alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §183. When transaction deemed in commerce; "State" defined

For the purpose of this chapter (but not in anywise limiting the definition in section 182 of this title) a transaction in respect to any article shall be considered to be in commerce if such article is part of that current of commerce usual in the livestock and meat-packing industries, whereby livestock, meats, meat food products, livestock products, dairy products, poultry, poultry products, or eggs, are sent from one State with the expectation that they will end their transit, after purchase, in another, including, in addition to cases within the above general description, all cases where purchase or sale is either for shipment to another State, or for slaughter of livestock within the State and the shipment outside the State of the products resulting from such slaughter. Articles normally in such current of commerce shall not be considered out of such current through resort being had to any means or device intended to remove transactions in respect thereto from the provisions of this chapter. For the purpose of this section the word "State" includes Territory, the District of Columbia, possession of the United States, and foreign nation.

(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title I, §2(b), 42 Stat. 160; Pub. L. 94–410, §3(c), Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1249.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is composed of subsec. (b) of section 2 of act Aug. 15, 1921. Subsec. (a) of section 2 is classified to section 182 of this title.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–410 substituted "livestock" for "live stock" and "live-stock" wherever appearing.
§ 507.9 Reproduction of designs. ( a ) The photographing or printing of any decoration, service medal, service ribbon, badge, lapel button, insignia, or other device of a design the Secretary of the Army has prescribed for members of the Army to use is authorized, provided that such reproduction does not discredit the U.S. Army and is not used to defraud or misrepresent the identification or status of an individual, organization, society, or other group of persons.
( b ) The making or executing in any manner of any engraving, impression, or colorable imitation in the likeness of any decoration, service medal, service ribbon, badge, lapel button, insignia, or other device of a design the Secretary of the Army has prescribed for members of the Army to use is prohibited without prior approval in writing from the Army Trademark Licensing Program.
( c ) Except when used to illustrate a particular article that is offered for commercial sale, Army Regulation 360-1, paragraph 8-9e, prohibits the use of Army themes, material, uniforms, or insignia in advertisements and promotions for entertainment-oriented products that could imply Army endorsement of the product. Direct requests to the Chief, Public Affairs (SAPA-ZA), 1500 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1500.
### §4537. Termination of order, Institute, and Fund

#### (a) Termination or suspension of order

The Secretary, whenever the Secretary finds that the order issued under this subchapter or any provision of such order obstructs or does not tend to facilitate the expansion of markets for milk and dairy products marketed in the United States, shall terminate or suspend the operation of the order or such provision.

#### (b) Dissolution of Institute

If the Secretary terminates the order, the Institute shall be dissolved 180 days after the termination of the order.

#### (c) Disposal of moneys in Fund

If the Institute is dissolved for any reason, the moneys remaining in the Fund shall be disposed of as shall be agreed to by the board and the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 98–180, title I, §136, as added Pub. L. 99–198, title I, §121, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1371.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY M. LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JAMIE KRAHNE; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16119

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 00762

- JCM

- VCF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Johnny M. Lawrence appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to prior state court proceedings

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a denial of a motion for default judgment

. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh , 503

* 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). 

# FILED

OCT 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16119

F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lawrence’s motions

for default judgment because Lawrence never properly served the summons and

c omplaint on defendant s

. See Crowley v. Bannister , 734 F.3d 967, 974

- 75 (9th

Cir. 2013) (“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant

unless the defendant has been served in acc ordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”

(citation and internal q uotation marks omitted))

.

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Lawrence’s action for

insufficient service of process because Lawrence does not raise this issue in his

opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 20 09) ( “This

court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and

distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted) ).

We do not consider the merits of Lawrence’ s claims because the district

court did not address them

.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jameek Roacher, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 219]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered January 6, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Because the People produced clear and convincing evidence that the defendant procured the unavailability of the codefendant Maurice Gulley through threats of violence, the Supreme Court properly permitted Gulley’s grand jury testimony to be introduced into evidence at trial *(see People v Geraci,*85 NY2d 359, 365 [1995]).

In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which included the defendant’s written and videotaped statements admitting participation in the robbery during which the victim was killed, the remaining trial errors alleged were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
No. 754.

#### Cricket Steamship Company *v.*John P. Parry.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. Cleius Keating*for petitioner.

*Mr. Silas B. Axtell*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
MEMORANDUM

TO: The Assistant Secretary for 

 Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

 The Assistant Secretary for

 Elementary and Secondary Education

 The Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical,

 And Adult Education

FROM: The Secretary 

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority over Certain Appeals Pursuant to Section 432(b) of the 

General Education Provisions Act

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3472, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, or

to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or officially performing the functions and 

duties of your position, the authority to take any appropriate action under section 432(b) of 

the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. §1231b-2(b), including, but not limited to, 

determining whether the final action of a State educational agency taken under an 

applicable program for which your Principal Office has administrative responsibility as 

provided by law or by delegation of authority pursuant to law was contrary to Federal law 

or applicable rules, regulations or guidelines and, if so, issuing an order to the State 

educational agency prescribing appropriate action to be taken by such agency, as well as

issuing interim orders to State educational agencies pending appeal or review.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

cited herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

You may not redelegate this authority.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Delegations Control 

Officer. I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you, your 
predecessors in function, or anyone serving in an acting capacity or officially performing 

the functions and duties of your position, which involved the exercise of the authorities

delegated herein, prior to the date of the certification of this delegation.

_______-s-_ ________________

 Arne Duncan

OGC Clearance and Date: Deborah Friendly, May 1, 2014

Certified Date: June 13, 2014

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Bruce Monblatt 

Control Number: EA/EH/99
### §2544. Research exemption

The use and reproduction of a protected variety for plant breeding or other bona fide research shall not constitute an infringement of the protection provided under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §114, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1555.)
### §2403. Reciprocity limits

Protection under this chapter may, by regulation, be limited to nationals of the United States, except where this limitation would violate a treaty and except that nationals of a foreign state in which they are domiciled shall be entitled to so much of the protection here afforded as is afforded by said foreign state to nationals of the United States for the same genus and species.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §43, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1547.)
#### Denis J. Donegan et al., Respondents, v. Richard J. Boylan et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Motion to abbreviate record on appeal denied, without prejudice to an appropriate application to the Trial Justice upon the settlement of the case on appeal and without prejudice to a subsequent application to this court, if so advised, to dispense with the printing of any portion of the settled case (see *Village of Port Chester*v. *Sheehan,*5 A D 2d 839). Beldock, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §3319h. Funds for research facilities

In fiscal year 2003 and thereafter, funds may be received from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing any research facility of the Agricultural Research Service, as authorized by law.

(Pub. L. 108–7, div. A, title I, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 17.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, and not as part of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 107–76, title I, Nov. 29, 2001, 115 Stat. 709.

Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title I], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–6.

Pub. L. 106–78, title I, Oct. 22, 1999, 113 Stat. 1140.

Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(a) [title I], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681–5.

Pub. L. 105–86, title I, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2084.

Pub. L. 104–180, title I, Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1574.

Pub. L. 104–37, title I, Oct. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 304.

Pub. L. 103–330, title I, Sept. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 2440.

Pub. L. 103–111, title I, Oct. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 1051.

Pub. L. 102–341, title I, Aug. 14, 1992, 106 Stat. 878.
J

~~~ ED STq T

~
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

# o~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

## `o=

~lq , PROS ' G

~ 

### MAR 2 4 2

~~ 

### 14

Mr. J. R. Stroble Manager, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090
Dear Mr. Stroble: OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION



### On July 12, 2013, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve, as a Tier 1(T1) change, the addition of five (5) Remote-Handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) solidified liquids waste containers to the previously-approved debris waste stream AERHDM generated at the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). This approval request focused on the radiological characterization (RC) process. The enclosed report (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; II-A4- 181), discusses EPA's evaluation and approval of the same. ANL-CCP may dispose these solidified liquid waste containers added to the waste stream AERHDM at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). ANL-CCP used the same acceptable knowledge (AK) documentation and non-destructive examination (NDE) documentation and processes as those used when characterizing an initial set of 16 solidified liquid waste containers to add to the waste stream AERHDM. EPA evaluated and approved this initial set in June 2012 (see EPA Report A-98-49; II-A4-162) and no additional evaluation was necessary. ANL-CCP may continue to characterize and dispose additional solidified liquid waste containers using the RC process discussed in the enclosed report and AK, RC and NDE documentation and processes EPA approved in June 2012. The June 2012 restriction on use of the ANL Analytical Chemistry Laboratory remains in effect. In January 2007, EPA initially approved the RH TRU waste characterization processes at AMWTP (see EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; II-A4-73). Since then EPA approved ANL-CCP's nine (9) T1 change requests listed in Attachment A of the enclosed report. If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422.
Sincercly,



### om Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Intemet Address (URL) o http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEnclosure
cc: Electronic Distribution Doug Tonkay, DOE EM Alton Harris, DOE EM Joe Franco, CBFO Marcus Pinzel, CBFO NTP Tom Morgan, CBFO NTP Dale Dietzel, DOE ANL Trais Kliphuis, NMED Raymond Lee, EPA HQ Site Documents
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, PERRY Y. ING, certify that:

 

1.       I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K/A of McEwen Mining Inc.; and

 

2.       Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report.

 

Dated: June 18, 2012

 
|   |   | MCEWEN MINING INC. |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |                    |
|   |   | By:                     | /s/ PERRY Y. ING  |
|   |   |                    | Perry Y. Ing, |
|   |   |                    | *Vice President and Chief   Financial Officer* |

 

----
* 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. 96-41127

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD JUDD HOLLOWAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CR-50-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 18, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Richard Judd Holloway has filed

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and we have independently reviewed counsel's brief and the

record, and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE TITAN CORPORATION'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE 
NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      9,107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,739
<PP&E>                                          62,658
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,992
<BONDS>                                         69,769
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        695
<COMMON>                                           327
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,830
<SALES>                                        195,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,911
<CGS>                                          149,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,952
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,556
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,168
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,388
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,344)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (17,728)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)
<FN>
<F1>Due to the use of condensed financial statements for interim reporting, this
information is not completed on a quarterly basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 776.50 Communication with person represented by counsel. ( a ) In representing a client, a covered attorney shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the covered attorney knows to be represented by another attorney in the matter, unless the covered attorney has the consent of the other attorney or is authorized by law to do so.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York v. David Gabay.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless the appellant serves and files a notice of argument for the March 1961 Term of this court on or before January 31, 1961, and argues or submits the appeal at the March 1961 Term. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
(May 7, *1962)*

#### In the Matter of William H. Fenstermaker, Respondent, v. Brilhart Electronics Corporation, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for reargument of its motion for a stay, pending appeal, denied. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §1635m. Mandatory reporting for lambs

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary may establish a program of mandatory lamb price information reporting that will—

(1) provide timely, accurate, and reliable market information;

(2) facilitate more informed marketing decisions; and

(3) promote competition in the lamb slaughtering industry.

#### (b) Notice and comment

If the Secretary establishes a mandatory price reporting program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for comment on proposed regulations to establish the program during the 30-day period beginning on the date of the publication of the proposed regulations.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §241, as added Pub. L. 106–78, title IX, §911(2), Oct. 22, 1999, 113 Stat. 1200.)

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

#### Lamb Reporting

Pub. L. 114–54, title I, §103, Sept. 30, 2015, 129 Stat. 514, provided that: "Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 2015], the Secretary of Agriculture shall revise section 59.300 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, so that—

"(1) the definition of the term 'importer'—

"(A) includes only those importers that imported an average of 1,000 metric tons of lamb meat products per year during the immediately preceding 4 calendar years; and

"(B) may include any person that does not meet the requirement referred to in subparagraph (A), if the Secretary determines that the person should be considered an importer based on their volume of lamb imports; and

"(2) the definition of the term 'packer'—

"(A) applies to any entity with 50 percent or more ownership in a facility;

"(B) includes a federally inspected lamb processing plant which slaughtered or processed the equivalent of an average of 35,000 head of lambs per year during the immediately preceding 5 calendar years; and

"(C) may include any other lamb processing plant that does not meet the requirement referred to in subparagraph (B), if the Secretary determines that the processing plant should be considered a packer after considering the capacity of the processing plant."