alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PEOPLE ex rel. MACK v. McKAY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Edward J. Mack, against Douglas I. McKay, as Commissioner.

No opinion. Motion granted, without costs. Order filed.
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 12.304 Comments by other parties.

Any party to a proceeding other than the applicant and the NRC counsel may file comments on an application within 30 days after it is served, or on an answer within 15 days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in proceedings on the application unless the adjudicative officer determines that the public interest requires participation in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comments.
1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan

Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2002

___________

Audie Lynn Fox, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Sheryl Ramstad Hvass; Frank W. *

Wood, Sued as Frank W. Wood; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Gothriel J. LaFleur, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 26, 2001

Filed: December 20, 2001 

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Audie Lynn Fox appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 complaint alleging that thenCommissioner Frank Wood denied him parole in 1995 for purely retaliatory reasons.

Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that Fox’s complaint is barred
-2- -

by a settlement agreement in which Fox relinquished his rights to bring future actions

against past or present Minnesota officers based on events occurring prior to March

1996.

We do not address Fox’s argument that the agreement was invalidated when

the Minnesota Department of Corrections transferred Fox from the St. Cloud

corrections facility to the Stillwater facility. Fox raised this issue for the first time on

appeal. This issue remains unresolved as it was not presented to the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 79025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31600]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Shipbuilding Research Program

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 29, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Shipbuilding 
Research Program (``NSRP'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Atlantic Marine 
Holding Company, Jacksonville, FL, has been removed as a party to this 
venture. Additionally, BAE Systems Southeast Shipyards AMHC, Inc., 
Jacksonville, FL, has been added to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and NSRP intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On March 13, 1998, NSRP filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 
29, 1999 (64 FR 4708).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
15, 2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65511).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-31600 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
204.7604 Solicitation provision.       Except for supplies or services exempted by DoDI 5000.79, use the provision at 252.204-7024, Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System, in solicitations for supplies and services, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 204.76 - SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE RISK SYSTEM
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20221

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMMY ALEXANDER, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:89-CR-331-1

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Tommy Alexander, Sr., federal prisoner # 07193-035, moves to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of the denial of his motion for a sentencing

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and he requests permission to file a

supplemental brief. The motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. The

district court denied Alexander leave to appeal IFP, but it did not certify that his

appeal was not taken in good faith. See FED. R. App. P. 24(a). We may

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 20, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 08-20221 Document: 00511514128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2011
No. 08-20221

nevertheless dismiss the appeal sua sponte pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.2 if it is

apparent that the appeal lacks merit.

Alexander argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying

his § 3582(c)(2) motion because the court did not enter written findings or cite

specific reasons to support its determination that he poses a danger to the

community. He contends that he is a 60-year-old grandfather who has already

served almost twenty years in prison and that the reduction of his sentence to

one within the amended guideline range is unlikely to endanger the community.

The district court determined that Alexander was eligible for a reduction

in sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, but it

denied a reduction in the interest of community safety. See Dillon v. United

States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-92 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). No further

reasons were required. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th

Cir.2011).

As Alexander has not shown that the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion

presents a non-frivolous appellate issue, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 08-20221 Document: 00511514128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2011
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.102 Administrative review of application. ( a ) During review of an application by the NRC staff, an applicant may be required to supply additional information. The staff may request any one party to the proceeding to confer with the NRC staff informally. In the case of docketed application for a limited work authorization, construction permit, operating license, early site permit, standard design approval, combined license, or manufacturing license under this chapter, the NRC staff shall establish a schedule for its review of the application, specifying the key intermediate steps from the time of docketing until the completion of its review.
( b ) The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will refer the docketed application to the ACRS as required by law and in such additional cases as the Director or the Commission may determine to be appropriate. The ACRS will render to the Commission one or more reports as required by law or as requested by the Commission.
( c ) The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will make each report of the ACRS a part of the record of the docketed application, and transmit copies to the appropriate State and local officials.
[27 FR 377, Jan. 13, 1962, as amended at 36 FR 13270, July 17, 1971; 37 FR 15130, July 28, 1972; 47 FR 9986, Mar. 9, 1982; 69 FR 2235, Jan. 14, 2004; 70 FR 61887, Oct. 27, 2005; 72 FR 49472, Aug. 28, 2007; 72 FR 57439, Oct. 9, 2007; 73 FR 5715, Jan. 31, 2008; 84 FR 65643, Nov. 29, 2019; 88 FR 57876, Aug. 24, 2023]
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 20

Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives of the Social 

Security totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005

Mr. HAYWORTH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives 

of the Social Security totalization agreement between 

the United States and Mexico.

1 Resolved, That, pursuant to section 233(e)(2) of the 

2 Social Security Act, the House of Representatives hereby 

3 disapproves the agreement establishing totalization ar4 rangements between the social security system established 

5 by title II of such Act and the social security system of 

6 Mexico, signed by the Commissioner of Social Security and 

7 the Director General, Mexican Social Security Institute, 

8 on June 29, 2004.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC FOSTER ) 

AGENCY, LLC REPRESENTED BY ) 

JOSEPH APPIAH, CHAIRMAN ) 

THERAPEUTIC FOSTER CHILDREN, ) 

FOSTER PARENTS AND STAFF ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

V. ) CASE NO. 2:06cv735-MHT 

) 

THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) 

HUMAN RESOUSRES ) 

 ) 

Defendant. 

 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

 COMES NOW the undersigned counsel and files this motion to withdraw and as 

grounds therefore states the following: 

1. The undersigned counsel for the Alabama Department of Human Resources is 

also a member of the Air Force Reserves. He is being called to active duty in the Air 

Force for a period of approximately 7 months. 

2. DHR has appointed other counsel for this case who is filing a notice of 

appearance. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

TROY KING 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

SHARON E. FICQUETTE 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

STATE OF ALABAMA 

\s\ Joel Marsh________________________ 

Joel C. Marsh MAR052 

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 23-2 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
Assistant Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

Department of Human Resources 

Post Office Box 304000 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-4000 

Telephone: (334) 242-9330 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing MOTION TO WITHDRAW on 

the following by placing a copy thereof, addressed to him as indicated below, in United 

States Mail, First Class postage prepaid, on this the 20th day of February 2007. 

Joseph Appiah 

Pro Se plaintiff 

P.O. Box 788 

Phenix City, Alabama 36868 

 

/s/ Joel Marsh

Joel C. Marsh – MAR052 

Assistant Attorney General 

State of Alabama 

Department of Human Resources 

Post Office Box 304000 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-4000 

 Telephone: (334) 242-9330

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 23-2 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 1710.115 Notice of salary offset from another agency. ( a ) *Complete claim.* When the Board receives a certified claim from a creditor agency, deductions should be scheduled to begin at the next officially established pay interval. The Board's finance office will provide the employee with a notice that contains: ( 1 ) A statement that the Board has received a certified debt claim from the creditor agency;
( 2 ) The amount of the debt claim;
( 3 ) The date salary offset deductions will begin;
( 4 ) The amount of such deductions; and
( 5 ) A copy of the notice received from the creditor agency.
( b ) *Notice of Claim.* The Board's finance office will provide a copy of the notice to the creditor agency and advise the creditor agency of the dollar amount to be offset and the pay period when the offset will begin.
( c ) *Incomplete claim.* When the Board receives an incomplete certification of debt from a creditor agency, it must return the debt claim with notice that procedures under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 10 CFR 1710.113 must be followed and a properly certified debt claim received before action will be taken to collect from the employee's current pay account.
( d ) *Review.* The Board will not review the merits of the creditor agency's determination with respect to the amount or validity of the debt certified by the creditor agency.
( e ) *Employees who transfer from one paying agency to another.* If, after the creditor agency has submitted the debt claim to the Board, the employee transfers from the Board to a different paying agency before the debt is collected in full, the Board will certify the total amount collected on the debt. One copy of the certification will be furnished to the employee and one copy to the creditor agency, along with notice of the employee's transfer.
PGI 206.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.       (d) *Limitations.* When utilizing the authority at FAR 6.302-1, the contracting officer shall post a request for information or a sources sought notice, and shall include the results of this inquiry in the justification required by FAR 6.303. This requirement to post may be waived by the Head of the Contracting Activity, or designee. The waiver authority may not be delegated lower than a general or flag officer or a member of the Senior Executive Service.    **Parent topic:** PGI 206.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.
§ 1021.340 Classified, confidential, and otherwise exempt information. ( a ) Notwithstanding other sections of this part, DOE shall not disclose classified, confidential, or other information that DOE otherwise would not disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) and 10 CFR 1004.10(b) of DOE's regulations implementing the FOIA, except as provided by 40 CFR 1506.6(f).
( b ) To the fullest extent possible, DOE shall segregate any information that is exempt from disclosure requirements into an appendix to allow public review of the remainder of a NEPA document.
( c ) If exempt information cannot be segregated, or if segregation would leave essentially meaningless material, DOE shall withhold the entire NEPA document from the public; however, DOE shall prepare the NEPA document, in accordance with the CEQ Regulations and this part, and use it in DOE decisionmaking.
#### La Manna Concrete, Inc., Respondent, v. Bernard Friedman et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover upon a contract *¡*and an account stated, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 2, 1969, in favor of plaintiff against them pursuant to an order of said court entered June 13, 1969 which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendants’ answer on the ground of their willful failure to appear for examination before trial. Judgment and said order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent against appellants; plaintiff’s said motion granted to the extent of directing defendants to comply with the prior order of said court dated April 2, 1969, which directed the examination to continue before a Referee who was designated therein; and defendants’ answer reinstated. The examination shall proceed at the place set forth in the order of April 2, 1969 at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff. This determination is conditioned upon counsel for defendants paying $250 to plaintiff’s counsel for their fees, in addition to the costs and disbursements of this appeal, within 10 days after taxation of said costs and disbursements of the appeal. We are of the opinion that the conduct of defendants and their counsel was not so willful and com tumacious as to warrant the striking out of defendants’ answer under CPLR 3126. However, the conduct of counsel for defendants shows such a lack of appreciation for proper procedure and careful handling of this matter that it warrants the imposition upon them of the additional expenses that have been incurred by counsel for plaintiff. We note that the deposition of an adverse party may not be taken before a person in the employ of an attorney for the party who seeks the deposition (CPLR 3113). We are further constrained to call attention to the proper practice before this court in giving citations to legal authorities. The citation must be to the official reports unless the case is not listed therein. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
SUBCHAPTER D—SOCIOECONOMIC

PROGRAMS

PART 1219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

PART 1222—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

PART 1223—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG–FREE WORKPLACE

PART 1224—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

PART 1219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

Subpart 1219.2—Policies

1219.201 General policy.

1219.201-70 Procurement goals for small business.

1219.202 Specific policies.

1219.202-70 Procurement Forecast.

Subpart 1219.4—Cooperation With the Small Business Administration

1219.401 General.

Subpart 1219.5—Set-Asides for Small Business

1219.501 General.

1219.502-8 Rejecting Small Business Administration recommendations.

1219.502-9 Withdrawing or modifying small business set-asides.

Subpart 1219.7—The Small Business Subcontracting Program

1219.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting

assistance program.

1219.705-6 Postaward responsibilities of the contracting officer.

Subpart 1219.8—Contracting With the Small Business Administration (the 8(a) Program)

1219.800 General.

1219.815 Release for non-8(a) procurement.

Subpart 1219.70—DOT Mentor-Protégé Program

1219.7000 General.

PART 1222—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

Subpart 1222.1—Basic Labor Policies

1222.101 Labor relations.

1222.101-70 Admittance of union representatives to DOT installations.

1222.101-71 Contract clauses.

Subpart 1222.8—Equal Employment Opportunity

1222.808 Complaints.

1222.810-70 Contract clause.

PART 1223—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY

TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG–FREE WORKPLACE

Subpart 1223.3—Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data

1223.303 Contract clause.

Subpart 1223.70—Safety Requirements for Selected DOT Contracts

1223.7000 Contract clauses.

PART 1224—PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Subpart 1224.1—Protection of Individual Privacy

1224.102-70 General.

1224.103 Procedures.
Subpart 1224.2—Freedom of Information Act

1224.203 Policy.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.204 Demand for information. ( a ) The Commission may issue to a licensee or other person subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission a demand for information for the purpose of determining whether an order under § 2.202 should be issued, or whether other action should be taken, which demand will: ( 1 ) Allege the violations with which the licensee or other person is charged, or the potentially hazardous conditions or other facts deemed to be sufficient ground for issuing the demand; and
( 2 ) Provide that the licensee must, or the other person may, file a written answer to the demand for information under oath or affirmation within twenty (20) days of its date, or such other time as may be specified in the demand for information.
( b ) A licensee to whom the Commission has issued a demand for information under this section must respond to the demand by filing a written answer under oath or affirmation; any other person to whom the Commission has issued a demand for information may, in its discretion, respond to the demand by filing a written answer under oath or affirmation. The licensee's answer shall specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in the demand for information, and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee relies. A person other than a licensee may answer as described above, or by setting forth its reasons why the demand should not have been issued and, if the requested information is not provided, the reasons why it is not provided.
( c ) Upon review of the answer filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or if no answer is filed, the Commission may institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to take such action as may be proper.
( d ) An answer may consent to the entry of an order pursuant to § 2.202 in substantially the form proposed in the demand for information. Such consent shall constitute a waiver as provided in § 2.202(d).
[56 FR 40685, Aug. 15, 1991]
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

s1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141321

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141321 COA: 290493 Oakland CC: 2008-218993-FC LEONARD BERTRUM CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 18, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 35-2 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 35-2 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

#### § 26.121 Purpose.

This subpart contains requirements for facilities that are operated by licensees and other entities who are subject to this part to perform initial tests of urine specimens for validity, drugs, and drug metabolites.