alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.960 Federal employee panel members. ( a ) The State Director will appoint one Rural Development employee to serve as a voting member of the panel established in § 1940.956(c)(1) of this subpart.
( b ) The Administrator may appoint, temporarily and for specific purposes, personnel from any department or agency of the Federal Government as nonvoting panel members, with the consent of the head of such department or agency, to provide official information to the panel. The member(s) appointed shall have expertise to perform a duty described in § 1940.956(b) of this subpart that is not available among panel members.
( c ) Federal panel members will be paid per diem or otherwise reimbursed by the Federal Government for expenses incurred each day the employee is engaged in the actual performance of a duty of the panel. Reimbursement will be in accordance with Federal travel regulations.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stanley Jenkins, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 21, 1977, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, plea vacated and matter remanded to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Defendant was indicted for criminal trespass in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. He moved, *inter alia,*for a pretrial suppression hearing to test the admissibility of the physical evidence (a weapon and marihuana) seized from him at the time of his arrest. The supporting affidavit alleged, *inter alia,*that defendant was merely standing in the lobby of a multiple dwelling, that his conduct was equivocal in nature, and that there was no legal basis to have stopped and arrested him. When the motion came on for argument, defense counsel argued that the arrest for criminal trespass was a subterfuge. Although the People consented to a hearing, the court summarily denied *695the motion based upon a reading of the Grand Jury minutes. The court held that the weapon and the marihuana had been seized from the defendant in the course of a search incidental to his lawful arrest for criminal trespass. It was improper to have summarily denied the motion. The allegations contained in the defendant’s moving papers, coupled with counsel’s oral arguments and the District Attorney’s consent to a hearing, were sufficient to raise a question as to the propriety of the initial arrest for criminal trespass. Therefore, pursuant to CPL 710.60 (subd 4), a hearing must be conducted on defendant’s motion (cf. *People v Carrion,*68 AD2d 827; *People v Buckman,*70 Mise 2d 220). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, O’Connor and Rabin, JJ., concur.
# Y ()Fl\

# LBUQUER

\LFREDO 

### R. S,\NTJSfEV\N, DIRECTOR

December 11, 2{)07 

# lJE

Martin

## J. Chavez, Mayor



### 'vir. Guy R. Donaldson, Chief, 

### Air PlHnning Section Mail 

### Code 

### 6·1'1)·1. I.:S .EP,\ RcglOll () H45 Ross \\'cnuc, Suite 1200 l)alJa$,·!cxas 

### "5202-27:>5 Subjecr: 

### Stare Implementation Plan (SIP) infrasuucture re<jwremulls 

### under Section 110(,,)(1) 

### and (2) 

### of the Clean Air Act (C\A) 

### [kar :\1r. Donaldwll This 

### km:r is submitted to fulfill Bernalillo 

### County's [c'luirements 

### undrT SeCfJons 

### 1iO(a)(l) and (2) of rhe C\,\. The 

### Cl""An ,\ir Act requires aU states tel submit plan;: to provide for tilt, lmpkmcnrarion, 

### maintenance and enforcement of the 

### S·houT oz()ne National Ambient Air Qwtlity 

### Srandatd (N:\AQS). The 

### t'. S. Erwironmenrnl Protection Agency 

### i"**obJig~ted** to make a determination on 

### whether swre;; sati"fv 

### lhe**reqlliretJ)elH~** ofSecrion 11O(a)(I) and (2) for rhe Shourozone N\:\QS by Decem!>er 15,2007. The

..\lbuquct'lue Air Qu;dity Division, as agent for 

### the**Albuqucrque-Bern~lillo** County ,\ir Quality Control Board and through the City of ;\lbl1<luerque's Deparmu:nr uf Enviroorncnwl Health, hIlS evaluated the existing Ncw rvlcxico Srare, lr,nplcmentation Pl:m fot ;\it 

### Qua!ity (SIP), 

### and finds that thci\lbuquerquc,BernahUo County ponioTl of the SIP satisfies**th<~** necess;!.r)' remaining 1

### W (a){l) and (2) f(xluire11lents for 

### the Rbllut**NAAQ~** 

### . If 

### you have further questions pectainmg to this matter. pleasc contact Isreal Tavarez, Ellyironment,.l Engineering i\Ianagcr ofthe Air Quality Division at 50576B,1965.

### Sinc~ I ) 

### /k---- '/<'-'-""'\-'" 

# ;¥, cc 0 

### R"Santistevail--'-' Direct(,r, Environmental Health Department
#### Hale, *et al. v.*Vaughan, Ex’r.

*Bill in Eqxdty to enjoin Sale of fand v/nder Mortgage, and to have Mortgage declared void-, Cross-bill by Mortgagee to foreclose Mortgage.*

1. *Striking answer from file; when error not shown.*— On appeal all reasonable presumptions are indulged to support .the judgment or decree of the primary court, and no intendments are made for its reversal; and henee, this court can not say that the chancery court erred in striking answers to a cross-bill from the file, or in refusing to allow answers to be filed thereto, when they are not embodied in the record.

Appeal from Tallapoosa Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. N. S. Graham.

Bill in equity by mortgagor to enjoin a sale of the land conveyed by the mortgage, under a power contained therein, and to have the mortgage declared void as against public policy; and cross-bill by the mortgagee, seeking a foreclosure of the mortgage. The facts necessaiy to an understanding of the points decided are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

W. D. Bulger, for appellants.

Name of counsel for appellee not shown by the record.

Per Curiam.

— The cause has been submitted without an argument in support of the assignments of error. We have, however, examined them, and are not of opinion they are well taken. The answers to the cross-bill, which were stricken from the file, are not embodied in the record ; and, in their absence, we can not say that the chancellor erred in striking them out. *146They may have been scandalous and impertinent, or, it may be, filed after a decree *pro confesso*had been obtained, without the leave of the court. All reasonable presumptions are indulged to support a judgment or decree; intendments are not made for its reversal. The same remark ma,y be made as to the refusal of the chancellor to allow answers to be filed. If a decree *pro confesso*had been rendered against the defendants (which seems to be the case), it could be set aside only on filing full and complete answers; and, if necessary to support the ruling of the chancellor, the answers not being introduced into the record, we must presume they were rejected because in this respect insufficient. There is nothing requiring notice in the other assignment of error.

Affirmed.

Stone, J., not sitting.
#### Adams’ Heirs *vs.*Rossell and Keiser.

Motion,

An equitable interest in land is not subject to execution :. nor was ' land adversely hold, until IS27.

If land be sold under ex’on, to which the defendant had only an equitable title, or some other claim not subject to the levy, the sale may be quashed upon his motion. But after his death, if his heirs attempt to quash the sale, his personal representativeis a necessary party to the motion— without whom, as plaintiff, or defendant, the motion may be dismissed with-put prejudice.

[Messrs. Wickliffe and Wooley for Plaintiffs: Mr. Monroe and Messrs, ’ Sanders and Depew for Defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Fayette County.

*April*29.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Under two writs of *fieri facias*in favor of Rossell, and against Adams, the interest of the latter in a house and lot which he had bought, but for which he had obtained no conveyance, was sold by the sheriff, and bought by Keiser. Adams having died, his heirs made a motion to the circuit court, to quash the sale, because the interest held by their ancestor, was not legal, but equitable merely, and because, at the time of the sale, the house and .lot were held adversely to him. But the court dismissed the motion, without prejudicé, and’this writ of error is brought to reverse that judgment.

The facts necessary for maintaining each of the foregoing grounds for a quashal of the sale, are satisfactorily established'; and either of the grounds may be sufficient to authorize the quashal. The sale was made before the year 1827, and at a time when, according to the case of *McConnell*vs. *Brown,*5 *Mon.*478, the adversary possession of the house and lot rendered it illegal. And, as tlse process of the *court*had been abused or perverted by the sale under it, of that which it did not authorize the sheriff to sell, and as Adams (a party to the process,) might thereby have been subjected to danger, delay and circuity of remedy, it might have been the duty of the circuit court to quash the sale, had Adams, .in his life time, made a motion for purpose.

But his heirs alone cannot maintain such a motion. His personal representative may be interested in keeping off the burthen which might be devolved on the *141personal estate *by*a quashal of the sale, anti was, therefore, a necessary party.

Wherefore, the dismission, without prejudice, was' proper, in consequence of a defect of parties, and is, therefore, affirmed.
#### Billy Bertram CARROLL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Houston Division.

Dec. 11, 1970.

*582Billy Bertram Carroll, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NOEL, District Judge.

Petitioner, a convict in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, has submitted a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He asserts that his plea of guilty to the crime of extortion, which this Court accepted in 1968, was involuntary. It is unnecessary to reach the merits of this contention.

Petitioner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, thus avoiding the requirement imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) upon a party instituting “any civil action” to pay a filing fee of $15.00. In support of his request, petitioner has submitted a form affidavit reciting that he is “ * * * an indigent person with personal funds in the amount of $204.90.”

A motion under Section 2255 is a civil action and the Clerk of the District Court is required by law to collect the filing fee unless leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by the Court. McCune v. United States, 406 F.2d 417 (6th Cir. 1969); Harris v. United States, 299 F.Supp. 385 (S.D.N. Y.1969). Leave to so proceed should not be granted by the Court unless it reasonably appears that the cost of filing would be beyond petitioner’s means. See Green v. Cotton Concentration Co., 294 F.Supp. 34 (S.D.Tex.1968). Although indigency for the purpose of proceeding in forma pauperis is a relative concept which is not necessarily synonymous with absolute destitution, Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours, 335 U.S. 331, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948), the category of persons entitled to the assistance of Section 1915 would not appear to include this petitioner, whose necessaries of life are provided by the United States and whose liquid assets admittedly exceed the filing fee by some thirteen times.

One salutary function of a filing fee is to dissuade solvent suitors from burdening the public purse with frivolous litigation. Having raised himself above penury, petitioner must now confront the initial dilemma which faces most other potential civil litigants: is the merit of the claim worth the cost of pursuing it?

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Order to petitioner and to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. In accordance with the practice suggested in Martin v. United States, 273 F.2d 775 (10th Cir. 1960), certiorari denied 365 U.S. 853, 81 S.Ct. 818, 5 L.Ed.2d 816 (1961), the Clerk shall retain one copy of the petition and one copy of the pauper’s affidavit for the purpose of the record, and shall return the remainder of the moving papers to petitioner.
§ 180.1 General administration. ( a ) *Confidentiality.* The Secretary shall make information obtained under this part available to the public only in a manner that ensures that confidentiality is preserved regarding — ( 1 ) The identity of persons, including parties to a contract; and
( 2 ) Proprietary business information.
( b ) *Disclosure by Federal Government employees* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, no officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall, without the consent of the packer or other person concerned, divulge or make known in any manner, any facts or information regarding the business of the packer or other person that was acquired through reporting required under this part.
( 2 ) *Exceptions.* Information obtained by the Secretary under this part may be disclosed— ( i ) To agents or employees of the Department of Agriculture in the course of their official duties under this part;
( ii ) As directed by the Secretary or the Attorney General, for enforcement purposes; or
( iii ) By a court of competent jurisdiction.
( 3 ) *Disclosure under Freedom of Information Act.* Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no facts or information obtained under this part shall be disclosed in accordance with section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
( c ) *Regional reporting.* The Secretary shall make information obtained under this part available to the public only in a manner that ensures that the information is published on a national or regional basis as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
( d ) *Adjustments.* Prior to the publication of any contract information obtained under this part, the Secretary may make reasonable adjustments to address aberrations or other unusual or unique occurrences that the Secretary determines would distort the published information to the detriment of producers, packers, or other market participants.
( e ) *Reporting methods.* Information required to be reported under this part shall be reported by electronic means in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. Information may be reported in an alternative manner in emergencies or in cases when an alternative method is agreed to by both the entity required to report and the Secretary.
( f ) *Verification.* The Secretary may take such actions as are necessary to verify the accuracy of the information submitted or reported under this part.
( g ) *Noncompliance.* The Secretary may refer instances of non-compliance with this part to the appropriate office of the Department for further investigation.
Editorial Note on Part 1955
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1955.140 Sale in parcels. ( a ) Individual property subdivided. An individual property, other than Farm Loan Programs property, may be offered for sale as a whole or subdivided into parcels as determined by the State Director. For MFH property, guidance will be requested from the National Office for all properties other than RHS projects. When farm inventory property is larger than a family-size farm, the county official will subdivide the property into one or more tracts to be sold in accordance with § 1955.107. Division of the land or separate sales of portions of the property, such as timber, growing crops, inventory for small business enterprises, buildings, facilities, and similar items may be permitted if a better total price for the property can be obtained in this manner. Environmental review requirements must comply with 7 CFR part 1970. Any applicable State laws will be set forth in a State supplement and will be complied with in connection with the division of land. Subdivision of acquired property will be reported on Form RD 1955-3C, “Acquired Property—Subdivision,” in accordance with the FMI.
( b ) *Grouping of individual properties.* The county official for FCP cases, and the State Director for all other cases, may authorize the combining of two or more individual properties into a single parcel for sale as a suitable program property.
[62 FR 44403, Aug. 21, 1997, as amended at 81 FR 11032, Mar. 2, 2016; 82 FR 19320, Apr. 27, 2017]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul Jeffrey Brodose, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant and a eodefendant were indicted for burglary third degree and grand larceny first degree. The defendant, following trial, was acquitted of burglary third degree and convicted of grand larceny second degree and the codefendant acquitted on both counts. The People’s proof insofar as it related to defendant's participation in the alleged burglary and grand larceny rested entirely on such inference of guilt as might be drawn from the discovery three weeks after the crime in an apartment shared by defendant and other members of his family of a pistol, holster and clip taken from the premises alleged to have been burglarized. The pistol, holster and clip, were found by the police in *982the course of a search made under the authority of a search warrant sought by them in the course of the investigation of a homicide. The defendant moved to suppress the use of the pistol, holster and clip, as evidence on the trial. Following a hearing the court denied the motion holding that there was probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant authorizing the search. Without giving consideration to the absence of a signature to the jurat on the undated affidavit on which the warrant was issued, the factual averments of the affidavit were clearly insufficient to permit a finding of probable cause by the Magistrate for the issuance of the warrant. The admission by the defendant recited in the affidavit that he had in his possession a shotgun which he had fired the day of a reported homicide or the day before and which gun was already in the custody of the police together with the unsupported statement that the defendant had had a fight with the deceased seven or eight months before, falls far short of establishing probable cause for a belief that the gun used in the killing or ammunition for the same would be found in the premises occupied by the defendant. (See *People*v. *Politano,*17 A D 2d 503, affd. 13 N Y 2d 852; *People*v. *Fino,*14 N Y 2d 160; Code Crim. Pro., § 791-796.) The failure of the court to suppress the use in evidence on the trial of the pistol, holster and clip, obtained as the result of an unlawful search, was prejudicial error requiring reversal of the judgment of conviction. The absence of any other evidence tending to establish defendant’s participation in the crime charged requires dismissal of the indictment. (Appeal from judgmnt of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Veeehio, and Marsh, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.66 Administrative requirements. The following policies and regulations apply to grants made under this subpart: ( a ) Grantees must comply with all provisions of the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and subpart E of part 1901 of this chapter which states in part, that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, handicap, or age, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination in connection with the use of grant funds.
( b ) The policies and regulations contained in RD Instruction 1940-Q (available in any Agency office), Departmental Regulation 2400-5, 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400 apply to grantees under this subpart.
( c ) Grants made under the subpart must be in compliance with the environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970.
( d ) The grantee will retain records for 3 years from the date Standard Form (SF)-269A, “Financial Status Report (Short Form),” is submitted. These records will be accessible to RHS and other Federal officials in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
( e ) Annual audits will be completed if the grantee has received more than $25,000 of Federal assistance in the year in which HAPG funds were received. These audits will be due 13 months after the end of the fiscal year in which funds were received. ( 1 ) States, State agencies, or units of general local government will complete an audit in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400 and OMB Circular A-128.
( 2 ) Nonprofit organizations will complete an audit in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
( f ) Performance reports, as required, will be submitted in accordance with 2 CFR part 200 as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400.
[58 FR 58643, Nov. 3, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 39851, July 31, 1996; 79 FR 76008, Dec. 19, 2014; 81 FR 11031, Mar. 2, 2016]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****SBIR, smallbusiness innovation research FY ... : NOAA program solicitation.**** 
SuDocNumber:C1.82:
ItemNumber:0128-H(online)
CGPsystem Number:000531587
 
Current
 
 
2000
2001
2002
2003
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 **
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0617

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

WARD LAMAR MASON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 22, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 13 2024

03/13/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0617
* Pursuantto 5TH CIR.R.47.5,the court has determined thatthis opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances setforth

in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10864

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HILARIO AYALA-GANDARIA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-18-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Hilario Ayala-Gandaria (Ayala) has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ayala has filed a response. The record is

insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ayala’s claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087,

1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and
No. 06-10864

2

Ayala’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.