alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1099. Division into counties before opening to settlement; reservation for county seats

Before any lands in Oklahoma are open to settlement it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to divide the same into counties which shall contain as near as possible not less than seven hundred square miles in each county: Provided, That as soon as the county lines are designated by the Secretary he shall reserve not to exceed one-half section of land in each, to be located near the center of said county, for county seat purposes, to be entered under sections 718 and 719 1 of this title.

(Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 543, §37, 26 Stat. 1043.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 718 and 719 of this title, referred to in text, were repealed by Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789.

1 See References in Text note below.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50844 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. JUAN FRANCISCO MIRANDA-MARTINEZ, also known asAlfredoContreras, also known as Juan Miranda, also known as Juan Francisco Miranda, also known as Alfredo Sanchez-Martinez Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-545-ALL Before KING, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Francisco MirandaMartinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 5, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50844

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### §7511f. NOx and VOC study

The Administrator, in conjunction with the National Academy of Sciences, shall conduct a study on the role of ozone precursors in tropospheric ozone formation and control. The study shall examine the roles of NOx and VOC emission reductions, the extent to which NOx reductions may contribute (or be counterproductive) to achievement of attainment in different nonattainment areas, the sensitivity of ozone to the control of NOx, the availability and extent of controls for NOx, the role of biogenic VOC emissions, and the basic information required for air quality models. The study shall be completed and a proposed report made public for 30 days comment within 1 year of November 15, 1990, and a final report shall be submitted to Congress within 15 months after November 15, 1990. The Administrator shall utilize all available information and studies, as well as develop additional information, in conducting the study required by this section.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §185B, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title I, §103, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2452.)
#### Suburban Realty Company *et al. v.*Elder.

August 17, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge Bell. Eulton superior court. March 18, 1911.

*W. 0. Wilson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Hewlett & Dennis,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

The only assignment of error being that “the verdict is contrary to evidence and -without evidence to support it,” “is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence,” and “is contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity,” and the record disclosing that there is evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 306 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 306

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit local public 
            agencies to act as Medicaid enrollment brokers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2005

Mr. Issa (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Filner, and Mrs. 
Davis of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit local public 
            agencies to act as Medicaid enrollment brokers.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES TO ACT AS MEDICAID 
              ENROLLMENT BROKERS.

    Section 1903(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396b(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
            ``(C)(i) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply in the 
        case of a local public agency that is acting as an enrollment 
        broker under a contract or memorandum with a State medicaid 
        agency, provided the local public agency does not have a direct 
        or indirect financial interest with any medicaid managed care 
        plan for which it provides enrollment broker services.
            ``(ii) In determining whether a local public agency has a 
        direct or indirect financial interest with a medicaid managed 
        care plan under clause (i), the status of a local public agency 
        as a contractor of the plan does not constitute having a direct 
        or indirect financial interest with the plan.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 203.363 Effect of noncompliance with regulations. ( a ) *For mortgages insured under firm commitments issued prior to November 19, 1992 or under direct endorsement processing where the credit worksheet was signed by the mortgagee's approved underwriter prior to November 19, 1992.* If, for any reason, the mortgagee fails to comply with the regulations in this subpart, the Secretary may hold processing of the application for insurance benefits in abeyance for a reasonable time in order to permit the mortgagee to comply, or, in the alternative, the Secretary may reconvey title to the property to the mortgagee, in which event the application for insurance benefits shall be considered as cancelled without prejudice to the rights of the mortgagee to reapply for insurance benefits at a subsequent date.
( b ) *For mortgages insured under firm commitments issued on or after November 19, 1992, or under direct endorsement processing where the credit worksheet was signed by the mortgagee's underwriter on or after November 19, 1992.* If, for any reason, the mortgagee fails to comply with the regulations in this subpart, the Secretary may hold processing of the application for insurance benefits in abeyance for a reasonable time in order to permit the mortgagee to comply. In the alternative to holding processing in abeyance, the Secretary may reconvey title to the property to the mortgagee, in which event the application for insurance benefits shall be considered as cancelled and the mortgagee shall refund the insurance benefits to the Secretary as well as other funds required by § 203.364 of this part. The mortgagee may reapply for insurance benefits at a subsequent date; provided, however, that the mortgagee may not be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in connection with the property after it has been reconveyed by the Secretary, or paid any debenture interest accrued after the date of initial conveyance or after the date conveyance was required by § 203.359 of this part, whichever is earlier, and there will be deducted from the insurance benefits any reduction in the Secretary's estimate of the value of the property occurring from the time of reconveyance to the time of reapplication.
[57 FR 47971, Oct. 20, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 36453, July 10, 1996]
### §§201 to 208. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787

Section 201, R.S. §2302, prohibited entry and settlement of mineral lands under this chapter.

Section 202, acts May 14, 1880, ch. 89, §1, 21 Stat. 140; Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §4, 26 Stat. 1097; Mar. 3, 1893, ch. 208, 27 Stat. 593; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, related to relinquished entries.

Section 203, acts June 13, 1902, ch. 1080, §§1–3, 32 Stat. 384; Mar. 4, 1907, ch. 2907, 34 Stat. 1269, related to applicability of homestead laws to Ute Indian Reservation in Colorado.

Section 204, act Mar. 3, 1879, ch. 191, 20 Stat. 472, related to entries on even sections within railroad and other grants.

Section 205, act July 1, 1879, ch. 60, 21 Stat. 46, related to entries on odd sections within railroad and other grants in Missouri and Arkansas.

Section 206, act May 6, 1886, ch. 88, 24 Stat. 22, related to patents for additional entries within railway limits.

Section 207, act Aug. 21, 1916, ch. 361, 39 Stat. 518, authorized disposition of all agricultural lands within military reservations in Nevada under homestead and desert-land laws.

Section 208, act June 3, 1924, ch. 240, 43 Stat. 357, authorized acquisition of all unreserved public lands within the Columbia or Moses Reserve in Washington to be acquired under laws applicable to public domain.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787, provided that the repeal made by section 702 is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, except such effective date to be on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as homestead laws apply to public lands in Alaska.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
#### § 213.269 Endorsement of supplementary loans.

The provisions of §§ 213.266, 213.267, and 213.268 shall apply to supplementary loans.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 292 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount of the 

military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2005 

Mr. BACHUS (for himself, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, 

Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. MORAN of 

Kansas, Mr. WOLF, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. BACA, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. WELLER, 

Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. LEACH, Ms. LEE, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. 

CHANDLER, Mr. OTTER, Mr. COOPER, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. OLVER, Mr. 

BAKER, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. FILNER, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. 

HERSETH, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HOLT, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. KILDEE, 

Mr. KIND, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

SPRATT, Mr. STUPAK, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Mr. ADERHOLT) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of the military death gratuity from $12,000 to 

$100,000. 

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

•HR 292 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Death Benefit 

3 Improvement Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE WITH RE5 SPECT TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

6 (a) AMOUNT OF DEATH GRATUITY.—Section 

7 1478(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘$12,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to deaths occurring 

11 on or after September 11, 2001. 

12 (c) FUNDING.— 

13 (1) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Amounts for the pay14 ment during fiscal year 2005 of death gratuities by 

15 a Secretary concerned under sections 1475 through 

16 1477 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by 

17 subsection (a), shall be derived from amounts avail18 able for such fiscal year to that Secretary for oper19 ation and maintenance. 

20 (2) SECRETARY CONCERNED DEFINED.—In this 

21 subsection, the term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ has the 

22 meaning given such term in section 101(a)(9) of 

23 title 10, United States Code. 

Æ
#### Shirley Frozzitta, Respondent-Appellant, v Incorporated Village of Freeport et al., Appellants-Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) defendants the Incorporated Village of Freeport and the Slominskys separately appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 12, 1976, which, after a jury trial, is in favor of plaintiff and against them, and apportioned liability, and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of the said judgment as awarded her damages. Amended judgment modified, on the law and in the interest of justice, by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof, which awarded plaintiff damages, and by substituting therefor a provision directing that a new trial shall be held limited to the issue of damages only. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to the Trial Term for a new trial in accordance herewith. The judgment to be entered at the conclusion of the new trial shall apportion damages in the same percentages as they are apportioned in the amended judgment under review. The award of $75,000 is excessive if the fracture of the hip, and its associated injuries, are excluded from those injuries sustained by plaintiff for which she may recover, by reason of her failure to use the available seat belt (see *Spier v Barker,*35 NY2d 444). However, the award is inadequate if plaintiff may recover for such injuries. The award was apparently the result of an improper compromise and must, therefore, be set aside in the interest of justice. At the new trial there should be propounded to the jury the following interrogatories, as suggested by 1 NY PJI2d 256: "1. Total damages sustained by the plaintiff $__2. If you find that some of plaintiffs damages would not have been sustained if (he, she) had been wearing a seat belt, write in here the amount included in number one which you find to be the amount of such damages $__3. Amount of number one $- less amount of number two $_Verdict $__” The finding that the defendants were negligent is not against the weight of the evidence and the apportionment of liability by the jury is proper. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GENE LANCASTER,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-5334 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On November 25, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the

Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2007 decision by the

California Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has

filed an answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-05334-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05334-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
### §412. Prerequisites to initiation of project or division of project

After December 5, 1924, no new project or new division of a project shall be approved for construction or estimates submitted therefor by the Secretary until information in detail shall be secured by him concerning the water supply, the engineering features, the cost of construction, land prices, and the probable cost of development, and he shall have made a finding in writing that it is feasible, that it is adaptable for actual settlement and farm homes, and that it will probably return the cost thereof to the United States.

(Dec. 5, 1924, ch. 4, §4, subsec. B, 43 Stat. 702.)

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

#### Definitions

The definitions in section 371 of this title apply to this section.
### §9122. Recordkeeping and public access to information

#### (a) Records and reports

Each licensee shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, and provide such information as the Administrator, after consultation with other interested Federal departments and agencies, shall by regulation prescribe to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Each licensee shall submit such reports and shall make available such records and information as the Administrator may request.

#### (b) Confidential information

Any information reported to or collected by the Administrator under this chapter which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 552(b)(4) of title 5 (relating to trade secrets and commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential) shall not—

(1) be publicly disclosed by the Administrator or by any other officer or employee of the United States, unless the Administrator has—

(A) determined that the disclosure is necessary to protect the public health or safety or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury, and

(B) notified the person who submitted the information 10 days before the disclosure is to be made, unless the delay resulting from such notice would be detrimental to the public health or safety or the environment, or

(2) be otherwise disclosed except—

(A)(i) to other Federal and adjacent coastal State government departments and agencies for official use,

(ii) to any committee of the Congress of appropriate jurisdiction, or

(iii) pursuant to court order, and

(B) when the Administrator has taken appropriate steps to inform the recipient of the confidential nature of the information.

(Pub. L. 96–320, title I, §112, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 989; Pub. L. 98–623, title VI, §602(e)(3), (18), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3412.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 96–320, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 974, known as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9101 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–623, §602(e)(3), substituted "(relating to trade secrets and commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential)" for "(relating to trade secrets and confidential commercial and financial information)".

Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 98–623, §602(e)(18), substituted "Administrator" for "administrator".
### §1181h. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1181h was editorially reclassified as section 2632 of this title.
### §1553. Upper Colorado River Basin; rights to consumptive uses not to be reduced or prejudiced; duties and powers of Commission not impaired

(a) Rights of the upper basin to the consumptive use of water available to that basin from the Colorado River system under the Colorado River Compact shall not be reduced or prejudiced by any use of such water in the lower basin.

(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to impair, conflict with, or otherwise change the duties and powers of the Upper Colorado River Commission.

(Pub. L. 90–537, title VI, §603, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 901.)
#### § 234.7 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under this Guarantee, but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under this Guarantee.