alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §102702. Crime prevention assistance

(a) Recommendations for Improvement.—The Secretary shall direct the chief official responsible for law enforcement within the Service to—

(1) compile a list of System units with the highest rates of violent crime;

(2) make recommendations concerning capital improvements, and other measures, needed within the System to reduce the rates of violent crime, including the rate of sexual assault; and

(3) publish the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) in the Federal Register.

(b) Distribution of Funds.—Based on the recommendations and list issued pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall distribute the funds authorized by subsection (d) throughout the System. Priority shall be given to areas with the highest rates of sexual assault.

(c) Use of Funds.—Funds provided under this section may be used—

(1) to increase lighting within or adjacent to System units;

(2) to provide emergency phone lines to contact law enforcement or security personnel in areas within or adjacent to System units;

(3) to increase security or law enforcement personnel within or adjacent to System units; or

(4) for any other project intended to increase the security and safety of System units.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated out of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund not more than $10,000,000 for the Secretary to take all necessary actions to seek to reduce the incidence of violent crime in the System.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3161.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 102702 | 16 U.S.C. 1a–7a. | Pub. L. 91–383, §13, as added Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §40132, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1917. |

Section
#### Lorrain Dawson v. Kenneth Sherwood.

Motion to review and modify order of the Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed as unauthorized under 5704 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The attorney’s remedy in this case is by appeal. The order is one granted pursuant to section 474 of the Judiciary Law and is an order on notice and not ex parte. (See *Liss*v. *McCrory Stores Corp.,*7 A D 2d 738.) Concur — Valente, J. P., Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
§ 2.2 Statutory relief for participating programs. ( a ) Within the limitations prescribed, the applicability of any provision of law or any regulation prescribed to implement a statutory requirement may be waived for all programs participating in the Defense Acquisition Pilot Program, or separately for each participating program, if that waiver or limit is specifically authorized to be waived or limited in a law authorizing appropriations for a program designated by statute as a participant in the Defense Acquisition Pilot Program.
( b ) Only those laws that prescribe procedures for the procurement of supplies or services; a preference or requirement for acquisition from any source or class of sources; any requirement related to contractor performance; any cost allowability, cost accounting, or auditing requirements; or any requirement for the management of, testing to be performed under, evaluation of, or reporting on a defense acquisition program may be waived.
( c ) The requirements in section 809 of Public Law 101-510, as amended by section 811 of Public Law 102-484, the requirements in any law enacted on or after the enactment of Public Law 101-510 (except to the extent that a waiver or limitation is specifically authorized for such a defense acquisition program by statute), and any provision of law that ensures the financial integrity of the conduct of a Federal Government program or that relates to the authority of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense may not be considered for waiver.
### §312102. Establishment and purposes

(a) Establishment.—To further the policy enunciated in chapter 3201 of this title, and to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest, there is established a charitable, educational, and nonprofit corporation to be known as the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States.

(b) Purposes.—The purposes of the National Trust shall be to—

(1) receive donations of sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and culture;

(2) preserve and administer the sites, buildings, and objects for public benefit;

(3) accept, hold, and administer gifts of money, securities, or other property of any character for the purpose of carrying out the preservation program; and

(4) execute other functions vested in the National Trust by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3249.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 312102 | 16 U.S.C. 468. | Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 735, §1, 63 Stat. 927. |

Section
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MAR 24, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 5 6 4 8 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 5

- 0 0 4 0 5

- C R

- T

- 1 7

- E A J

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s
O R A C I N W A T S O N F I L S A I M E ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( M a r c h 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e C A R N E S , H U L L a n d M A R C U S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :L e o n a r d E

. C l a r k , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r O r a c i n W

. F i l s a i m e , h a s m o v e d t o

w i t h d r a w f

r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , b e c a u s e , i n h i s o p i n i o n , t h e

a p p e a l i s w i t h o u t m e r i t

. C o u n s e l h a s f i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f

t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e

a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o

a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f F i l s a i m e ’ s 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n i s A F F I R M E D

.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA S. PANASZEWICZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC; 

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY,

LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-16942 

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01162-MEJ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 11, 2017**

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,***

District Judge.

Martha Panaszewicz appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of her diversity 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

FILED

SEP 13 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

action against GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Residential Funding Company, LLC. 

Based on a promissory estoppel theory, Panaszewicz seeks to annul the trustee’s 

sale of her home and impose a constructive trust on the residence. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo the district court’s 

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Kahle v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 697, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). 

We affirm. 

Panaszewicz’s First Amended Complaint does not state a claim for 

promissory estoppel under California law. See Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 

Co., 697 F.3d 777, 792 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. California, 28 

Cal. Rptr. 3d 894, 905 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)). Panaszewicz failed to allege (1) that 

Appellees or their agents made any clear and unambiguous promises to postpone 

the foreclosure sale, and (2) any facts showing that she changed her legal position 

in reliance on those statements. Id. The district court therefore properly dismissed 

her complaint.

Because Panaszewicz did not make a prima facie case for promissory 

estoppel, the district court did not err in concluding that a constructive trust could 

not be imposed on the property. There are no alleged facts demonstrating that 

Appellees gained the property by misconduct, and Panaszewicz has not tendered or 

offered to tender the amount owed on the defaulted mortgage loan. See Lona v. 

Citibank, N.A., 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 633, 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). Thus, the 
3 

district court was not required to exercise its equitable powers. See id. at 640.

Finally, there was no abuse of discretion in denying Panaszewicz leave to 

amend, as her complaint cannot be cured by further amendment. See Telesaurus 

VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.
### §1546. Congressional priority procedures for concurrent resolution

#### (a) Referral to Congressional committee; single report

Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 1544(c) of this title shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

#### (b) Pending business; vote

Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

#### (c) Referral to other House committee

Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

#### (d) Disagreement between Houses

In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

(Pub. L. 93–148, §7, Nov. 7, 1973, 87 Stat. 557.)
#### F. Richard Bornhurst, Respondent, v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal by defendant from order of Onondaga Special Term denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 113 of Rules of Civil Practice.) Present—-Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ. [31 Misc 2d 339.]
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, James P. Regan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DynamicsResearch Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004         By:                                      /s/ James P. Regan    James P. Regan    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  
51
#### Bremer Manufacturing Company, for use of Veronica Maltby, appellee, v. J. C. Tully, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,525.

Garnishment proceedings. Judgment against garnishee. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Richardson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 27, 1925.

John D. Clancy, for appellant.

Stephen A. Cross and Will J. Bell, for appellee; Stephen A. Cross, of counsel

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
### SUBCHAPTER II—SYSTEM UNIT RESOURCE PROTECTION
### §411. Special provisions concerning the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(a) Delegation.—The Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation may delegate the authority specified in the 2d sentence of section 403(a) of this title to the Vice Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, but may not delegate such authority to any other officer or employee of the Corporation.

(b) Personnel.—Notwithstanding paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 406(a) of this title, the Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation may select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of the Office of Inspector General and may obtain the temporary or intermittent services of experts or consultants or an organization of experts or consultants, subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern such selections, appointments, and employment, and the obtaining of such services, within the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

(Pub. L. 117–286, §3(b), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4228.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 411 | 5 U.S.C. App. (IGA §8C) | Pub. L. 95–452, §8C, as added Pub. L. 103–204, §23(a)(2), Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2407. |

Section
### §1144. Limitation on fines and civil penalties

#### (a) Inspectors

Surface transportation inspectors shall be prohibited from issuing fines to public transportation agencies for violations of the Department's regulations or orders except through the process described in subsection (b).

#### (b) Civil penalties

The Secretary shall be prohibited from assessing civil penalties against public transportation agencies for violations of the Department's regulations or orders, except in accordance with the following:

(1) In the case of a public transportation agency that is found to be in violation of a regulation or order issued by the Secretary, the Secretary shall seek correction of the violation through a written notice to the public transportation agency and shall give the public transportation agency reasonable opportunity to correct the violation or propose an alternative means of compliance acceptable to the Secretary.

(2) If the public transportation agency does not correct the violation or propose an alternative means of compliance acceptable to the Secretary within a reasonable time period that is specified in the written notice, the Secretary may take any action authorized in section 114 of title 49.

#### (c) Limitation on Secretary

The Secretary shall not initiate civil enforcement actions for violations of administrative and procedural requirements pertaining to the application for and expenditure of funds awarded under transportation security grant programs under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 110–53, title XIV, §1415, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 422.)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9463 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9463

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that non-citizen 
   appointees to positions in the Veterans Health Administration are 
      subjected to background investigations prior to employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 6, 2024

 Mr. Wenstrup introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that non-citizen 
   appointees to positions in the Veterans Health Administration are 
      subjected to background investigations prior to employment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Recruitment Improvement for Service 
Excellence at VA Hospitals Act'' or the ``RISE Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT NON-CITIZEN APPOINTEES IN VETERANS HEALTH 
              ADMINISTRATION ARE SUBJECTED TO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS 
              PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT.

    Section 7407(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting (1) before ``When''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) A person may not be appointed under paragraph (1) unless the 
person has been subjected to a background investigation.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MONICA FRANCIS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50301 

D.C. No. 

2:16-cr-00713-PSG-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 5, 2018**

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District 

Judge.

Monica Francis was convicted after a trial before a magistrate judge of 

violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(a) by camping for a period longer than that allowed by 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

an order. The district court affirmed Francis’ conviction and the fine imposed by 

the magistrate judge. We have jurisdiction of Francis’ appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 and affirm.

1. The forest supervisor’s order prohibiting camping for more than thirty 

days a year was properly posted. The order was placed in the offices of the forest 

supervisor and district ranger. See 36 C.F.R. § 261.51(a). The Forest Service 

website and signs in the forest where Francis camped “reasonably [brought] the 

prohibition to the attention of the public.” 36 C.F.R. § 261.51(b).

2. The prohibition of extended camping was valid. The Secretary of 

Agriculture was authorized to delegate the power to issue the order to the forest 

supervisor, see Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. Glickman, 88 F.3d 697, 702 

(9th Cir. 1996) (“[D]elegation generally is permitted where it is not inconsistent with 

the statute.”), and did so. See 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a) (“[E]ach Forest Supervisor may

issue orders which close or restrict the use of described areas within the area over 

which he has jurisdiction.”). And, because the order expressly stated that it applied 

“until further notice,” there was no need for reissuance when a new forest supervisor 

was appointed.

3. The $100 fine imposed by the magistrate judge was reasonable, 

particularly in light of the extended nature of Francis’ camping. See United States 

v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting standard of review).
3 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

# **Consent of Independent Accountants**

 

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No. 333-78051) and Form S-8 (No. 333-69827, 033-65142, 033-62718, 033-49704and 333-107932) of Hickory Tech Corporation of our report dated January 30,2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 8, 2004

 

----