alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6992i. General provisions

#### (a) Consultation

(1) In promulgating regulations under this subchapter, the Administrator shall consult with the affected States and may consult with other interested parties.

(2) The Administrator shall also consult with the International Joint Commission to determine how to monitor the disposal of medical waste emanating from Canada.

#### (b) Public comment

In the case of the regulations required by this subchapter to be promulgated within 9 months after November 1, 1988, the Administrator may promulgate such regulations in interim final form without prior opportunity for public comment, but the Administrator shall provide an opportunity for public comment on the interim final rule. The promulgation of such regulations shall not be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.1

#### (c) Relationship to subchapter III

Nothing in this subchapter shall affect the authority of the Administrator to regulate medical waste, including medical waste listed under section 6992a of this title, under subchapter III of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §11009, formerly §11010, as added Pub. L. 100–582, §2(a), Nov. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2957; renumbered §11009, Pub. L. 105–362, title V, §501(h)(1)(B), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3284.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 96–511, Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2812, which was classified principally to chapter 35 (§3501 et seq.) of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents, prior to the general amendment of that chapter by Pub. L. 104–13, §2, May 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 163. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1980 Amendment note set out under section 101 of Title 44 and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 11009 of Pub. L. 89–272 was renumbered section 11008 and is classified to section 6992h of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### § 203.409 Redemption of debentures.

Debentures shall, at the option of the Commissioner and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, be redeemable at par plus accrued interest on any semiannual interest payment date on three months' notice of redemption given in such manner as the Commissioner shall prescribe. The debenture interest on the debentures called for redemption shall cease on the semiannual interest payment date designated in the call notice. The Commissioner may include with the notice of redemption an offer to purchase the debentures at par plus accrued interest at any time during the period between the notice of redemption and the redemption date. If the debentures are purchased by the Commissioner after such call and prior to the named redemption date, the debenture interest shall cease on the date of purchase.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2738 

To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide that a current 

connection is not lost by an individual who is misled or not properly 

informed by the Railroad Retirement Board of the requirement for, 

and the circumstances resulting in the loss of, a current connection. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide 

that a current connection is not lost by an individual 

who is misled or not properly informed by the Railroad 

Retirement Board of the requirement for, and the circumstances resulting in the loss of, a current connection. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Railroad Retirement 

5 Fairness Act’’. 
2 

•HR 2738 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EQUITABLE EXTENSION OF CURRENT CONNECTION. 

2 (a) EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.—Section 1(o) of the 

3 Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231(o)) is 

4 amended by inserting ‘‘An individual who, at the time the 

5 individual makes an inquiry to the Board, has a current 

6 connection shall not be deemed to have lost that current 

7 connection thereafter if the Board misleads or fails to 

8 properly inform that individual about that requirement 

9 and if that conduct by the Board, according to the prin10 ciples of equity, should stop the Board from deeming the 

11 individual to have lost that current connection.’’ after the 

12 first sentence. 

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

14 this Act applies with respect to annuities applied for on 

15 or after February 3, 1989. 

Æ
### §1622. Annual reports to Congress until 1984; submission in 1985 of report of status of Natives, summary of actions taken, and recommendations

The Secretary shall submit to the Congress annual reports on implementation of this chapter. Such reports shall be filed by the Secretary annually until 1984. At the beginning of the first session of Congress in 1985 the Secretary shall submit, through the President, a report of the status of the Natives and Native groups in Alaska, and a summary of actions taken under this chapter, together with such recommendations as may be appropriate.

(Pub. L. 92–203, §23, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 715.)
216 A.2d 361.

#### School House Candy Company *vs.*Edith Moore.

JANUARY 19, 1966.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino and Joslin, JJ.

*386Joslin, J.

This is an employer’s petition to review., a preliminary agreement .providing for the payment of compensation for total incapacity. After hearing before a trial commissioner an interlocutory decree was entered finding the employee to be only partially incapacitated and continuing the case to a future date to give her an opportunity either to try out the light work offered her by the employer or to find such other employment as was suitable to her capacities. Thereafter the case was again heard before a single commissioner who- .entered a decree on March 15, 1965 permitting the suspension of compensation payments. The case is here on the employee’s appeal from a decree of the full commission affirming the -single commissioner’s decree of March 15, 1965. ' :

. There is competent record evidence to1 support the-commission’s findings that the employee was partially rather than totally incapacitated and that she had refused to attempt to- perform either of the two types of work offered by her employer, each of which was within her ability to perform and each of which would have given her a weekly earning capacity in excess of what had been her average *387weekly pay prior to her injury. - Findings of the commission supported as they are here by legal evidence are, in the absence of fraud, binding and conclusive upon this court.

*DiMascolo & DiPetrillo, Anthony DiPetrillo,*for petitioner.

*John Quattrocchi, Jr.,*for respondent.

The statute, G. L. 1956, §28-33-18, does not permit the payment of weekly compensation for partial incapacity to an injured employee whose post-injury earning capacity exceeds pre-injury average weekly wages, earnings or salary. It follows that on the facts1 of this case as found by the commission, it was not error to order a discontinuance •of compensation. *School House Candy Co.*v. *Ferrucci,*88 R. I. 109.

The respondent also suggests that her counsel be awarded a fee on the ground of having successfully defended before the trial commissioner against the petitioner’s allegation that her incapacity for work had ended. A sufficient answer to that contention is that the respondent’s failure to raise it in her reasons of appeal to the full commission deprives her of standing to urge it now. Our rule is that on an appeal from a decree of a single commissioner as affirmed by the full commission, we review only those matters which were brought by specific reasons of appeal to the full commission. *Broum & Sharpe Mfg. Co.*v. *Lavoie,*83 R. I. 335.

The appeal of the respondent is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the workmen’s compensation commission for further proceedings.
#### Wedtke Realty Corporation, Respondent, v. Michael Karanas, Appellant.

Motion granted and order dismissing appeal vacated, upon condition that appellant file a demand pursuant to rule VII of the Appellate Division Fourth Department Rules on or before January 16, 1961.— Motion to preclude respondent from filing a brief denied. (See rule VII.)
### §401. Amounts collected from defaulting contractors and their sureties

Any amounts collected from defaulting contractors or their sureties, including collections heretofore made, in connection with contracts entered into under the reclamation law, either collected in cash or by deduction from amounts otherwise due such contractors, shall be covered into the reclamation fund and shall be credited to the project or operation for or on account of which such contract was made.

(June 6, 1930, ch. 410, 46 Stat. 522.)
### §8630. Renewable fuels

In providing assistance pursuant to this subchapter, a State, or any other person with which the State makes arrangements to carry out the purposes of this subchapter, may purchase renewable fuels, including biomass.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title XXVI, §2612, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title I, §121(b), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 616.)

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

#### Report to Congress

Pub. L. 109–58, title I, §121(c), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 616, provided that: "The Secretary [of Energy] shall report to Congress on the use of renewable fuels in providing assistance under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.)."
#### § 266.642 Appraisals.

Where actions taken or caused to be taken by the HFA have the effect of the recovery of less than the face amount of the HFA Debenture held by HUD, an appraisal should be made to determine the value of the project. The appraisal should assume a willing buyer and a willing seller. The appraisal must be done within the 45-calendar-day period immediately preceding the date when the HFA files an application for final claim settlement. If at the time of final claim settlement the HFA has not sold the project, an appraisal should be made to determine the value of the project at its highest and best use.

[59 FR 62524, Dec. 5, 1994, as amended at 85 FR 83445, Dec. 22, 2020]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-625 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CUSTOMS 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MALDIVES 

Signed at Brussels June 25, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MALDIVES 

 Customs 

 Agreement signed at Brussels June 25, 2005; 

 Entered into force June 25, 2005.
#### Karima Zaki, an Infant, by Moustafa Zaki, Her Parent and Natural Guardian, et al., Appellants, v Scott W. Bryan et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. County of Orange, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered June 24, 1977, which denied their motion to remove the action from the Military Suspense Calendar and restore it to the Ready Day Calendar and (2) a further order of the same court, entered September 13, 1977, which denied their motion to sever the action as against defendant Scott W. Bryan. Order entered September 13, 1977 affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Order entered June 24, 1977 modified, by adding thereto a provision granting plaintiffs leave to renew their application to restore the action to the Ready Day Calendar by a motion returnable September 5, 1978. As so modified, said order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Defendant Scott W. Bryan enlisted in the United States Army for a three-year tour of duty in June, 1976. On or about March 10, 1977, two months after the case was placed on the Ready Day Calendar, the said defendant’s application to remove it therefrom and to place it upon the Military Suspense Calendar was granted. We believe Trial Term acted within its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ application to restore the action to the Ready Day Calendar in view of the fact that defendant Bryan is presently stationed in Germany. However, since Bryan is entitled to 30 days’ annual military leave, we are not convinced that he is unable to obtain permission from his superior officer to use a portion of such leave for the purpose of appearing at the trial of this action. Accordingly, plaintiffs may make a similar application, returnable September 5, 1978, to restore the case to the Ready Day Calendar. Bryan’s counsel is directed to ascertain whether the Army will make his client available for trial, either on that date or within 30 days thereafter (cf. *Anhalt v Abrams,*20 AD2d 687). Absent a showing that the Army will not permit Bryan to attend a trial during such 30-day period, or at any reasonable time thereafter, the case may be restored to the Ready Day Calendar without a further hearing (cf. *Anhalt v Abrams, supra; Matter of Feldman v Grelewicz,*91 Misc 2d 147). Upon a showing, on the return of the new application, that reasonable efforts to obtain Bryan’s presence were unsuccessful, plaintiffs may then apply to Trial Term to have a date fixed preemptorily for trial. In fixing the date, Trial Term should consider the prospective date of Bryan’s return to the continental United States, or the alternative method of obtaining his testimony by deposition (cf. *Anhalt v Abrams, supra; Wuster v Levitt,*267 App Div 918). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
### §5196g. Guidance and training by FEMA on coordination of emergency response plans

#### (a) Training requirement

The Administrator, in coordination with other relevant agencies, shall provide guidance and training on an annual basis to State, local, and Indian tribal governments, first responders, and facilities that store hazardous materials on coordination of emergency response plans in the event of a major disaster or emergency, including severe weather events. The guidance and training shall include the following:

(1) Providing a list of equipment required in the event a hazardous substance is released into the environment.

(2) Outlining the health risks associated with exposure to hazardous substances to improve treatment response.

(3) Publishing best practices for mitigating further danger to communities from hazardous substances.

#### (b) Implementation

The requirement of subsection (a) shall be implemented not later than 180 days after October 5, 2018.

(Pub. L. 115–254, div. D, §1236, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3464.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 and as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, and not as part of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Definitions

For definition of "Administrator" and "State" as used in this section, see section 1203 of Pub. L. 115–254, set out as a note under section 5122 of this title.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Presidential Documents 77607

Presidential Determination No. 2005–15 of December 21, 2004

Provision of Aviation Insurance Coverage for Commercial Air 

Carrier Service in Domestic and International Operations 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation 

By the authority vested in me by 49 U.S.C. 44302, et seq., I hereby: 

1. determine that continuation of U.S.-flag commercial air service is necessary 

in the interest of air commerce, national security, and the foreign policy 

of the United States. 

2. approve provision by the Secretary of Transportation of insurance or 

reinsurance to U.S.-flag air carriers against loss or damage arising out of 

any risk from the operation of an aircraft in the manner and to the extent 

provided in Chapter 443 of 49 U.S.C.: 

(a) until August 31, 2005; 

(b) after August 31, 2005, but no later than December 31, 2005, when 

he determines that such insurance or reinsurance cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions from any company authorized to conduct an insurance business in a State of the United 

States; and

3. delegate to the Secretary of Transportation the authority, vested in me 

by 49 U.S.C. 44306(c), to extend this determination for additional periods 

beyond August 31, 2005, but no later than December 31, 2005, when he 

finds that the continued operation of aircraft to be insured or reinsured 

is necessary in the interest of air commerce or the national security, or 

to carry out the foreign policy of the United States Government. 

You are directed to bring this determination immediately to the attention 

of all air carriers within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 40102(2), and to arrange 

for its publication in the 

W

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 21, 2004. 

[FR Doc. 04–28405

Filed 21–23–04; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4910–62–P
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2009\618-24\Order to File Response.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNE O’CALLAGHAN,

Plaintiff,

    v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,Defendants.

                                                                      /

No. C 09-0624 CRB

ORDER

This Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion for Order Shortening

Time for a hearing on her Motion for Leave to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Remand to

State Court.  Defendant Stancill is ordered as follows: (1) file his objection to this motion, if

any, by Friday, July 16; and (2) inform this Court by July 16 whether he intends to oppose

the underlying Motion for Leave to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00624-CRB   Document 82   Filed 07/12/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T21:47:02-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# Fourth Court of Appea ls San Antonio, Texas

January 22, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00760

- CR

Gregorio ROMERO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3427

- B Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

By order dated December 28, 2017, appellant was ordered to show cause in writing by January 11, 2018, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. By order dated January 17, 2018, we granted appellant’s request to extend the deadline for his response to January 22, 2018. On January 18, 2018, appellant filed a second motion requesting an additional extension of time to file his response because he did n ot have access to the reporter’s record.

In o ur order dated December 28, 2017, we questioned our jurisdiction to consider this appeal because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal. We noted appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s order d enying his untimely motion for new trial; however, “ [n] o Texas statute authorizes a direct appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial independently of the appeal of an underlying conviction. ” Williams v. State , Nos. 02

- 17

- 00249

- CR; 02

- 17

- 00250

- CR & 02

- 17

- 00251

- CR, 2017 WL 4819417, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 26, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.; not designated for publication). Therefore, access to the reporter’s record is not needed for appe llant to respond to our order. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Appellant’s response to this court’s December 28, 2017 order must be filed no later than January 29, 2018.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of January, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle Clerk of Court
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2963 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve compensation benefits 

for veterans in certain cases of impairment of vision involving both eyes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2005 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. EVANS, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. 

SHIMKUS, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, 

Mr. GINGREY, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. STEARNS, 

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. WELDON of Florida, and Mr. GENE

GREEN of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve compensation benefits for veterans in certain cases of impairment of vision involving both eyes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dr. James Allen Dis5 abled Veterans Equity Act’’. 
2 

•HR 2963 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCED COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR VET2 ERANS IN CERTAIN CASES OF IMPAIRMENT 

3 OF VISION INVOLVING BOTH EYES. 

4 Section 1160(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘blindness’’ the first place it ap7 pears and inserting ‘‘impairment of vision compen8 sable to a degree of 10 percent or more’’; and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘and blindness’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘and impairment of vision’’. 

Æ