alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1040.12 Definitions. ( a ) *Covered employment* means employment practices covered by title VI, section 16 and section 401. ( 1 ) Under title VI, such practices are those which: ( i ) Exist in a program where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment; or
( ii ) Cause discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin with respect to beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of the assisted program.
( 2 ) Under section 16 and section 401, such practices include, but are not limited to, employment practices covered by title VI when alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. All employment practices of a recipient or subrecipient of Federal financial assistance subject to section 16 and section 401 are covered employment practices.
( b ) *Title VI* refers to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d *et seq.* which prohibits discrimination on the ground of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The definitions set forth in § 1040.3 of subpart A to the extent not inconsistent with this subpart, are applicable to and incorporated into this subpart.
[45 FR 40515, June 13, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51347, Aug. 26, 2003]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60530

Conference Calendar

JAMES ALBERT JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LATISHA ROACH, Director of Offender Service,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:05-CV-95

--------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Albert Jones, Mississippi prisoner # 20536, appeals

from the dismissal with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim of his pro se, in forma

pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.

With the benefit of liberal construction, Jones argues that

he is unlawfully confined in “D custody,” that the scoring system

used by the Mississippi Department of Corrections is an arbitrary

classification system, and that the scoring system was
No. 05-60530

-2-

erroneously applied in his case. He also contends that his

classification is cruel and unusual and that he is

unconstitutionally confined in maximum isolation.

Courts generally are not concerned with a prisoner’s initial

classification level based on his criminal history before his

incarceration because an inmate has “no protectable liberty

interest in his classification.” Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d

431, 435-36 (5th Cir. 2003). Additionally, a prisoner’s change

in custody status, “without more, does not constitute a

deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest.” 

Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally,

Jones’s conclusional assertion that his custodial classification

runs afoul of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and

unusual punishment does not state a constitutional claim because

he fails to allege that he was deprived of life’s necessities or

a basic human need. See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th

Cir. 1999); Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995).

Jones’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of

Jones’s complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the dismissal of this appeal. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,

387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). This court cautions Jones that if he

accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in
No. 05-60530

-3-

any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 1 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 2 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 3 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 4 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 5 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 6 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 7 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 8 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 9 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 10 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 11 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 12 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 13 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 14 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 15 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 16 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 17 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 18 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 19 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 20 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 21 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 22 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 23 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 24 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 25 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 26 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 27 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 28 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 29 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 30 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 31 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 32 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 33 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 34 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 35 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 36 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 37 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-2 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 38 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-3 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-3 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-3 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-3 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 1-3 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 5 of 5
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.27 Eligibility.

No person shall be selected or continue to serve as a member or alternate member of the Committee who is not actively engaged in the business of the group which he represents either in his own behalf, or as an officer, agent, or employee of a business unit engaged in such business: *Provided,* That only producers, as defined in § 989.11, engaged as such with respect to the most recent grape crop, are eligible to serve on the Committee. Only handlers who packed or processed raisins during the then current crop year shall be eligible to represent handlers on the Committee. Any handler eligible to represent a particular group shall continue to represent handlers for the entire term for which he was selected.

[48 FR 32974, July 20, 1983]
#### In the Matter of Thomas P. Sheridan, Respondent, v. Vincent L. Broderick, as Police Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Order entered March 21, 1966 granting petitioner’s motion to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent for such further action as may be necessary, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petition dismissed. (See *Matter of Delicati*v. *Schechter,*3 A D 2d 19.) Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.
1

 Although plaintiff requested “judgement,” the previous motion (Doc. # 30), which

the court construed as a motion to compel, does not appear to seek judgment in the Rule 58

sense. See Motion (Doc. # 33)(“How can the court misunderstand that the plaintiff

MOTION FOR JUGEMENT to be construed as motion to complied discovery, when the

plaintiff clearly states in the plaintiff MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT that the defendant did

not use good judgement or make a good faith effort to answer all of the plaintiff disclosure

questions mailed to the defendant attorney.”). Accordingly, the motion was properly

construed as a discovery motion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv737-WKW

) (WO)

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is presently before the court on plaintiff's “motion of issue of motion for

jugement [sic]” (Doc. # 33), which the court construes as a motion to reconsider its previous

order denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Doc. # 30).1

 In the present motion, plaintiff

continues to complain of defendant’s failure to answer her discovery requests fully; however,

the court remains unable to determine the precise nature of the discovery dispute. The court

previously advised plaintiff of the requirement of Local Rule 37.2 that any discovery motion

include either a copy of the discovery requests and responses at issue or “a verbatim

recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, and objection which is the subject

of the motion[.]” Plaintiff has not complied with this requirement and, thus, the court cannot

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 35 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 2
enter an order compelling responses to discovery.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Doc. # 33) is DENIED without

prejudice.

DONE, this 3rd day of January, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 35 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,290-01

EX P ARTE JOON YEOL LIM, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1304078-A IN THE 351ST DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Y E A R Y , J . , f

i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n . D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N I d i s s e n t f

o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n m y d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n E x p a r t e F o u r n i e r ,

_ _ _ S
. W
. 3 d

_ _ _ , N o . W R
- 8 2 , 1 0 1

- 0 1 , 2 0 1 5 W L 6 5 1 8 2 7 2 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . O c t
. 2 8 , 2 0 1 5 )

.

F I L E D : J a n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 6 D O N O T P U B L I S H
§ 799.2 FSA environmental policy. ( a ) FSA will: ( 1 ) Use all practical means to protect and, where possible, improve the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any adverse environmental effects of FSA actions;
( 2 ) Ensure protection of basic resources, including important farmlands and forestlands, prime rangelands, wetlands, floodplains, and other protected resources. Consistent with Departmental Regulations and related Executive Orders, it is FSA policy not to approve or fund proposed actions that, as a result of their identifiable impacts, direct, indirect, or cumulative, would lead to or accommodate either the conversion of these land uses or encroachment upon them.
( 3 ) Ensure that the requirements of NEPA and other State and national environmental policies designed to protect and manage impacts on the human environment are addressed: ( i ) As required by 40 CFR 1501.2, at the earliest feasible stage in the planning of any FSA action,
( ii ) Concurrently and in a coordinated manner,
( iii ) During all stages of the decision making process,
( iv ) Using professional and scientific integrity in their discussions and analyses, identifying applicable methodologies, and explaining the use of the best available information, and
( v ) In consultation with all interested parties, including Federal, State, and Tribal governments;
( 4 ) As appropriate, make environmental review available to the public through various means, which can include, but are not limited to: Posting on the National FSA Web site or a State FSA Web site, publishing in the *Federal Register,* or publishing in a newspaper in the area of interest; and
( 5 ) Ensure that, if an FSA proposed action represents one of several phases of a larger action, the entire action is the subject of an environmental review independent of the phases of funding. If the FSA proposed action is one segment of a larger action, the entire action will be used in determining the appropriate level of FSA environmental review.
( b ) A proposed action that consists of more than one categorically excluded proposed action may be categorically excluded only if all components of the proposed action are included within one or more categorical exclusions and trigger no extraordinary circumstances. The component of a proposed action that requires the highest level of NEPA review will be used to determine the required level of the NEPA review.
§ 1021.321 Requirements for environmental assessments. ( a ) *When to prepare an EA.* As required by 40 CFR 1501.4(b), DOE shall prepare an EA for a proposed DOE action that is described in the classes of actions listed in appendix C to subpart D of this part, and for a proposed DOE action that is not described in any of the classes of actions listed in appendices A, B, or D to subpart D, except that an EA is not required if DOE has decided to prepare an EIS. DOE may prepare an EA on any action at any time in order to assist agency planning and decisionmaking.
( b ) *Purposes.* A DOE EA shall serve the purposes identified in 40 CFR 1508.9(a), which include providing sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or to issue a FONSI. If appropriate, a DOE EA shall also include any floodplain/wetlands assessment prepared under 10 CFR part 1022 and may include analyses needed for other environmental determinations.
( c ) *Content.* A DOE EA shall comply with the requirements found at 40 CFR 1508.9. In addition to any other alternatives, DOE shall assess the no action alternative in an EA, even when the proposed action is specifically required by legislation or a court order.
#### § 987.53 Application of regulations to repackers.

Repackers shall be exempt from those requirements of this part, including reporting requirements, with respect to packed dates which had been certified for handling, pursuant to § 987.41(a), prior to receipt, except that: (a) A repacker who processes such dates by machine pitting shall comply with the grade, size, inspection, certification, and identification requirements, and (b) a repacker who repackages such dates in containers other than those in which received, shall comply with the then effective container regulations established pursuant to § 987.48.

[32 FR 12596, Aug. 31, 1967]
#### FIRST NAT. BANK OF SING SING, Appellant, v. SING SING GAS MFG. CO. et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Action by the First National Bank of Sing Sing against the Sing Sing Gas Manufacturing Company and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### § 987.151 Interhandler transfers.

When any handler transfers dates, other than product dates, to another handler, the selling handler shall promptly notify the Committee by filing with it a completed CDAC Form No. 1 and shall show the name and address of the transferring or selling handler and of the receiving or buying handler, the variety and processed category or classification of the dates, the lot number and inspection certificate number on any lot of packed and certified dates, the number and type of containers, the net weight of the transferred dates, and if applicable, the transferring handler's statement on assuming the withholding and assessment obligation. A transfer of products dates between handlers shall be reported as a disposition by the selling handler filing with the Committee a completed CDAC Form No. 8.

[37 FR 23325, Nov. 2, 1972, as amended at 43 FR 28438, June 30, 1978]
§ 958.53 Handling for specified purposes. Upon the basis of recommendations and information submitted by the committee, or other available information, the Secretary shall issue special regulations, or modify, suspend, or terminate requirements in effect pursuant to §§ 958.42, 958.52, 958.60, or any combination thereof, in order to facilitate the handling of onions for the following purposes whenever he finds that to do so will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act: ( a ) Shipments of onions for export;
( b ) Shipments of onions for relief or to charitable institutions;
( c ) Shipments of onions for livestock feed;
( d ) Shipments of onions for planting; and
( e ) Shipments of onions for other purposes which may be specified.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mary L. Sullivan, Appellant.

Judgment insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the minimum sentence to a term of three years, and otherwise judgment affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court— manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.37 Obligation.

Upon the removal, resignation, disqualification, or expiration of the term of office of any member or alternate member, such member or alternate member shall account for all receipts and disbursements and deliver to his successor, to the Committee, or to a designee of the Secretary all property (including, but not limited to, all books and records) in his possession or under his control as member or alternate member, and he shall execute such assignments and other instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to vest in such successor, Committee, or designee full title to such property and funds, and all claims vested in such member or alternate member. Upon the death of any member or alternate member of the Committee, full title to such property, funds, and claims vested in such member or alternate member shall be vested in his successor or, until such successor has been selected and has qualified, in the Committee.

[41 FR 32412, Aug. 3, 1976]
smeCApm L ' t . < ( coMMnTEES 

P.O.BCK042M9 J^SSBltuHU VICE CHAIR. HUtiAJJ SERVICES 

SACBAUENTO. CAM2a9-O02S C » kGfllCULTURC 

(918/319-2025 /"(T.f'i : _ • (irr _ • f i ^ VVATEfi, PARKS AND WILDLIFE 

FAX (616) 319-2125 " " " -'—— — — . i - - ^ 

DISTRICT OFFICE 

1912 STANDlFOf^D AVE., SUITE* 

MODESTO. CA 95350 

(2<»> S76-M25 

FAX(2<)3)576-6«6 

, E^L TOMBERRYHILL 

ascanWymo1I1bor.boiFyf.iieaBOSmbly.ca.9w ASSB^IBurf/EMBEFI, TWENTY-FIFTH DISTRICT 

£ 2 '•—' 

August 12,20-.0 ^=5 0~-;^_ , 

=> ~-'y:rT i 

Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation • , IT^r o 

U.S. Department of Transportation. j ^ ^Q ^ 

400 7"" Street, sw rn^^D ^ 

Wastiington, DC 20590 ] > 5?. ^ 2 : 

Dear Mr. Secretary, _0 O^ S 

I ann pleased to write in support of ttie Small Community Air Service Development Program grant ,_^ ^-^ 

application submitted by the City of Modesto. Modesto City-County Airport is seeking service to 

Itie.hub airports of Portland or Seattle to supplement their current service to San Francisco 

International Airport 

As congestion on area roadways and gasoline prices twth increase, air travelers In the Central 

Valley are burdened by lengttiy drives to distant airports. TIte addition of a nevir hub will provide 

an immediate welcome solution for those in our community, as well as travelers from outlying 

areas of the Central Valley and the foothills region. 1 know that there is a high demand for this 

service and that it will greatly contribute to thel economic viability of this area. 

Commercial air service at Modesto City-County Airport plays an Important role in providing vital 

support to iHisiness, government, education, and leisure travel in the Central Valley. Future 

community growth in the Modesto area will depend, in part, on the airport's ability to meet the 

needs of existing local businesses, as well as, companies considering a new location for their 

operations. 

Tills is a preiject that has strong community support and will provide substantial benefits to the 

community. For these reasons. I urge you to strongly consider Modesto City-County Airport as a 

worthy recipient of the Small Community Air Service Development Program grant 

Sincerely. 

Tom Berryhity 

Ptvmdoei Retytl^ Peptf 

Modesto City-County Airport - Small Connnnunify Air Service Developnaent Grant - August 2010 61 

MOOssTpem
|OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
|---------------------



|I, Karen Montbach, a Managing
Director of Citibank, N.A. (the "Company"), hereby certify, with
respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September
1, 2012 , (the "Agreement"), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage
Securities Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as master servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as successor special scrvicer,
Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as
certificate Administrator (the "Certificate Administrator"), and U.S.
Bank, National Association, as trustee, the following:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|1. | A
review of the Company's activities as Certificate Administrator during
the reporting period ending December 31, 2013 and its performance under
the Agreement has been made under my supervision.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the
reporting period ending December 31,2013, the Company has fulfilled all
of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the reporting period.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|This statement is given by the
undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the
undersigned's individual capacity.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: February 28, 2014
|-----------------------
|                       





| | By: /s/ Karen Montbach     |  |  | 
| | -------------------------- |  |  | 
| | Name: Karen Montbach       |  |  | 
| | Title:   Managing Director |  |  |