alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 5, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10057 Summary Calendar

RONROYAL J. OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CV-1333 USDC No. 3:03-CV-1334

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ronroyal J. Owens, Texas prisoner # 851492, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of
a FED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion. The Rule 60(b) motion was taken from the dismissal as time-barred of Owens’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his convictions for indecency with a child and attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen.No. 06-10057 -2- A COA is required for an appeal from “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The denial of Owens’s Rule 60(b) motion is not such an order. See Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005); Dunn v. Cockrell , 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir. 2002). The motion for a COA is denied as
unnecessary. A district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Warfield v. Byron , 436 F.3d 551, 555 (5th Cir. 2006). Owens argues that the district court erred by failing to find that he was prevented from filing his § 2254 application by a state-created impediment as in Egerton v. Cockrell , 334 F.3d 433, 437-39 (5th Cir. 2003). Rule 60(b) may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). As Owens has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 60(b) motion, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
MOTION FOR COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; AFFIRMED.
### **CHAPTER 90—LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE**

Sec.
9001.
Definitions.
9002.
Availability of insurance.
9003.
Contracting authority.
9004.
Financing.
9005.
Preemption.
9006.
Studies, reports, and audits.
9007.
Jurisdiction of courts.
9008.
Administrative functions.
9009.
Cost accounting standards.
# C_2010288EN.01002801.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — British Aggregates and Others v Commission

(Case T-359/04) (1)

(State aid - Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom - Exemption for Northern Ireland - Commission decision not to raise objections - Serious difficulties - Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection)

(2010/C 288/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom), Healy Bros. Ltd (Middleton, Ireland) and David K. Trotter & Sons Ltd (represented by: C. Pouncey, Solicitor, and L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Flett and T. Scharf, Agents)

Intervening party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented initially by M. Bethell and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and I. Rao, and lastly by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Hall and G. Facenna, Barristers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 final of 7 May 2004 not to raise objections to the modified exemption for Northern Ireland in the context of the scheme of levies on aggregates in the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 final of 7 May 2004 not to raise objections to the change in the exemption, in Northern Ireland, from the levy on aggregates in the United Kingdom; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 1614 final of 7 May 2004 not to raise objections to the change in the exemption, in Northern Ireland, from the levy on aggregates in the United Kingdom;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the British Aggregates Association, Healy Bros. Ltd and David K. Trotter & Sons Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the British Aggregates Association, Healy Bros. Ltd and David K. Trotter & Sons Ltd;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

---
### §2586. Defense environmental cleanup technology program

#### (a) Establishment of program

The Secretary of Energy shall establish and carry out a program of research for the development of technologies useful for—

(1) the reduction of environmental hazards and contamination resulting from defense waste; and

(2) environmental restoration of inactive defense waste disposal sites.

#### (b) Definitions

As used in this section:

(1) The term "defense waste" means waste, including radioactive waste, resulting primarily from atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy.

(2) The term "inactive defense waste disposal site" means any site (including any facility) under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy which is used for the disposal of defense waste and is closed to the disposal of additional defense waste, including any site that is subject to decontamination and decommissioning.

(Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIV, §4406, formerly Pub. L. 101–189, div. C, title XXXI, §3141, Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1679; Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXI, §3152(g), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2042; renumbered Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIV, §4406, and amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(g)(7), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1765; Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(e)(7), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1077; Pub. L. 113–291, div. C, title XXXI, §3142(g), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3900.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 7274a of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 108–136.

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–291 substituted "useful for—" for "useful for" before par. (1) designation and "; and" for ", and" at end of par. (1) and realigned margins of pars. (1) and (2).

2013—Pub. L. 113–66, §3146(e)(7)(A), substituted "environmental" for "waste" in section catchline.

Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 113–66, §3146(e)(7)(B), (C), which directed amendment of section by striking subsecs. (b) and (c) and redesignating subsec. (d) as (b), was executed by striking subsec. (b), which related to coordination of research activities, and redesignating subsec. (c) as (b) to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the amendment by Pub. L. 105–85, §3152(g), which redesignated former subsec. (d) as (c). See 1997 Amendment note below.

2003—Pub. L. 108–136, §3141(g)(7)(D), made technical amendment to section catchline.

1997—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 105–85 redesignated subsec. (d) as (c) and struck out former subsec. (c) which required Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress not later than Apr. 1 each year a report on research activities of Department of Energy for development of technologies referred to in subsec. (a).
### Stratigraphy, paleontology, and geology of the central Santa Cruz Mountains, California Coast Ranges

By: Joseph C. Clark

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1168

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (11549 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (5447 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 2**                            (7326 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6826
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DIRK LADSON, a/k/a Dezo, a/k/a Eugene Martin, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-93-162, CA-97-423-2) Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before HALL, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dirk Ladson, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Cathy Ellen Krinick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ladson , Nos. CR-93-162; CA-97-423-2 (E.D. Va. May 27, 1997). 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
§ 1701.11 ODNI responsibility for responding to requests for amendment or correction. ( a ) *Acknowledgement of request.* The D/IMO shall acknowledge receipt of a request for amendment or correction of records in writing and provide an assigned request number for further reference.
( b ) *Tasking of component.* Upon receipt of a proper request to amend or correct a record, the D/IMO shall forward the request to the POC in the component maintaining the record. The POC shall promptly evaluate the proposed amendment or correction in light of any supporting justification and recommend that the D/IMO grant or deny the request or, if the request involves a record subject to correction by an originating agency, refer the request to the other agency.
( c ) *Action on request for amendment or correction.* ( 1 ) If the POC determines that the request for amendment or correction is justified, in whole or in part, the D/IMO shall promptly: ( i ) Make the amendment, in whole or in part, as requested and provide the requester a written description of the amendment or correction made; and
( ii ) Provide written notice of the amendment or correction to all persons, organizations or agencies to which the record has been disclosed (if an accounting of the disclosure was made);
( 2 ) Where the D/IMO has referred an amendment request to another agency, the D/IMO, upon confirmation from that agency that the amendment has been effected, shall provide written notice of the amendment or correction to all persons, organizations or agencies to which ODNI previously disclosed the record.
( 3 ) If the POC determines that the requester's records are accurate, relevant, timely and complete, and that no basis exists for amending or correcting the record, either in whole or in part, the D/IMO shall inform the requester in writing of: ( i ) The reason(s) for the denial; and
( ii ) The procedure for appeal of the denial under Sec. 1701.15 of this subpart.
§ 1633.1 Classifying authority. The following officials are authorized to classify registrants into the indicated classes established by part 1630 of this chapter: ( a ) The Director of Selective Service may in accord with the provisions of this chapter classify a registrant into any class for which he is eligible except Classes 1-A-0, 1-0, 2-D, 3-A, and 4-D: *Provided,* That, the Director may not reclassify a registrant other than a volunteer for induction, into Class 1-A out of another class prior to the expiration of the registrant's entitlement to such classification. The Director may, before issuing an induction order to a registrant, appropriately classify him if the Secretary of Defense has certified him to be a member of an armed force or reserve component thereof.
( b ) The National Selective Service Appeal Board may in accord with part 1653 of this chapter classify a registrant into any class for which he is eligible.
( c ) A district appeal board may in accord with part 1651 of this chapter classify a registrant into any class for which he is eligible.
( d ) A local board may in accord with part 1648 of this chapter classify a registrant into Class 1-A-0, 1-0, 2-D, 3-A, or 4-D for which he is eligible.
( e ) A local board may also classify a registrant into Class 1-C, 1-D-D, 1-D-E, 1-O-S, 1-W, 3-A-S, 4-A, 4-A-A, 4-B, 4-C, 4-F, 4-G, 4-T or 4-W for which he is eligible upon request by the registrant for a review of a classification denial action under § 1633.1(f). No individual shall be classified into Class 4-F unless the Secretary of Defense has determined that he is unacceptable for military service.
( f ) Compensated employees of an area office may in accord with § 1633.2 may classify a registrant into an administrative class for which he is eligible. No individual shall be classified into Class 4-F unless the Secretary of Defense has determined that he is unacceptable for military service.
[47 FR 4654, Feb. 1, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 24456, July 1, 1987]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9915 

To permanently extend the first right of refusal for the purchase of Tribal 

assets, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 4, 2024 

Mr. CURTIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To permanently extend the first right of refusal for the 

purchase of Tribal assets, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ASSET MANAGEMENT. 

4 Public Law 83–671 is amended as follows: 

5 (1) In section 10— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘jointly by the Tribal Busi7 ness Committee and the authorized representa8 tives of the mixed-blood group’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘by the Tribal Business Committee’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9915 IH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘in the joint management 

2 with the tribe and’’. 

3 (2) By amending section 15 to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 15. (a) Any member of the mixed-blood group 

5 may dispose of his interest in the tribal assets prior to 

6 termination of Federal supervision, subject to the approval 

7 of the Secretary. In the event a member of the mixed8 blood group or any other individual or entity determines 

9 to dispose of his interest in any of said real property at 

10 any time by gift, sale, or any form of transfer that divests 

11 such individual or entity of any right, title, or interest in 

12 such real property, he shall first offer it to the Tribe, and 

13 no gift, sale, or any form of transfer that divests such 

14 individual or entity of any right, title, or interest in such 

15 real property shall be authorized without such offer to the 

16 Tribe. After termination of Federal supervision the re17 quirement of such offer, in form to be approved by the 

18 Secretary, shall be a covenant to run with the land, and 

19 shall be expressly provided in any patent or deed issued. 

20 ‘‘(b) The Secretary shall maintain a list of all individ21 uals and entities holding an interest in tribal assets and, 

22 on an annual basis, notify those individuals and entities 

23 that any gift, sale, or any form of transfer that divests 

24 such individual or entity of any right, title, or interest in 

25 such real property must first be made to the Tribe.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 9915 IH

1 (3) In section 17, by striking ‘‘aiding in the 

2 joint management with the tribe and in’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### **CHAPTER 1017—FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS**

Sec.
101701.
Challenge cost-share agreement authority.
101702.
Cooperative agreements.
101703.
Cooperative management agreements.
101704.
Reimbursable agreements.
§ 196.230 Transition plans. ( a ) *Submission of plans.* An institution to which § 196.225 applies and that is composed of more than one administratively separate unit may submit either a single transition plan applicable to all such units, or a separate transition plan applicable to each such unit.
( b ) *Content of plans.* In order to be approved by the Secretary of Education, a transition plan shall: ( 1 ) State the name, address, and Federal Interagency Committee on Education Code of the educational institution submitting such plan, the administratively separate units to which the plan is applicable, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom questions concerning the plan may be addressed. The person who submits the plan shall be the chief administrator or president of the institution, or another individual legally authorized to bind the institution to all actions set forth in the plan.
( 2 ) State whether the educational institution or administratively separate unit admits students of both sexes as regular students and, if so, when it began to do so.
( 3 ) Identify and describe with respect to the educational institution or administratively separate unit any obstacles to admitting students without discrimination on the basis of sex.
( 4 ) Describe in detail the steps necessary to eliminate as soon as practicable each obstacle so identified and indicate the schedule for taking these steps and the individual directly responsible for their implementation.
( 5 ) Include estimates of the number of students, by sex, expected to apply for, be admitted to, and enter each class during the period covered by the plan.
( c ) *Nondiscrimination.* No policy or practice of a recipient to which § 196.225 applies shall result in treatment of applicants to or students of such recipient in violation of §§ 196.300 through 196.310 unless such treatment is necessitated by an obstacle identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and a schedule for eliminating that obstacle has been provided as required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
( d ) *Effects of past exclusion.* To overcome the effects of past exclusion of students on the basis of sex, each educational institution to which § 196.225 applies shall include in its transition plan, and shall implement, specific steps designed to encourage individuals of the previously excluded sex to apply for admission to such institution. Such steps shall include instituting recruitment programs that emphasize the institution's commitment to enrolling students of the sex previously excluded.
#### State of Minnesota, *ex rel.*Moses G. Tuttle, *vs.*W. W. Braden, State Auditor.

February 11, 1889.

Constitution — Mandamus to Officer of Executive Department. — Rule that courts cannot control or interfere with an executive officer of the state in his official acts, even though they are such that the duty to perform them might have been entrusted to some other officer, followed.

*Mandamus,*brought in the district court for Ramsey county, to compel the issuance of a logging permit. The case made by the petition and alternative writ was as follows: The respondent, as state *175auditor and *ex officio*state land-commissioner, after proper notice, duly offered for sale at auction the standing pine timber on a designated school section. The relator was the highest bidder, and the'timber was struck off to him. He duly demanded a permit, in accordance with the regulations of the land-office, at the same time offering to execute and deliver the statutory bond. The relator refused to issue the permit, or do anything towards consummating the sale. *A*demurrer to the petition was sustained by *Simons,*J., and the relator appealed.

*Fayette Marsh,*for appellant.

*Moses E. Clapp,*Attorney General, and *H. W. Childs,*for respondent.

Gideillan, C. J.

This case is, in its facts, similar to that of *State*v. *Whitcomb,*28 Minn. 50, (8 N. W. Rep. 902,) the argument being but a reargument of the principal question decided in that case, to wit, the question whether the courts may direct and control the state auditor in the performance of his official acts as commissioner of the land-office. In the case referred to it was decided that they have no jurisdiction to do so. In *Chamberlain*v. *Sibley,*4 Minn. 228, (309,) it was held otherwise in respect to official acts which the court styled “ not necessarily pertaining to the duties of the executive, ” and which (if the law so provided) might as well be done by one officer as another. The court, however, decided, in *Rice*v. *Austin,*19 Minn. 74, (103,) that because the constitution makes the different departments of the government distinct and independent of each other, neither being responsible to the other for the performance of its duties, neither can enforce the performance by the other of its duties; and it was also decided that where a duty, even such as may be called ministerial, is cast by law upon an executive'officer, *eo nomine,*the performance of it is an official act, although its performance might have been entrusted to some other officer. This has ever since been accepted as the law in this state, and was followed in *State*v. *Dike,*20 Minn. 314, (363;) *Western R. Co.*v. *De Graff,*27 Minn. 1, (6 N. W. Rep. 341,) and the case first referred to. We are still satisfied with the soundness of the doctrine in the cases since that in the 4th.

Order affirmed.
§ 935.20 Approval of Ohio abandoned mine land reclamation plan. The Ohio Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan, as submitted on October 20, 1980, and as revised on November 21, 1980, November 2, 1981, and January 22, 1982, is approved effective August 10, 1982. Copies of the approved plan are available at the following locations: ( a ) Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, Building H-2, 1855 Fountain Square Court, Columbus, Ohio 43224.
( b ) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Eastland Professional Plaza, 4480 Refugee Road, suite 201, Columbus, Ohio 43232.
[59 FR 17930, Apr. 15, 1994]