alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §20503. National procedures for voter registration for elections for Federal office

#### (a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), notwithstanding any other Federal or State law, in addition to any other method of voter registration provided for under State law, each State shall establish procedures to register to vote in elections for Federal office—

(1) by application made simultaneously with an application for a motor vehicle driver's license pursuant to section 20504 of this title;

(2) by mail application pursuant to section 20505 of this title; and

(3) by application in person—

(A) at the appropriate registration site designated with respect to the residence of the applicant in accordance with State law; and

(B) at a Federal, State, or nongovernmental office designated under section 20506 of this title.

#### (b) Nonapplicability to certain States

This chapter does not apply to a State described in either or both of the following paragraphs:

(1) A State in which, under law that is in effect continuously on and after August 1, 1994, there is no voter registration requirement for any voter in the State with respect to an election for Federal office.

(2) A State in which, under law that is in effect continuously on and after August 1, 1994, or that was enacted on or prior to August 1, 1994, and by its terms is to come into effect upon the enactment of this chapter, so long as that law remains in effect, all voters in the State may register to vote at the polling place at the time of voting in a general election for Federal office.

(Pub. L. 103–31, §4, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 78; Pub. L. 104–91, title I, §101(a), Jan. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 11, amended Pub. L. 104–99, title II, §211, Jan. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 37.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Upon the enactment of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), means the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–31, which was approved May 20, 1993.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1973gg–2 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–91 is based on section 116(a) of H.R. 2076, One Hundred Fourth Congress, as passed by the House of Representatives on Dec. 6, 1995, which was enacted into law by Pub. L. 104–91.

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–91, as amended by Pub. L. 104–99, substituted "August 1, 1994" for "March 11, 1993" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Section 116(b) of H.R. 2076, One Hundred Fourth Congress, as passed by the House of Representatives on Dec. 6, 1995, and as enacted into law by Pub. L. 104–91, title I, §101(a), Jan. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 11, as amended by Pub. L. 104–99, title II, §211, Jan. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 37, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 [Pub. L. 103–31, see Tables for classification]."
#### § 922.845 Civil penalties.

Part 845 of this chapter, *Civil Penalties,* shall apply when civil penalties are assessed for violations on surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50289 

(Summary Calendar)

__________________

DANTE D'AGOSTINO, III,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CYNDI KRIER, Judge, Commissioner's Court;

BEXAR COUNTY; RALPH LOPEZ, Sheriff; JOSE

PEPE LUCERO; JOHN C. SPARKS, Dr.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. SA-94-CA-321)

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Dante D'Agostino, III, appeals from summary judgment in favor

of Bexar County, Chief Judge Cyndi Krier, Sheriff Ralph Lopez, and

Director Pepe Lucero. He argues that the district court erred in

granting summary judgment on his claim that the defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. D'Agostino v. Krier, No. SA-94-CA-321 (W.D. Tex.
2

Mar. 31, 1995). The motions for production of documents and

appointment of counsel on appeal are DENIED.

 On appeal, D’Agostino can present no legal points arguable on

their merits, and the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it

is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. We caution D’Agostino that

any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. If D’Agostino has any pending appeals, we

caution him to review them to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 107 

Recognizing the importance of Tribal colleges and universities to the United 

States and expressing support for designating the week beginning February 5, 2023, as ‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2023 

Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas (for herself, Mr. COLE, Mrs. PELTOLA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. ADAMS, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. KILMER, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. 

STANSBURY, Mr. GALLEGO, and Mr. STAUBER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of Tribal colleges and universities to the United States and expressing support for 

designating the week beginning February 5, 2023, as 

‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

Whereas there are 35 accredited Tribal colleges and universities operating on more than 90 campuses in 15 States; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities are tribally chartered 

or federally chartered institutions of higher education and 

therefore have a unique relationship with the Federal 

Government; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 107 IH 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities serve students from 

more than 230 federally recognized Indian Tribes; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities offer students access 

to knowledge and skills grounded in cultural traditions 

and values, including indigenous languages, which— 

(1) enhances Indian communities; and 

(2) enriches the United States as a Nation; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities provide access to 

high-quality postsecondary educational opportunities 

for— 

(1) American Indians; 

(2) Alaska Natives; and 

(3) other individuals that live in some of the most 

isolated and economically depressed areas in the United 

States; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities are accredited institutions of higher education that prepare students to succeed in the global and highly competitive workforce; 

Whereas Tribal colleges and universities have open enrollment policies, and approximately 15 percent of the students at Tribal colleges and universities are non-Indian 

individuals; and 

Whereas the collective mission and the considerable achievements of Tribal colleges and universities deserve national 

recognition: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of 

3 ‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’; 

4 and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 107 IH 

1 (2) calls on the people of the United States and 

2 interested groups to observe ‘‘National Tribal Col3 leges and Universities Week’’ with appropriate ac4 tivities and programs to demonstrate support for 

5 Tribal colleges and universities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
§ 1624.5 Order to report for induction. ( a ) Immediately upon determining which persons are to be ordered for induction, the Director of Selective Service shall issue to each person selected an Order to Report for Induction. The order will be sent to the current address most recently provided by the registrant to the Selective Service System. The date specified to report for induction shall be at least 10 days after the date on which the Order to Report for Induction is issued. The filing of a claim for reclassification in accord with § 1633.2 of this chapter delays the date the registrant is required to report for induction until not earlier than the tenth day after the claim is determined to have been abandoned or is finally determined is finally determined in accord with the provisions of this chapter. A claim is finally determined when the registrant does not have the right to appeal the last classification action with respect to the claim or he fails to exercise his right to appeal.
( b ) Any person who has been ordered for induction who is distant from the address to which the order was sent must either report at the time and place specified in the order, or voluntarily submit himself for induction processing at another MEPS on or before the day that he was required to report in accordance with his induction order.
( c ) The Director of Selective Service may direct the cancellation of any Order to Report for Induction at any time.
( d ) Any Order to Report for Induction issued by the Director of Selective Service to a registrant who is an alien, who has not resided in the United States for one year will be void. Such order will be deemed only to be an order to produce evidence of his status. When an alien registrant has been within the United States for two or more periods (including periods before his registration) and the total of such periods equals one year, he shall be deemed to have resided in the United States for one year. In computing the length of such periods, any portion of one day shall be counted as a day. Upon establishing a one year residency, the alien registrant will be assigned to the age selection group corresponding to his age.
[47 FR 4648, Feb. 1, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 24455, July 1, 1987]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George W. Kahler, Jr., Appellant.

Motion for enlargement of time within which to perfect appeal. Motion granted and time to perfect appeal, file note of issue, and to file and serve record and brief is extended to the 15th day of August, 1960, and the ease is placed on the calendar for the September Term for argument. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
### §833. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XVI, §1633(b)(2), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2751

Section, act Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title III, §303, as added Mar. 26, 1964, Pub. L. 88–290, 78 Stat. 169; amended Oct. 27, 1972, Pub. L. 92–596, §7, 86 Stat. 1318; Oct. 21, 1977, Pub. L. 95–140, §3(c), 91 Stat. 1173; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783; Oct. 1, 1986, Pub. L. 99–433, title I, §110(h)(3), 100 Stat. 1004, related to termination of employment.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1635 of Pub. L. 104–201, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 1593 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
EXHIBIT
      32.1*








Section
      1350 Certification








I,
      Richard M. Haddock, the chief
      executive officer of LaserCard Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of
      the United States Code that, to my knowledge:





(i)           the
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending
      September 30, 2007 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934, and





(ii)           the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  November
      5, 2007








/s/Richard
      M. Haddock


Richard
      M. Haddock








_______________________





*           The
      material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and
      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
      the
      Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made
      before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in such filing.










46
#### Luther Hughes, Jr., Plaintiff, v Marion L. Thompson, Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Luther Hughes, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Marion L. Thompson, Defendant. (Action No. 2.) Marion L. Thompson, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Kent Starbird, Third-Party Defendant. (Action No. 3.) Kent Starbird, Fourth-Party Plaintiff, v Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, and American Home Assurance Company, Fourth-Party Defendant. (Action No. 4.)

Motion for reargument granted to the extent that the ordering paragraph of the remittitur order entered October 27, 1978 is amended to read as follows: "It is hereby ordered, That the order so appealed from be, and the same hereby is unanimously modified to provide that in the management of her defense in the action to determine liability, defendant Marion L. Thompson in Action No. 2 shall not interpose the *1031defense of bankruptcy, and, as modified, the order is affirmed without costs.” The court’s decision dated October 27, 1978 [65 AD2d 674] is amended to read as follows: "Order unanimously modified to provide that in the management of her defense in the action to determine liability, defendant Marion L. Thompson in Action No. 2 shall not interpose the defense of bankruptcy, and, as modified, order affirmed without costs.” Present— Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simmons, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
### §504. Delegation of authority by Secretary of Defense; contributions for support

The Secretary of Defense is authorized, in his discretion, to transfer to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Navy, and to retransfer from either of such Secretaries to the other or to the Secretary of the Air Force, all, or any part of, the authority granted by sections 501 and 502 of this title; and, in connection with any such transfer or retransfer, to transfer all or any part of the funds available for the establishment and support of the joint long-range proving ground for guided missiles and other weapons. The Secretary of Defense is further authorized to permit, to the extent that he may deem appropriate, the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to contribute, with or without reimbursement, to the establishment and support of the joint long-range proving ground for guided missiles authorized by this chapter, by the loan, assignment, or transfer of personnel, supplies, equipment, and services.

(May 11, 1949, ch. 98, §4, 63 Stat. 66.)
### §300309. Indian tribe

In this division, the term "Indian tribe" means an Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including a Native village, Regional Corporation or Village Corporation (as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)), that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3189.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 300309 | 16 U.S.C. 470w(4). | Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §301(4), as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3001; Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4019(a)(3), Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4763. |

Section
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Freeman, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed in accordance with the same memorandum as in *People v Thomas*(66 AD2d 1001). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court— assault, second degree, and other charges). Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsU-groove aluminum weld strength improvementThough butt-welds are among the most preferred joining methods in aerostructures, their strength dependence on inelastic mechanics is generally the least understood. This study investigated experimental strain distributions across a thick aluminum U-grooved weld and identified two weld process considerations for improving the multipass weld strength. The extreme thermal expansion and contraction gradient of the fusion heat input across the groove tab thickness produces severe peaking which induces bending under uniaxial loading. The filler strain-hardening deceased with increasing filler pass sequence, producing the weakest welds on the last pass side. Current welding schedules unknowingly compound these effects which reduce the weld strength. A de-peaking index model was developed to select filler pass thicknesses, pass numbers, and sequences to improve de-peaking in the welding process. Intent is to combine the strongest weld pass side with the peaking induced bending tension to provide a more uniform stress and stronger weld under axial tensile loading.Document ID19960031911Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsVerderaime, V.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Vaughan, R.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville,AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1995Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:111444SDM 96-1576NASA-TM-111444Meeting InformationMeeting: SDM ConferenceLocation: Salt Lake City, UTCountry: United StatesStart Date: April 15, 1996End Date: April 17, 1996Accession Number96N29904Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960031911.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §7508. Authority to extend the duration of medical certificates

(a) Granting of Extensions.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may extend for not more than one year a medical certificate issued to an individual holding a license, merchant mariner's document, or certificate of registry issued under chapter 71 or 73 if the Secretary determines that the extension is required to enable the Coast Guard to eliminate a backlog in processing applications for medical certificates or is in response to a national emergency or natural disaster.

(b) Manner of Extension.—An extension under this section may be granted to an individual or a specifically identified group of individuals.

(Added Pub. L. 112–213, title III, §306(a), Dec. 20, 2012, 126 Stat. 1565; amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8505(b)(6), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4751.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "an individual or a specifically identified group of individuals" for "individual seamen or a specifically identified group of seamen".
#### John E. Nichols *vs.*City of Duluth.

April 23, 1889.

City — Liability for Kemoving Lateral Support of Land in Grading Street — Negligence Immaterial — A land-owner has a right to the lateral support of the soil in the adjoining street, and a city is liable for any damage occasioned by removing this lateral support in grading the street. Following *Dyer*v. *City of St. Paul,*27 Minn. 457.

Same — Lawful Courses Open to City. — It is no defence that the act was necessary for the purpose of grading. If the city desires to excavate the soil of the street which naturally renders lateral support to adjoining property, it must acquire the right to do so by the exercise of eminent domain, or else substitute other lateral support in place of the soil removed. This right of the lateral support of the adjoining soil, being a natural one, is absolute, and independent of any question of negligence.

This action and four others, (in which Celia E. V. Brown, Shubart E. White, Martha A. Triggs, and Charles H. Eldridge were severally plaintiffs) against the same defendant, were tried together in the district court for St. Louis county, before *Stearns,*J., and a jury, and a separate verdict returned in each for the plaintiff. In each case the defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

*T. L. Smith,*for appellant, in each case.

*White, Shannon & Reynolds,*for respondent, in each case.

Mitchell, J.

These actions were brought to recover the cost of a retaining wall built by the several respondents to support the soil of their respective lots so as to prevent it from falling into the adjoining street. The evidence abundantly supports the verdict of the *390jury that the construction of the wall was rendered necessary by reason of the appellant city excavating the street (in grading it) so as to remove the lateral support which it naturally rendered to the soil of the adjacent property of respondent. On these facts the doctrine of *O'Brien*v. *City of St. Paul,*25 Minn. 331, and *Dyer*v. *City of St. Paul,*27 Minn. 457, (8 N. W. Rep. 272,) is decisive of the present cases. Every person has a right *ex jure natures*to the lateral support of the adjoining soil, and is entitled to damages for its removal. A municipal corporation has no greater rights or powers in that regard over the soil of the streets than a private owner has over his own land, and will be liable in damages for removing this lateral support the same as would a private owner if improving his property for his own use. It is no defence that the excavation was necessary for the purpose of grading the street. If the city desires greater rights than those possessed by private owners it must acquire them by the exercise of eminent domain. It must either do this, or else itself substitute other lateral support in place of the soil which it removes. The liability of the city in these cases does not depend, as appellant assumes, upon its negligence in making the excavation. This right of the lateral support of the adjoining soil, being a natural one, is absolute, and independent of any question of negligence.

Orders affirméd.