alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3556. Federal information security incident center

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall ensure the operation of a central Federal information security incident center to—

(1) provide timely technical assistance to operators of agency information systems regarding security incidents, including guidance on detecting and handling information security incidents;

(2) compile and analyze information about incidents that threaten information security;

(3) inform operators of agency information systems about current and potential information security threats, and vulnerabilities;

(4) provide, as appropriate, intelligence and other information about cyber threats, vulnerabilities, and incidents to agencies to assist in risk assessments conducted under section 3554(b); and

(5) consult with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, agencies or offices operating or exercising control of national security systems (including the National Security Agency), and such other agencies or offices in accordance with law and as directed by the President regarding information security incidents and related matters.

(b) National Security Systems.—Each agency operating or exercising control of a national security system shall share information about information security incidents, threats, and vulnerabilities with the Federal information security incident center to the extent consistent with standards and guidelines for national security systems, issued in accordance with law and as directed by the President.

(Added Pub. L. 113–283, §2(a), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3084.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 3546 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 113–283.
BA/IIDocpj-1 

s 

s 

. s 

s 

Cnu.Se !/e..', (ic./-JDJS-0] 

LEAVE Ttl Ez t.t= /IN (U f3S EQ t1 FNT 

-(~ 

------i----"-A.J..!f_JP_-'L==-.....T"'""'c'--'· fLL___I oN F C> (l_ \rl f?.. I T D F tyj_B__N_[)_{j__jjfj,~....;L_-----------

-------t::Co THt; HONORABLE (otARI OF CIZ_-:LM "I f\/AL APPEAl-S! 

Ti
#### Larry Hernandez, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 288]—

In a claim to recover damages for assault, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Scuccimarra, J.), dated February 9, 2006, which denied his motion pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for leave to file a late claim against the State of New York.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), the Court of Claims may, in its discretion, permit a claimant to file a late claim against the State of New York “at any time before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen of the state would be barred under the provisions of article two of the civil practice law and rules.” Here, contrary to the claimant’s contention, the Court of Claims correctly concluded that the claim to recover damages for assault sounded in intentional tort, *not*negligence, since no cause of action to recover damages for negligent assault exists in New York *(see Allstate Ins. Co. v Schimmel,*22 AD3d 616 [2005]; *Schetzen v Robotsis,*273 AD2d 220, 221 [2000]; *Wrase v Bosco,*271 AD2d 440, 441 [2000]). Thus, when the claimant moved by notice of motion dated November 21, 2005 for leave to file a late claim against the State of New York pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), his claim regarding an incident that occurred on May 22, 2004 already was time barred by a one-year limitations’ period *(see*CPLR 215 [3]). Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly denied the claimant’s motion.

*710The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.
### **CHAPTER 8—RAILWAY LABOR**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.
151.
Definitions; short title.
151a.
General purposes.
152.
General duties.
153.
National Railroad Adjustment Board.
154.
National Mediation Board.
155.
Functions of Mediation Board.
156.
Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions.
157.
Arbitration.
158.
Agreement to arbitrate; form and contents; signatures and acknowledgment; revocation.
159.
Award and judgment thereon; effect of chapter on individual employee.
159a.
Special procedure for commuter service.
160.
Emergency board.
160a.
Rules and regulations.
161.
Effect of partial invalidity of chapter.
162.
Authorization of appropriations.
163.
Repeal of prior legislation; exception.
164.
Repealed.
165.
Evaluation and audit of Mediation Board.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—CARRIERS BY AIR

181.
Application of subchapter I to carriers by air.
182.
Duties, penalties, benefits, and privileges of subchapter I applicable.
183.
Disputes within jurisdiction of Mediation Board.
184.
System, group, or regional boards of adjustment.
185.
National Air Transport Adjustment Board.
186.
Omitted.
187.
Separability.
188.
Authorization of appropriations.
NO. 07-04-0413-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B AUGUST 9, 2004

______________________________ In re GREG ORIO SOTO, JR., Relator

_________________________________

Original Proceeding

_________________________________ Before JOHNSON, CJ., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ. Pen ding before this court is the petition of Gregorio Soto, Jr., for a writ of mandamus. As we cons true the doc ument, he wishes us to order Greg Abbott (Texas Attorney General), Ricky B. Smith (District Attorney of Garza County), and Jerry Hays (District Clerk of Garza County) to provide him with copies of court records and unprivileged documents

so that he may seek a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons which follow, we deny the petition. First, rules of procedure obligate one seeking manda mus relief t o accompany his petition with an appendi x. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j). The latter must include, among other things, a “certified or sworn copy of . . . [the] doc ument sho wing thematter com plained of.” In this case, the documents showing the matters complained of would at the very least be copies of documents showing the relief that has been so ught and a denia l of the same. Although relator refers to exhibits attached to his petition, we find n one a nd there is no2

record be fore us. T hus, rela tor not on ly faile d to compl y with th e rules of appell ate procedure

regulati ng manda mus, but a lso deni ed us a re cord suffi cient t o e nable us to assess his complaints. Second, to the ex

tent that relator wants us to order an entity

other than a trial co urt to act, we, as an appellate court, have jurisdiction to do so only when necessary to enforce
our jurisdic tion ove r a pendi ng appea l. In re Wash ington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. Ap p.— Houston [1 st D ist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). At bar, however, Soto fails to all ege that any such appeal pends. N or have we found a n appeal involvi ng Soto p ending o n our doc ket. Furthermore, the Open Records Act, to whi c h relator refers, does not grant original jurisdiction to courtsof appea l to issu e writs of mandamu s. Garner v. G ately, 909 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, orig. proceeding). Thus, we have no jurisdiction over the request fo r mandamu s relief. Third, and to the extent that relator seeks a decla ratory jud gment, no thing of record illustrates that the request either was presented to a trial court or that a trial court refused to act upon it. One a sking for mandamus

relief mu st first show that the trial court was asked to do som ething a nd that i t refused the reque st. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2 d 94, 97 (Tex. 19 92). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Brian Quinn Justice
JOINT 

Provision Effective 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

1. H.R. 1058, the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act" - Duty

to Ensure that IRS Employees are Familiar With andAct in Accordance With Certain Taxpayer Rights......... DOE

2. H.R. 1152, the "IRS Email Transparency Act" -

Prohibition of Use of Personal E-mail for OfficialGovernment Business..................................................... DOE

3. H.R. 1026, the "Taxpayer Knowledge of IRS

Investigations Act" - Release of InformationRegarding the Status of Certain Investigations............... dmo/a DOE

4. H.R. 1314, the "Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations

the Right to Appeal Act" - Require the Secretary ofthe Treasury to Describe Administrative AppealsRelating to Adverse Determination of Tax-ExemptStatus of Certain Organizations...................................... dma 5/19/14

5. H.R. 1295, the "IRS Bureaucracy Reduction and

Judicial Review Act" - Require Section 501(c)(4)Organizations to Provide Notice of Formation; generally ooa DOE &

Declaratory Judgments for Section 501(c)(4) [1]........... pfa DOE [2] 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 

6. H.R. 709, the "Prevent Targeting at the IRS Act" - 

Termination of Employment of Internal RevenueService Employees for Taking Official Actions forPolitical Purposes........................................................... DOE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Negligible Revenue Effect - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No Revenue Effect - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No Revenue Effect - - - - - - - - 

ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF VARIOUS BILLS

Fiscal Years 2015 - 2025

[Millions of Dollars] 

 SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON APRIL 15, 2015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No Revenue Effect - - - - - - - - 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No Revenue Effect - - - - - - - - 
Page 2

Provision Effective 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

7. H.R. 1104, the "Fair Treatment for All Gifts

Act" - Deduction from Gift Tax for Gifts Made toCertain Exempt Organizations........................................ gma DOE

Joint Committee on Taxation -------------------------------------- NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. The date of enactment is assumed to be July 1, 2015.Legend for "Effective" column: 

dmo/a = disclosures made on or after gma = gifts made afterdma = determinations made after ooa = organizations organized afterDOE = date of enactment pfa = pleadings filed after

[1] Estimate includes an increase in user fees of $15 million over the budget window, as provided by the Congressional Budget Office.[2] Gain of less than $500,000.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No Revenue Effect - - - - - - - -
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, David R. White, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IASIS Healthcare LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:December 21, 2007/s/David R. White
#### BRADLEY et al. v. BRIDGE et al. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. MORRIS et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 4, 1905.)

Actions by Peter B. Bradley and another against Charles F. Bridge and another, as receivers of the Bradley Salt Company, and by Walter H. Bradley against Edward H. Morris and others. No opinion. Judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 151

EX PA R TE I R I N EO R A N G EL , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. W 0 4 - 5 1 6 3 5 - Q I N T HE 2 0 4 TH DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM DALLAS CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u a n t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applican t wa s convicted of intox ication
a ssa ult and se nte nc e d to te n (10 ) y e a rs ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Th e F if th C ourt of Ap pe a ls d ism iss e d h is appea l be cause the notice of appe al was untimely filed. Se e Ra ng e l v . S

tat e , No. 05 -0 7- 00 99 4- CR (Tex. App.– Dallas, 2007, no pe t.) (not desig nated f or publication). Ap pli c a nt c on te nd s th a t his c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e be c a us e he fai led to timely file a notice of appea l. We r emande d this a pplication to the trial court f or finding s of fa ct and2

conclusions of law
. T h e tr ia l c o u rt h a s d e te r

mi n e d th a t t r ia l c o u n s e l f

a il e d to ti me ly f

il e a n o ti c e o f

a p p e a l. We find, t h erefore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time appe al of the jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n in Ca us e No
. F 04 -5 16 35 -Q fr om the 20 4th Judic ia l D istri c t Co ur

t of Da lla s County . Applicant is order ed re turned to t hat t ime at which he may g ive a wr itten notice of a ppeal so that he may

then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a mea ningf ul appea l. All tim e limits shall be
c a lc ulate d a s if

the se nte nc e ha d b e e n im

po se d o n th e date on

wh ic h the mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s. We h old that, s ho uld Ap pli c a nt de sir e to pr os e c ute a n ap pe a l, he mus t tak e a ff ir ma tiv e ste ps to f

ile
a wr itt e n n oti c e of

a pp e a l in the tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d a y s a ft e r t

he mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: May

6, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE CARPENTER GROUP,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

UNIVAN SHIP MANAGEMENT,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C 09-02589 JCS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised that the parties have agreed to a settlement of this case,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within sixty (60) days, with proof of service

of a copy thereon to opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been

delivered over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this case shall forthwith be restored to the

calendar to be set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 __________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02589-JCS Document 32 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2027

JOSEPHAT MUA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; 

VERJEANA M. JACOBS, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince 

George’s Public Schools; DR. WILLIAM R. HITE, JR., Individually and as 

superintendent; ROGER COLE THOMAS, Esquire; SYNTHIA SHILLING;

MONICA GOLDSON, Individually and as Associates superintendent of Prince 

George’s Public Schools; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, 

AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFSCME; ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED 

EMPLOYEES/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND 

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; PIERRE DICKSON, Individually and as agent of the 

Board of Education of Prince George’s County; DR. KEVIN MAXWELL, 

Individually and as superintendent of Prince George’s Public Schools; DR. ALVIN 

CRAWLEY, Individually and as superintendent; ROBERT J. GASKIN, 

Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince George’s Public Schools; DR. 

LILLIAN M. LOWERY; ARDRA MONIQUE O’NEAL; ABBEY G. HAIRSTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02249-PJM)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Judith E. Rivlin, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 

STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Washington, D.C.; Mark James 

Murphy, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, PC, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled motion to 

reopen his civil case against several defendants, and also challenges the district court’s 

decision to return to Mua a subsequently filed motion for reconsideration. Mua has also 

filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to exceed the length limitations for his 

informal brief, and to file amended and supplemental briefs. We have reviewed the 

record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the pending motions and 

affirm the district court’s order.

*

 See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cty., Md., 

No. 8:15-cv-02249-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 2, 2017). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * We discern no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to entertain Mua’s 

motion for reconsideration.
Re: CMAS Revisions 

Nick Parsons to: Cortney_Higgins 12/01/2011 11:00 AM

Cc: JohnB Chamberlin, Paul Versace, Penny Lassiter

Cortney,

Please use this version of the preamble instead. Some revisions were accidentally omitted.

EO12866_CMAS_2060-AQ89_Reconsideration_Proposal20110614_Interagency Comments Under EOs 12866 and 13563 EPA 120111.doc

Nick Parsons Cortney, Attached are further revisions to the CMAS p... 12/01/2011 10:50:05 AM

From: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Versace/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, JohnB 

Chamberlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/01/2011 10:50 AM

Subject: CMAS Revisions

Cortney,

Attached are further revisions to the CMAS preamble. Please let me know if you have any questions.
#### LOUGHLIN, Respondent, v. BRASSIL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 15, 1905.)

Action by Thomas Francis Loughlin, Jr., by his guardian ad litem, against Daniel S. Brassil. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
82°00"

30°00' [~

&-Li HN }

HOSITVO "SNIAHI #09 C70! is
sta ypreg-euay hoc

@ee'ose:]
! SIGUAININ SINIAA

7
PAN
;

~ oO.
4 ¢
ew aN
&&
Ys

fal

2
\
y

ol) & PR
08, | Ope
RATA

29°00" L_ -

82°00'

DEPTH
GRADIENTS °
° HEETS 78
Meters Feet ; ght __INDEK TO ADIOING | § a sw?”
° BA HYMI Bathymetric Contour Intervals: 10 meters METER S vaLDosTA VACKSONVILLE MESA.
DROG: SURVEY INFORMATIOI 50} 164 \T to 200 meter depth, : supplemented by 2 meter J NA Ine NH ITS | ag
i intervals, then fe) cat ITO :
sume, | sumer vay “natn ‘00 328 WITH , ence 5 meters to maximum depth, wnesvite| OATTOWAT oan
Hing sragina 4 ie supplemented by 10 meter intervals. NH T-7 mw NH 17-4
: 174
954 93 1:120,000 30: 's Ds Datum is Mean Low Water FAR PON ee
6220 93; 1:120.000 50-$ 200 686 PO ORLANDO | PILLSBURY
2: Tea.a00 so SPRINGS | NH Men | NH IT-I2
bee 18s Ee nox degth mat depth zee | _NH E10 M 7

PRELIMINARY DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA Raat mara est ake DA 70 NA BEACH iL
COPY 2'5 We 17-8 |

SUBJECT 10 REVIEW/REVISION