, dkt. 36 (9th Cir. June 27, 2016); Gardner v. United States, No.

15-72559, dkt. 39 (9th Cir. June 27, 2016).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00966-CRB Document 206 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 1
§ 40.12 Staying of certification and tolling of review period pending jurisdictional determination. ( a ) *Notice of novel derivative products.* ( 1 ) A registered entity certifying, submitting for approval, or otherwise filing a proposal to list, trade, or clear a novel derivative product (other than a product subject to the provisions of § 1.8 of this chapter) having elements of both a security and a contract for the sale of a commodity for future delivery (or an option on such contract or an option on a commodity) may provide notice of its proposal to the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission with a statement that written notice has been provided to both agencies through an appropriate means provided in each Commission's regulations.
( 2 ) If concurrent notice is not provided pursuant to § 40.12(a)(1), the Commission shall notify the Securities and Exchange Commission of the registered entity's submission of a novel derivative product described in § 40.12(a)(1) and accompany such notice with a copy of the submission. The Commission shall determine whether a particular submission is a novel derivative product requiring notice to the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than five business days subsequent to the date that the registered entity submits the product for Commission review.
( b ) *Tolling of review period.* Upon receipt of a request for a jurisdictional determination, pursuant to Section 718(a)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act, by the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, the product certification shall be stayed or the approval review period shall be tolled until a final determination order is issued. ( 1 ) The Commission will provide the registered entity with a written notice of stay pending issuance of a final determination order by the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission.
( 2 ) The stay shall be withdrawn or the approval review period shall resume upon the Commission's or the Securities and Exchange Commission's issuance of a final determination order finding that the Commission has jurisdiction over the submission.
( 3 ) *Determination order.* A final determination, for purposes of § 40.12(b) of this part, shall be a determination order issued by the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 718(a)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
( c ) *Judicial review of determination order.* The filing of a petition by a complaining Commission, pursuant to Section 718(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, shall operate as a stay of the agency order. ( 1 ) The stay shall remain in effect until the date on which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issues a final determination pursuant to Section 718(b)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act, or until such date that there is a final disposition of an appeal of that determination.
( 2 ) The submission review period shall resume upon issuance of a final determination, as described in § 40.12(c)(1), that the Commission has jurisdiction over the submission.
FINALREPORTJune26,2007UBESCIENTIFICANALYSISLABORATORY,INC.CertificateofTranslation1234567
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28413]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, January 21, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-28413 Filed 12-22-04; 3:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### § 51.46 Return or retention of evidence of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality.

The Department will generally return to the applicant evidence submitted in connection with an application for a passport. The Department may, however, retain evidence when it deems it necessary for anti-fraud or law enforcement or other similar purposes.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 40.62 Failure to attend removal proceedings.

An alien who without reasonable cause failed to attend, or to remain in attendance at, a hearing initiated on or after April 1, 1997, under INA 240 to determine inadmissibility or deportability shall be ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(6)(B) for five years following the alien's subsequent departure or removal from the United States.

[62 FR 67567, Dec. 29, 1997]
### §6246. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are necessary to carry out this part and part D, to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title I, §166, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title III, §301(a)(1), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 683.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 6246, Pub. L. 94–163, title I, §166, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 890; Pub. L. 95–70, §4, July 21, 1977, 91 Stat. 277; Pub. L. 97–35, title X, §1034(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 619; Pub. L. 104–306, §1(1), Oct. 14, 1996, 110 Stat. 3810; Pub. L. 105–177, §1(1), June 1, 1998, 112 Stat. 105; Pub. L. 106–64, §1(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 511; Pub. L. 106–469, title I, §103(18), Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2033; Pub. L. 108–7, div. F, title III, §339(a)(1), Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 278, authorized appropriations for this part, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–58, title III, §301(a)(1), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 683.
### §5514. Regulations

The Administrator and the Secretary in consultation with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, the Secretary of Defense, and other appropriate officers and agencies, shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this subchapter promptly and efficiently. Each such officer or agency, in consultation with the Administrator and the Secretary, may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out his or its particular functions under this subchapter promptly and efficiently.

(Pub. L. 93–409, §16, Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1078; Pub. L. 93–438, title I, §104(f), title III, §301(h), Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1238, 1250; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), title VII, §§703, 707, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577, 606, 607; Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5115(c), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1433.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–418 substituted "National Institute of Standards and Technology" for "National Bureau of Standards".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of Energy" substituted in text for "Director", meaning Director of the National Science Foundation, pursuant to sections 104(f) and 301(h) of Pub. L. 93–438, which are classified to sections 5814(f) and 5871(h) of this title and which transferred functions of National Science Foundation relating to or utilized in connection with solar heating and cooling development to Administrator of Energy Research and Development Administration, and 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.
§ 10.4 Rules docket. ( a ) All documents relating to rulemaking procedures including but not limited to advance notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of proposed rulemaking, written comments received in response to notices, withdrawals or terminations of proposed rulemaking, petitions for rulemaking, requests for oral argument in public participation cases, requests for extension of time, grants or denials of petitions or requests, transcripts or minutes of informal hearings, final rules and general notices are maintained in the Rules Docket Room (Room 5218), Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410. All public rulemaking comments should refer to the docket number which appears in the heading of the rule and should be addressed to the Rules Docket Clerk, Room 5218, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.
( b ) Documents relating to rulemaking proceedings are public records. After a docket is established, any person may examine docketed material at any time during regular business hours, and may obtain a copy of any docketed material upon payment of the prescribed fee. (See part 15 of this title).
#### Thigpen, ordinary, *v.*Tanner.

August 19, 1912.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Bawlings. Washington superior court. March 15, 1911.

Fish, C. J.

1. Where one was convicted of the offense of bastardy, for which a fine in a given amount was imposed upon him by the court, which fine was paid over to the ordinary of the county as required by law, “to be by him improved and applied from time to time, as occasion [might] require, for the maintenance and education of [the bastard] child and for the payment of the expense of lying-in with such child, boarding, nursing, and maintenance while the mother [should] be confined by reason thereof,” and, after the payment of such last-named expenses for the mother, the child died when only five months old, the person so convicted of bastardy under the Penal Code, § 682, had no interest in the fine, and therefore could not maintain an action to enjoin the ordinary from disposing of the balance of the same. Under the section of the code cited, such person was found guilty of a misdemeanor, for which he was, in the discretion of the court, punished by the imposition of a fine in accordance with the Penal Code, § 1063.

2. The point dealt with in the preceding note is the only one involved in the case. The trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition brought by the person convicted of bastardy, to enjoin the ordinary from disposing of the fine involved.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*607*Hardwick & Wright,*for plaintiff in error,

*Evans & Evans,*contra.
#### Girino Caiola, as Assignee of Ruth S. Morena and Another, Appellant, v Allcity Insurance Company, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 736]

—In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered December 23, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant’s motion, and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant’s motion for summary judgment made on the eve of trial, inasmuch as the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in making the motion *(see,*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Morhart v City of New York,*267 AD2d 438; *Scocozza v Tolia,*262 AD2d 548). While the defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s delay in complying with discovery demands necessitated its belated motion, that discovery was not, in fact, essential to the motion. Certain of the contentions made by the defendant in support of its motion were based on previously-known facts and not on information revealed in the belated discovery provided by the plaintiff. In fact, those issues had already been raised in opposition to the plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment and, in part, on a prior appeal to this Court *(see, Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co.,*257 AD2d 586). Thus, the plaintiff’s delay in providing discovery did not excuse *274the defendant’s late motion. To the extent that some of the defendant’s contentions were based on the discovery provided by the plaintiff, none of that new evidence affects this Court’s prior determination that there are triable issues of fact *(see, Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., supra).*

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for his belated cross motion for summary judgment. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 261

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of status 

under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending 

the deadline for classification petition and labor certification filings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for 

adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline 

for classification petition and labor certification filings.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 245(i)(1)(B)(i) of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)(i)) 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘April 30, 2001;’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘April 30, 2002;’’. 
2

•HR 261 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact3 ment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (as en4 acted into law by Public Law 106–553).

Æ
#### § 1509.620 Cooperative agreement.

*Cooperative agreement* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition of grant in § 1509.650), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award. The term does not include cooperative research and development agreements as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a.