alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §12108. Authority to extend duration of vessel certificates

(a) Certificates.—Provided a vessel is in compliance with inspection requirements in section 3313, the Secretary of the department in which in the Coast Guard is operating may, if the Secretary makes the determination described in subsection (b), extend, for a period of not more than 1 year, an expiring certificate of documentation issued for a vessel under chapter 121.

(b) Determination.—The determination referred to in subsection (a) is a determination that such extension is required to enable the Coast Guard to—

(1) eliminate a backlog in processing applications for such certificates; or

(2) act in response to a national emergency or natural disaster.

(c) Manner of Extension.—Any extension granted under this section may be granted to individual vessels or to a specifically identified group of vessels.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXIII [LXXXIII], §8320(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4701.)
### §922. Employee stock ownership plan for surviving portion of Milwaukee Railroad

If an event described in section 920(b) of this title occurs, resulting in the survival of less than the entire Milwaukee Railroad system, then any relief provided for such surviving Milwaukee Railroad system under the Emergency Rail Services Act of 1970 [45 U.S.C. 661 et seq.] or any other Federal legislation shall be conditioned upon good faith efforts by the trustee or the Milwaukee Railroad, or both, to establish an employee stock ownership plan which shall embrace the purchase or acquisition of qualifying employer securities of the Milwaukee Railroad equal in value to 25 per centum of the amount of such relief provided.

(Pub. L. 96–101, §26, Nov. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 747.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Emergency Rail Services Act of 1970, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 91–663, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1975, which is classified generally to chapter 15 (§661 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 661 of this title and Tables.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

GABRIEL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, AND TRACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC , Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATE D, SNAPTRACK, INC.,

AND NORMAN KRASNER, Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________

2013

- 1058

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California i n No. 08

- CV

- 1992, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL E. S ALZMAN , Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff s- appellants. With him on the brief was R ONALD A BRAMSON

. Of counsel

was P ETER A. S ULLIVAN

.

T IMOTHY S. T ETER , Cooley LLP, of Palo Alto , Califo rnia, argued for defendants

- appellees. With him on the brief were J EFFREY S. K ARR and L ORI R. M ASON , of PaloAlto, California , and S TEVEN M. S TRAUSS , of San Diego, California.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , M AYER , and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 18, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natual Resources Division

DJ # 90-5-2-4-18110/1

Environmental Defense Section

P. O. Box 23986

L 'Enfant Plaza Station

Washington, DC 20026-3986

Telephone (202) 305-0331

Facsimile (202) 514-8865

November 3, 2009

By email and first class mail

Travis E. Stils, Esq.

Energy Minerals Law Center

1911 Main Avenue, Suite 238

Durango, CO 81301

Re: Settlement Agreement in Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste and Rocky

Mountain Clean Air Action v. Lisa P. Jackson. in her official capacity as

Administrator. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Civ. Action No.

08-cv-01787-REB-MEH (D. Colo.).

Dear Travis:

Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") in this matter, I am

writing to inform you that the EP A Administrator has consented to the Agreement and that the

Agreement is therefore final as ofthe date of this letter. Accordingly, the steps EP A agreed to

undertake as outlined in Paragraph 3 of the Agreement are now operative. In addition, as set

forth in Paragraph 4 ofthe Agreement, the United States has agreed to pay Plaintiffs certain

statutory costs and attorneys' fees in the amount of $27,427.50. Please provide me with the

account and routing information referenced in Paragraph 4 so that the appropriate requ.est for

payment can be made.

Paragraph 2 of the Agreement required Plaintiffs to fie a motion to administratively close

the case under D.C.Colo.LCivR 41.2 within 10 business days of the date this Agreement became

final pursuant to Paragraph 12. However, in response to the paries joint motion made pursuant

to Paragraph 1 that the case be stayed pending completion of the process under section 113(g) of

the Clean Air Act, the cour on its own initiative issued an order to administratively close the .

case. Thus, there is no need to make a separate motion to administratively close the case.

The final action in the case, a motion by Plaintiffs for voluntar dismissal of the

Complaint with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a), is required by Paragraph 2 of the

Agreement. That motion is to be fied within 10 business days after publication in the Federal

Register of EP A's promulgation of either: (1) EP A's issuance of a final determination not to

revise Subpar W; or (2) EPA's promulgation ofa final revision of Subpar W.

I am glad that we were able to resolve this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me

with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely, ~~~al~~

Environmental Defense Section
cc: Susan Stahe, EP A Office of General Counsel

- 2 -
§ 570.304 Making of grants. ( a ) *Approval of grant.* HUD will approve a grant if the jurisdiction's submissions have been made and approved in accordance with 24 CFR part 91, and the certifications required therein are satisfactory to the Secretary. The certifications will be satisfactory to the Secretary for this purpose unless the Secretary has determined pursuant to subpart O of this part that the grantee has not complied with the requirements of this part, has failed to carry out its consolidated plan as provided under § 570.903, or has determined that there is evidence, not directly involving the grantee's past performance under this program, that tends to challenge in a substantial manner the grantee's certification of future performance. If the Secretary makes any such determination, however, further assurances may be required to be submitted by the grantee as the Secretary may deem warranted or necessary to find the grantee's certification satisfactory.
( b ) *Grant agreement.* The grant will be made by means of a grant agreement executed by both HUD and the grantee.
( c ) *Grant amount.* The Secretary will make a grant in the full entitlement amount, generally within the last 30 days of the grantee's current program year, unless: ( 1 ) Either the consolidated plan is not received by August 16 of the federal fiscal year for which funds are appropriated or the consolidated plan is not approved under 24 CFR part 91, subpart F—in which case, the grantee will forfeit the entire entitlement amount; or
( 2 ) The grantee's performance does not meet the performance requirements or criteria prescribed in subpart O and the grant amount is reduced.
[53 FR 34449, Sept. 6, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 1915, Jan. 5, 1995; 60 FR 16379, Mar. 30, 1995; 60 FR 56913, Nov. 9, 1995]
### §31111. Claims by nationals of foreign countries

A national of a foreign country may not maintain a civil action under this chapter unless it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is brought that the government of that country, in similar circumstances, allows nationals of the United States to sue in its courts.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1522.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 31111 | 46 App.:785. | Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 428, §5, 43 Stat. 1113. |

Section
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2427

WOJCIECH M. TURKOWSKI,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A28-886-342)

Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: May 3, 1999

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wojciech M. Turkowski, Petitioner Pro Se. Marion Edward Guyton,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wojciech Turkowski petitions for review of a final order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his application

for asylum and withholding of deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial

evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the Board. In re Turkowski, No. A28-886-342

(Bd. Imm. App., Aug. 27, 1998). Turkowski’s motions to dismiss

Respondent’s counsel, to deny Respondent an extension of time to

file a brief, and to transfer his case to a criminal court are

denied. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Air Call New York Corp. et al., Appellants, v Public Service Commission et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 16, 1977 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to direct the Public Service Commission to conduct a hearing into the propriety of a proposed tariff of New York Telephone for the introduction of "Bellboy” radio paging service in New York City and to order a suspension of such tariff pending such hearing, or, in the alternative, to order an interim tariff pending this hearing. Petitioners allege that they were denied due process by the Public Service Commission’s procedures in allowing the proposed tariff to become effective over their objections without affording petitioners a hearing or other opportunity to study and respond to the material submitted by the respondent, New York Telephone Company. Respondents allege that the respondent commission properly allowed the rates to become effective without a hearing; that a hearing is discretionary with the commission and, under the circumstances, upon the facts presented, it was not an abuse of discretion to make the determination without a hearing. Subdivision 2 of section 92 of the Public Service Law grants to the commission the discretion to permit proposed rates filed with it to go into effect without a hearing *(Bronx Gas & Elec. Co. v Maltbie,*268 NY 278; *Matter of Campo Corp. v Feinberg,*279 App Div 302, affd 303 NY 995). The record indicates respondent, New York Telephone *1128Company, submitted extensive cost-data material to the commission. This was analyzed by the commission’s staff which concluded that it was fully compensatory. The analysis indicated that petitioners’ complaint and New York Telephone Company’s response were fully considered by the staff as such related to the question of the rates being compensatory. The record demonstrates that the commission acted upon substantial evidence and with a rational basis in arriving at its decision. On the other hand, petitioners offer no substantial evidence that the data supplied to the commission was not credible or that the commission improperly analyzed such data. The judgment of Special Term should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §1748a–1. Request for additional wildfire suppression funds

If the amount provided for wildfire suppression operations for that fiscal year will be exhausted within 30 calendar days, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture (as applicable), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall promptly submit a request to Congress for supplemental appropriations.

(Pub. L. 115–141, div. O, title I, §103, Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1060.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Wildfire Suppression Funding and Forest Management Activities Act, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, and not as part of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 which comprises this chapter.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- Yujie J. Ding d/b/a Arklight Under Contract No. FA8650-07-C-5407 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60215

Peter J. Scuderi, Esq.

Philadelphia, PA E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Wayne J. Bober, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Philadelphia, PA ORDER OF DISMISSAL Forreasons indicated by one or both parties, the Board is unable to proceed with disposition ofthis appeal for an inordinate length oftime due to factors not within the control ofthe Board. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Board Rule 18(b). Unless eitherparty or the Board acts to reinstate the appeal within one year from the date ofthis Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with prejudice. Dated: 4 April 2017

Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60215, Appeal ofYujie J. Ding d/b/a Arklight, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
### SUBCHAPTER V—REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES
#### Robert Hindin, Appellant, v. Mutual Trust Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### City of Chicago, appellee, v. Harry Merrill, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,686.

Suit against City of Chicago. Judgpient for city. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. C. Pitch, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed for failure of appellant to file record.

See City v. Salmitsky, 210 Ill. App. 159.

Opinion filed June 25, 1923.

No appearance for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.
### §§94, 95. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section 94, act Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 345, §4, 24 Stat. 491, authorized Secretary of the Treasury, whenever deemed necessary by President, to redeem liens, mortgages, or other incumbrances paramount to right, title, or interest of United States in railroad property.

Section 95, act Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 345, §5, 24 Stat. 492, related to permissible investments of sinking funds held to secure debts of railroad companies to United States.
**Exhibit 99.5**

****

 

** **

****

**EXHIBIT 99.5**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS**

 

We hereby consent to the use of and referenceto our name and our reports, and the inclusion of information derived from our reports, evaluating Vermilion Energy Inc.’spetroleum and natural gas reserves and resources as at December 31, 2013, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Vermilion EnergyInc., and any amendment thereof.

 

Yours very truly,

 

*(“GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.”)	*

 

GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.

4100, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W.,

Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2

(403) 266-9500 Fax (403) 262-1855

 

March 7, 2014

****
§ 850.1 Applicability and savings clause. ( a ) *Applicability.* This part implements the Housing Development Grant Program contained in section 17 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437o). The Program authorized the Secretary to make housing development grants to support the new construction or substantial rehabilitation of real property to be used primarily for residential rental purposes. Section 289(b)(1) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12839) repealed section 17 effective October 1, 1991. Section 289(a) prohibited new grants under the Housing Development Grant Program except for projects for which binding commitments had been entered into prior to October 1, 1991.
( b ) *Savings clause.* Any grant made pursuant to a binding commitment entered into before October 1, 1991 will continue to be governed by subparts A through E of this part in effect immediately before April 1, 1996, and by subpart F of this part as currently in effect.
[61 FR 7944, Feb. 29, 1996]
### §5113. Detention of vessels

(a) When the Secretary believes that a vessel is about to leave a place in the United States in violation of this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this chapter, the Secretary may detain the vessel by giving notice to the owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, or individual in charge of the vessel.

(b) A detained vessel may be cleared under section 60105 of this title only after the violation has been corrected. If the vessel was cleared before being detained, the clearance shall be withdrawn.

(c) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, or individual in charge of a detained vessel may petition the Secretary to review the detention order.

(d) After reviewing a petition, the Secretary may affirm, withdraw, or change the detention order. Before acting on the petition, the Secretary may require any independent survey that may be necessary to determine the condition of the vessel.

(e) The owner of a vessel is liable for the cost incident to a petition for review and any required survey if the vessel is found to be in violation of this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 99–509, title V, §5101(2), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1918; Pub. L. 109–304, §15(20), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1703.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### Revised section 5113

Source: Section (U.S. Code) 46 App. U.S.C. 86h, 88f.

Section 5113 authorizes the Secretary to detain a vessel if the Secretary believes that the vessel is in violation of the load line requirements, and describes the process through which a vessel may be cleared. It also states that a vessel owner is liable for certain costs resulting from a petition for review and load line survey that is made pursuant to a violation of load line requirements.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–304 substituted "section 60105 of this title" for "section 4197 of the Revised Statutes (46 App. U.S.C. 91)".
### **CHAPTER 461—FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION**

Sec.
46101.
General organization.
46102.
Quorum.
46103.
Meetings.
46104.
Delegation of authority.
46105.
Regulations.
46106.
Annual report.
46107.
Expenditures.
46108.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXVI [LXXXVI], §8605(b)(6), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4765, which directed the general amendment of the analysis for this chapter "as so redesignated" by section 8605(a)(2) of Pub. L. 116–283 (see note below) by setting out only new items 46101 to 46108 with no chapter heading, was executed by substituting items 46101 to 46108 for former items 301 to 308 and not including the redesignated chapter heading, to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the separate enactment of the heading for this chapter by section 8605(a)(1) of Pub. L. 116–283.

Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXVI [LXXXVI], §8605(a)(2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4765, renumbered chapter 3 of this title as this chapter.

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–282, title VII, §711(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4298, substituted "Meetings" for "Record of meetings and votes" in item 303.

**2016**—Pub. L. 114–120, title IV, §401(b), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 67, added item 308.
___________ No. 96-1259

___________ Roy C. Henderson, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Marvin Evans, Eddie Yarbrough, * Ivan King and Luther Alexander, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: September 9, 1996 Filed: September 17, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Roy C. Henderson, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Corre ction, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several prison officials , alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. Ultimately a jury returned a verdict in Henderson's favor against one of the defendants and awarded Henderson$500 in damages. Judgment was entered in accordance with th e juryverdict. In addition, the District Court granted a motion filed by Henderson's court-appointed attorney for attorne y fees and expenses in the total amount of $10,487.80. The stat e appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion i n failing to reduce the amount of fees and expense s requested by Henderson's counse l, considering that Henderson prevailed against only one of th e defendants and on less than all

### -2-

of his c laims. Having reviewed the case, we conclude that no abuse o f discretionoccurred. Given the circumstances of the case, we cannot say that the award of fees and expenses is unreasonable in amount.
AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.09\Chappel, K1.eot.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH W. CHAPPELL JR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SF COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant(s). / 

No. C 09-2825 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Good cause appearing, plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a First Amended

Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by no later than March 26,

2010. No further extensions of time will be granted.

The clerk shall terminate the motion in docket number 6. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Feb. 16, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02825-CRB Document 7 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 5

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

#### § 5.524 Compliance with nondiscrimination requirements.

The responsible entity shall administer the restrictions on use of assisted housing by noncitizens with ineligible immigration status imposed by this part in conformity with all applicable nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements, including, but not limited to, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-5) and the implementing regulations in 24 CFR part 1, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and the implementing regulations in 24 CFR part 8, the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619) and the implementing regulations in 24 CFR part 100.