alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2001. Findings

The Congress finds and declares that—

(1) a serious crude oil supply shortage may soon exist in portions of the United States;

(2) a large surplus of crude oil on the west coast of the United States is projected;

(3) any substantial curtailment of Canadian crude oil exports to the United States could create a severe crude oil shortage in the northern tier States;

(4) pending the authorization and completion of west-to-east crude oil delivery systems, Alaskan crude oil in excess of west coast needs will be transshipped through the Panama Canal at a high transportation cost;

(5) national security and regional supply requirements may be such that west-to-east crude delivery systems serving both the northern tier States and inland States, consistent with the requirements of section 410 of the Act approved November 16, 1973 (87 Stat. 594), commonly known as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, are needed;

(6) expeditious Federal and State decisions for west-to-east crude oil delivery systems are of the utmost priority; and

(7) resolution of the west coast crude oil surplus and the need for crude oil in northern tier States and inland States require the assignment and coordination of overall responsibility within the executive branch to permit expedited action on all necessary environmental assessments and decisions on permit applications concerning delivery systems.

(Pub. L. 95–617, title V, §501, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3157.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 410 of the Act approved November 16, 1973 (87 Stat. 594), commonly known as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, referred to in par. (5), is section 410 of Pub. L. 93–153, Nov. 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 594, which is set out as a note under section 1651 of this title.

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

#### Definitions

The definition of "State" in section 2602 of Title 16, Conservation, applies to this section.
§ 1000.327 What is the order of preference for allocating the IHBG formula needs data for Indian tribes in Alaska not located on reservations due to the unique circumstances in Alaska? ( a ) Data in areas without reservations. The data on population and housing within an Alaska Native Village is credited to the Alaska Native Village. Accordingly, the village corporation for the Alaska Native Village has no needs data and no formula allocation. The data on population and housing outside the Alaska Native Village is credited to the regional Indian tribe, and if there is no regional Indian tribe, the data will be credited to the regional corporation.
( b ) Deadline for notification on whether an IHP will be submitted. By September 15 of each year, each Indian tribe in Alaska not located on a reservation, including each Alaska Native village, regional Indian tribe, and regional corporation, or its TDHE must notify HUD in writing whether it or its TDHE intends to submit an IHP. If an Alaska Native village notifies HUD that it does not intend either to submit an IHP or to designate a TDHE to do so, or if HUD receives no response from the Alaska Native village or its TDHE, the formula data which would have been credited to the Alaska Native village will be credited to the regional Indian tribe, or if there is no regional Indian tribe, to the regional corporation.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6010

MICHAEL FINCHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-371) Submitted: May 23, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Fincham, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Fincham appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Fincham v. Angelone , No. CA01-371 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2001). Finding no exceptional circumstances, we further decline to review Fincham’s claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

1

Plaintiffs did not provide the Court with a chambers copy of the Request. Although

the Court has exercised its discretion to consider the Request, plaintiffs, for future

reference, are reminded of the following provision in the Court’s Standing Orders: “In all

cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the parties are

required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed

electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be delivered no later than

noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be marked

‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office in an envelope clearly marked

with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers Copy.’

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIAZ PATRAS,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-09-1891 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR

ASSIGNMENT TO DISCOVERY

MAGISTRATE

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Administrative Request for Assignment to a Discovery

Magistrate, filed June 1, 2010.1 Having read and considered the Request, the Court rules

as follows.

Because a discovery motion has not been filed by any party, the Request is hereby

DENIED without prejudice. In the event that a discovery motion is filed, the Court will refer

Case 3:09-cv-01891-MMC Document 24 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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

It is not the practice of the Court to refer discovery matters to a particular magistrate

judge; rather, the Clerk assigns such matters on a random basis.

2

the matter to a magistrate judge at that time.2

Upon any such referral, the assigned magistrate judge will advise the parties of the

date, time, and nature of any further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01891-MMC Document 24 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 234.800 Cross-reference.

All of the provisions of subpart C, part 203 of this chapter covering mortgages insured under section 203 of the National Housing Act apply to mortgages insured under section 234(c) of the National Housing Act.

[42 FR 29306, June 8, 1977]
```

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 230 (Monday, November 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 76536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XA684]

North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Bering 
Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan Climate Change Taskforce will meet December 
14, 2020 and December 16, 2020, via webconference.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, December 14, 2020, and 
Wednesday, December 16, 2020, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m., Alaska Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a webconference. Join online through the 
link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/1804.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 W 
3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809. 
Instructions for attending the meeting are given under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Diana Stram, Council staff; phone: 
(907) 271-2809 and email: [email protected]. For technical support 
please contact our administrative staff; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Monday, December 14, 2020 and Wednesday, December 16, 2020

    The agenda will include (a) draft Climate Change Taskforce 
workplan; (b) planning for future meetings and activities; and (c) 
other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version 
will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/1804 prior 
to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

Connection Information

    You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or 
smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted 
online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/1804.

Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted 
electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/1804.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 24, 2020.
Diane M. DeJames-Daly,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26318 Filed 11-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2918 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2918

 To suspend temporarily the duty on Trifloxysulfuron-Sodium Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2005

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on Trifloxysulfuron-Sodium Technical.

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

SECTION 1. TRIFLOXYSULFURON-SODIUM TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.07.45       Trifloxysulfuron-  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Sodium Technical                                                   31/2008
                         2-
                         pyridinesulfonami
                         de, N-[[(4,6-
                         dimethoxy-2-
                         pyrimidinyl)amino
                         ]carbonyl]-3-
                         (2,2,2-
                         trifluoroethoxy)-
                         monosodium salt
                         (CAS No. 199119-
                         58-9) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2935.00.75)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### **CHAPTER 48—RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION ON FEDERAL LAND**

Sec.
3001.
Definitions.
3002.
Program to improve eligible project permit coordination.
3003.
Increasing economic certainty.
3004.
National goal for renewable energy production on Federal land.
3005.
Savings clause.
3006.
Ensuring energy security.
#### § 26.28 Purpose and scope.

Unless otherwise specified in this title, the rules in this subpart B of this part apply to hearings that HUD is required by statute to conduct pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 554 *et seq.*)
#### Carlton House, Inc., Respondent, v Goubaud de Paris Fifth Avenue, Ltd., Defendant, and Goubaud de Paris, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 13, 1976, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and motion granted. Appellants shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The complaint fails to allege any viable claim against the defendants-appellants. Requisite elements of fraud have not been alleged and the purported oral representations relied upon by plaintiff are clearly insufficient, in view of the merger clause contained in paragraph "20” of the lease agreement in suit. Plaintiffs reliance on paragraph "45” thereof is totally misplaced. That paragraph merely provides that if any removable fixtures are installed by the tenant they may be removed by it at the expiration of the lease term at the tenant’s expense, provided that the premises are restored to their present condition. This paragraph obviously does not require that any assets or fixtures be placed on the premises and does not constitute a representation concerning the ownership thereof. It was not meant to provide security for payments due under the lease. In short, that paragraph is totally irrelevant to the claims sought to be asserted. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 64

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 64 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

#### § 64.10 Grant not to constitute a gift.

A grant made under an approved program shall not constitute a gift for purposes of 22 CFR 10.735-203 and section 7342 of title 5, United States Code.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the quarterly report of RoomLinX,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the quarter  ended March 31, 2005 filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Frank Elenio, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial  condition of the Company as of the dates presented and
results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: May 19, 2005

                                                /s/ Frank Elenio
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Frank Elenio
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                RoomLinX, Inc

This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### Lane *v.*Ivy.

April 13, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. January 28, 1911.

*Walter A. Sims,*for plaintiff.

*Dodd & Dodd*and *Slaton & PMllips,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

“The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, unless the plaintiff in error shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.” Civil. Code, § 6204. In this case it does not appear that the law and facts required the verdict, nor that the judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoneur.*
#### MORGAN v. CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 13, 1903.)

Action by George Morgan against the city of New York.

No opinion. *Motion*denied, with $10 *costs.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10781

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL LEWIS, also known as MD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-70-1

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Lewis, federal prisoner # 35452-177, is serving a 240-month term

of imprisonment for distributing cocaine base. He appeals the district court’s

denial of his second motion for a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive application of Amendment 750 to the

United States Sentencing Guidelines. 

Lewis argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because the

offense of which he pleaded guilty involved crack cocaine. Section 3582(c)(2)

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 7, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-10781 Document: 00512103927 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2013
No. 12-10781

permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence if he was

“sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered by theSentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

994(o).” § 3582(c)(2). Part A of Amendment 750 altered the base offense levels

for cocaine base in the drug quantity tables of § 2D1.1(c) and is retroactive. See

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Supp. to Appendix

C-Vol. III, Amendment 750, at 391-98; 416-421 (Amendment 759).

The district court accurately noted that Lewis’s base offense level was

calculated based solely on the amount of powder cocaine attributable to him for

sentencing purposes. His sentencing guidelines range therefore was not affected

by retroactive application of Amendment 750, and the district court did not err

by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion on that basis. The judgment of the district

court is affirmed.

We caution Lewis that filing repetitive or frivolous requests for a

§ 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, or appeals from the denial of such requests, will

invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lewis is further cautioned

to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are repetitive or frivolous. 

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

 Case: 12-10781 Document: 00512103927 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2013
### §1476. Elimination of oaths for written statements; discretion of Secretary of the Interior

Written statement in public land matters within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, heretofore required by law to be made under oath, need no longer be made under oath unless the Secretary of the Interior shall, in his discretion, so require.

(June 3, 1948, ch. 392, §1, 62 Stat. 301.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1211 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
March 1, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01063-MMC Document 102 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1000.406 What constitutes tribal approval to issue notes or other obligations under title VI of NAHASDA?

Tribal approval is evidenced by a written tribal resolution that authorizes the issuance of notes or obligations by the Indian tribe or a TDHE on behalf of the Indian tribe.
§ 290.11 Notification requirements. ( a ) *In general.* HUD may combine two or more of the required notifications, as appropriate, to simplify the disposition process.
( b ) *Timing of notifications.* Disposition-related notifications (i.e., pre-foreclosure notification to tenants and units of general local government; pre-disposition community and tenant input notification; state and local government right of first refusal notification) will be made, as appropriate: ( 1 ) 60 or more days before HUD forecloses on a project; or
( 2 ) Before, or not more than 30 days after, HUD acquires a project.
( c ) *Methods of notification* — ( 1 ) *To tenants.* Pre-disposition notification will be delivered to each unit in the project, or sent to each unit by first class mail. Where HUD is mortgagee-in-possession or owner of a project, the notice will also be posted in the project office and in appropriate conspicuous and accessible locations around the project.
( 2 ) *To units of general local government.* Pre-disposition notification to a unit of general local government will be sent to the chief executive officer of the unit of general local government by first class mail. For purposes of receiving or sending any notices or information under this part, the unit of general local government is its chief executive officer, or the person designated by the chief executive officer to receive or send the notice or information.
( 3 ) *To the community or any other party.* HUD will consult with tenants and their organizations, officials of units of general local government, and other entities as HUD determines to be appropriate, to identify community recipients of any required notification. Any notice required to be made to any party other than a tenant or a unit of general local government will be sent by first class mail.
( d ) *Content of notifications.* Notifications will, as appropriate, identify the project acquired or to be foreclosed by HUD; provide the general terms and conditions concerning the sale, future use, and operation of the project as proposed by HUD; indicate the time by which any offers must be made or any comments must be submitted; and state that the full disposition recommendation and analysis and other supporting information will be available for inspection and copying at the HUD Field Office.
§ 26.32 Powers and duties of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ shall conduct a fair and impartial hearing, avoid delay, maintain order, and ensure that a record of the proceeding is made. The ALJ is authorized to: ( a ) Set and change the date, time, and place of the hearing upon reasonable notice to the parties;
( b ) Continue or recess the hearing, in whole or in part, for a reasonable period of time;
( c ) Hold conferences to identify or simplify the issues, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding;
( d ) Administer oaths and affirmations;
( e ) Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents at depositions or at hearings;
( f ) Rule on motions and other procedural matters;
( g ) Regulate the scope and timing of discovery;
( h ) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of representatives and parties;
( i ) Examine witnesses;
( j ) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence;
( k ) Upon motion of a party, take official notice of facts;
( l ) Upon motion of a party, decide cases, in whole or in part, by summary judgment where there is no disputed issue of material fact;
( m ) Conduct any conference, argument, or hearing on motions in person or by telephone;
( n ) Upon motion, except where mandated by statute, extend the time within which any act required by these rules must be performed where necessary to avoid prejudicing the public interest or the rights of the parties, or upon showing of good cause; and
( o ) Exercise such other authority as is necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the ALJ under subpart B of this part.