alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7274l. Authority to transfer certain Department of Energy property

#### (a) Authority to transfer

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy may transfer, for consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the property referred to in subsection (b) to any person if the Secretary determines that such transfer will mitigate the adverse economic consequences that might otherwise arise from the closure of a Department of Energy facility.

(2) The amount of consideration received by the United States for a transfer under paragraph (1) may be less than the fair market value of the property transferred if the Secretary determines that the receipt of such lesser amount by the United States is in accordance with the purpose of such transfer under this section.

(3) The Secretary may require any additional terms and conditions with respect to a transfer of property under paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

#### (b) Covered property

Property referred to in subsection (a) is the following property of the Department of Energy that is located at a Department of Energy facility to be closed or reconfigured:

(1) The personal property and equipment at the facility that the Secretary determines to be excess to the needs of the Department of Energy.

(2) Any personal property and equipment at the facility (other than the property and equipment referred to in paragraph (1)) the replacement cost of which does not exceed an amount equal to 110 percent of the costs of relocating the property or equipment to another facility of the Department of Energy.

(Pub. L. 103–160, div. C, title XXXI, §3155, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1953.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
§ 35.4 Investigation. ( a ) If an investigating official concludes that a subpoena pursuant to the authority conferred by 31 U.S.C. 3804(a) is warranted— ( 1 ) The subpoena so issued shall notify the person to whom it is addressed of the authority under which the subpoena is issued (and, in the case of a subpoena to be served outside the jurisdiction of the United States, the basis for such service), and shall identify the records or documents sought;
( 2 ) The investigating official may designate a person to act on his or her behalf to receive the documents sought; and
( 3 ) The person receiving such subpoena shall be required to tender to the investigating official or the person designated to receive the documents a certification that the documents sought have been produced, or that such documents are not available and the reasons therefore, or that such documents, suitably identified, have been withheld based upon the assertion of an identified privilege.
( b ) If the investigating official concludes that an action under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act may be warranted, the investigating official shall submit a report containing the findings and conclusions of such investigation to the reviewing official.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall preclude or limit an investigating official's discretion to refer allegations directly to the Department of Justice for suit under the False Claims Act or other civil relief, or to preclude or limit such official's discretion to defer or postpone a report or referral to the reviewing official to avoid interference with a criminal investigation or prosecution.
( d ) Nothing in this section modifies any responsibility of an investigating official to report violations of criminal law to the Attorney General.
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

THE ESTATE OF JERRY A. AMARO III,

GERALDINE MONTOYA, and

STEPHANIE MONTOYA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, RICHARD WORD,

EDWARD POULSON, R. HOLMGREN, S.

NOWAK, M. BATTLE, E. KARSSEBOOM,

C. BUNN, M. PATTERSON, individually

and in their capacities as members of the City

of Oakland Police Department, and DOES

1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01019 WHA

ORDER SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE

To ensure that the Court is kept apprised of the pending appeal in the event that a decision

by the Ninth Circuit is not promptly reached, a status conference is scheduled for 11:00 A.M. ON

JUNE 24, 2010. The parties shall submit a joint statement seven days prior to the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01019-WHA Document 107 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 1
#### William G. CARTER, Appellant, v. Alan BLAKE, Appellee.

No. 06-2692.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2007.

Filed: May 23, 2007.

William G. Carter, Farmington, MO, pro se.

Lacey Searfoss, O’Fallon, MO, Denise Leanne Thomas, Attorney General’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William G. Carter appeals the district court’s1 order granting defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Carter’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Carter’s arguments, we find no basis for reversal. *See Atkinson v. Bohn,*91 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 

**- 1393** 

MELANIE WRIGHT, Administratix, Successor in Interest, Record Property Owner, Personal Representative, for the Estate of Earl Wright

,

Plaintiff

– Appellant,

and

EARL WRIGHT

,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION; JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III, Esquire; ROBERT E. FRAZIER, Esquire; JANA M. GANTT, Esquire; LAURA D. HARRIS, Esquire; DANIEL J. PESACHOWITZ, Esquire; DEE NA L. REYNOLDS, Esquire; STANLEY ZIMMERMAN, Esquire; KIMBERLY BROOKE LANE, Esquire; BEHZAD GOHARI; SAMUEL I. WHITE, Esquire; RICHARD S. O’CONNOR, Esquire; ROBERT HARVEY HILLMAN, Esquire; CRAIG ROBERT HAUGHTON, Esquire; FEDERAL TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY;

TIM OTHY F. GEITHNER; JOE GENTILE; EDUARDA SANTIAGO

,

Defendants

– Appellees,

BALTIMORE HOME ALLIANCE, LLC,

Debtor

– Appellee,

and

NICK GREEN; JESSICA MITCHELL; BANK OF AMERICA; JOHN AND JANE DOES, I through XV; MD SANT, LLC,

Defendants

.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte

, Senior District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv

- 03991

- PJM )

Submitted : January 24, 2017 Decided: January 31, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Melanie Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Robert Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Robert Harvey Hillman, SAMUEL I. WHITE PC, Rockville, Maryland; Behzad Gohari, GOHARI LAW FIRM
LLC, Bethesda, Maryland; Ziad Paul Haddad, David Christopher Tobin, TOBIN, O’CONNOR & EWING, Washington, D.C.; Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Mark William Schweitzer, MCNAM EE, HOSEA, JERNIGAN, KIM, GREEN AN & LYNCH PA, Gree nbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Melanie Wright appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing

her complaint with prejudice for failing to state a claim

. Wright

sought to challe nge a state

- administered foreclosure proceeding

after defaulting on a mortgage that her father initially held on

the contested property and later transferr e d to her

. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright v.

Nationstar Mortg., LLC , No. 8:14

- cv

- 03991

- PJM (D. Md. Mar. 18,

2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated September 20, 2011 related to the consolidated balance sheet of PSB Holdings, Inc. as of June 30, 2011 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the June 30, 2011 annual report on Form 10-K of the PSB Holdings, Inc.
 graphicSHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
 
 
 West Peabody, Massachusetts
 September 23, 2011
 ● WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-3635 ● TELEPHONE (978) 535-0206 ● FACSIMILE (978) 535-9908
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated September 20, 2011 related to the consolidated balance sheet of PSB Holdings, Inc. as of June 30, 2011 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the June 30, 2011 annual report on Form 10-K of the PSB Holdings, Inc.
 /s/ SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
   
 West Peabody, Massachusetts
 September 23, 2011
                    ● WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-3635 ● TELEPHONE (978) 535-0206 ● FACSIMILE (978) 535-9908
### §1163. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1163 was editorially reclassified as section 2503 of this title.
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Vicho Murro, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,592.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
#### § 1600.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
#### § 220.820 Maximum claim period.

Notice of intention to file claim on a form prescribed by the Commissioner shall be filed within 45 days after the lender becomes eligible for the benefits of the loan insurance, or within such later time as may be agreed upon by the Commissioner in writing.
### §9305. Magnetic fusion engineering center

#### (a) Development plan

The Secretary shall develop a plan for the creation of a national magnetic fusion engineering center for the purpose of accelerating fusion technology development via the concentration and coordination of major magnetic fusion engineering devices and associated activities at such a national center.

#### (b) Factors considered in formulation of development plan

In developing the plan, the Secretary shall include relevant factors including, but not limited to—

(1) means of saving cost and time through the establishment of the national center relative to the cost and schedule currently projected for the program;

(2) means of providing common facilities to be shared by many magnetic fusion concepts;

(3) assessment of the environmental and safety-related aspects of the national center;

(4) provisions for international cooperation in magnetic fusion activities at the national center;

(5) provision of access to facilities for the broader technical involvement of domestic industry and universities in the magnetic fusion energy program;

(6) siting criteria for the national center including a list of potential sites;

(7) the advisability of establishing such a center considering all factors, including the alternative means and associated costs of pursuing such technology; and

(8) changes in the management structure of the magnetic fusion program to allow more effective direction of activities related to the national center.

#### (c) Report to Congressional committees

The Secretary shall submit not later than July 1, 1981, a report to the House Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources characterizing the plan and setting forth the steps necessary for implementation of the plan, including any steps already implemented.

(Pub. L. 96–386, §6, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1541.)

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Jan. 5, 2011.
#### Fred G. Heydt Construction Co., Inc., v. Barney-Uydess et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure *759the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before May 17, *1962,*with notice of argument for May 29, 1962, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 289 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 289

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the ``Staff 
       Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2005

  Ms. Waters introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the ``Staff 
       Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT FIRST CLASS JOHN MARSHALL POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant First Class John 
Marshall Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Staff 
Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
### §9625. Section 6921(b)(3)(A)(i) waste

#### (a) Revision of hazard ranking system

This section shall apply only to facilities which are not included or proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List and which contain substantial volumes of waste described in section 6921(b)(3)(A)(i) of this title. As expeditiously as practicable, the President shall revise the hazard ranking system in effect under the National Contingency Plan with respect to such facilities in a manner which assures appropriate consideration of each of the following site-specific characteristics of such facilities:

(1) The quantity, toxicity, and concentrations of hazardous constituents which are present in such waste and a comparison thereof with other wastes.

(2) The extent of, and potential for, release of such hazardous constituents into the environment.

(3) The degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by such constituents.

#### (b) Inclusion prohibited

Until the hazard ranking system is revised as required by this section, the President may not include on the National Priorities List any facility which contains substantial volumes of waste described in section 6921(b)(3)(A)(i) of this title on the basis of an evaluation made principally on the volume of such waste and not on the concentrations of the hazardous constituents of such waste. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the President's authority to include any such facility on the National Priorities List based on the presence of other substances at such facility or to exercise any other authority of this chapter with respect to such other substances.

(Pub. L. 96–510, title I, §125, as added Pub. L. 99–499, title I, §125, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1689.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 96–510, Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2767, known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 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 9601 of this title and Tables.
#### Cornelius Trent, Appellant, v Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Center et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 893]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated December 6, 1999, as denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to timely answer the complaint.

*445Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the respondents. Although the respondents’ delay in serving their answer was due to law office failure, the delay was brief and not willful, and there is no proof that the plaintiff was prejudiced thereby *(see, Stone v County of Nassau,*272 AD2d 392; *Lefkowitz v Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler,*271 AD2d 576; *Bungay v Joy Power Prods.,*243 AD2d 527). Furthermore, there is a potentially meritorious defense *(see, Stone v County of Nassau, supra; Lovario v Vuotto,*266 AD2d 191). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
### §1198. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 6, 1954, ch. 463, §1, 68 Stat. 452, which directed Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, and the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate contracts with the Sioux Indians of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota, and the Sioux Indians of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota, containing the provisions outlined in former sections 1198 to 1200e of this title, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §316. Declaration of policy

It is declared to be the policy of Congress in promoting the conservation of the natural resources of Alaska to provide for the protection and development of forage plants and for the beneficial utilization thereof for grazing by livestock under such regulations as may be considered necessary and consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter. In effectuating this policy the use of these lands for grazing shall be subordinated (a) to the development of their mineral resources, (b) to the protection, development, and utilization of their forests, (c) to the protection, development, and utilization of their water resources, (d) to their use for agriculture, and (e) to the protection, development, and utilization of such other resources as may be of greater benefit to the public.

(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 513, §1, 44 Stat. 1452.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 471 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

#### Short Title

Act Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 513, which is classified to this subchapter, is popularly known as the "Alaska Livestock Grazing Act".
### Please place this dataset in the NOx SOx secondary docket Bryan Hubbell to: Tricia Crabtree 10/05/2010 09:55 AM
Thanks! Dr. Bryan J. Hubbell Senior Advisor for Science and Policy Analysis Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. EPA/OAQPS (C504-02) RTP, NC 27711 (919) 541-0621 ----- Forwarded by Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/05/2010 09:54 AM -----

From: Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US To: Angela Nugent/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 10/01/2010 11:57 AM Subject: One more request from Ted Russell Ted sent me the following request-

Do you have a data file that was used to make Table C1 and can I get it? Cheers, Ted

-- Prof. Armistead (Ted) Russell Georgia Power Professor of Environmental Engineering Ford Environmental Science and Technology Building School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology 311 Ferst Drive Atlanta, GA 30332-0512 404-894-3079

The data I used to generate the elasticities in Table C-1 is attached. You can forward it to Ted if you think it is appropriate to do so. Thanks, Bryan

Dr. Bryan J. Hubbell Senior Advisor for Science and Policy Analysis Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. EPA/OAQPS (C504-02) RTP, NC 27711( 919 )541-0621
### §379. Purchase of scientific books, law books, etc.

The Secretary of the Interior may authorize the purchase of such law books, books of reference, periodicals, engineering and statistical publications as are needed in carrying out the surveys and examinations authorized by the Act of June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, entitled "An Act appropriating the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands in certain States and Territories for the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands."

(May 27, 1908, ch. 200, 35 Stat. 350.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, referred to in text, is act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.