alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 455.132 State evaluation of requests for severe hardship assistance. ( a ) To the extent provided in § 455.30(d), financial assistance will be initially available for schools and hospitals experiencing severe hardship based upon an applicant's inability to provide the non-Federal share as specified in the State plan pursuant to § 455.20(g). This financial assistance will be available only to the extent necessary to enable such institutions to participate in the program.
( b ) The State shall recommend funds for severe hardship applications wholly or partially from the funds reserved in accordance with § 455.30(d) and as stated in an approved State Plan.
( c ) Applications for Federal funding in excess of the non-Federal share in the State plan pursuant to § 455.20(x) based on claims of severe hardship shall be given an additional evaluation by the State to assess on a quantifiable basis to the maximum extent practicable the relative need among eligible institutions. The minimum amount of additional Federal funding necessary for the applicant to participate in the program will be determined by the State in accordance with the procedures established in the State Plan. The primary consideration shall be the institution's inability to provide the non-Federal share of the project cost as specified in the State plan pursuant to § 455.20(x). Secondary criteria such as climate, fuel cost and fuel availability, borrowing capacity, median family income in the area, and other relevant factors as determined by the State may be addressed in the State Plan as specified in § 455.20(g).
( d ) A State shall indicate, for those schools and hospitals with the highest rankings, determined pursuant to § 455.131(b) and (c): ( 1 ) The amount of additional hardship funding requested by each eligible applicant for each building determined to be in a class of severe hardship and
( 2 ) The amount of hardship funding recommended by the State based upon relative need, as determined in accordance with the State Plan, to the limit of the hardship funds available. The State must decide on a case-by-case basis whether, and to what extent, it will recommend hardship funding.
( e ) If there are insufficient applications from hardship applicants to cover the 10 percent allocation provided for in § 455.30(d), then the State may recommend use of the remaining funds for other qualified applicants. The total amount recommended for hardship grants cannot exceed the 10 percent limit.
#### Jasper Paige, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Lulu Paige, et al., Respondents, v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law for leave to bring an action against appellant, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 7, 1969, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a hearing, in accordance with the views set forth below, and a new determination. The questions of fact have not been considered. We are of the opinion that triable issues of fact are presented on the questions of whether a hit and run accident occurred and whether notification was given to the Police Department within 24 hours. We express no opinion as to the merits of the issues raised by appellant. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Brennan, JJ., concur. (Beldock, P. J., deceased).
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 70.9 Completeness and accuracy of information. ( a ) Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
( b ) Each applicant or licensee shall notify the Commission of information identified by the applicant or licensee as having for the regulated activity a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security. An applicant or licensee violates this paragraph only if the applicant or licensee fails to notify the Commission of information that the applicant or licensee has identified as having a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security. Notification shall be provided to the Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office within two working days of identifying the information. This requirement is not applicable to information which is already required to be provided to the Commission by other reporting or updating requirements.
[52 FR 49373, Dec. 31, 1987]
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10327 Summary Calendar

ARABIAN SHIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-624-BD

-------------------- January 28, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Arabian Shield Development Company appeals the district court’s order granting the CIA’s motion for summary judgment. Arabian Shield sought judicial review of the CIA’s decision denying Arabian Shield’s requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA). The CIA denied the requests because it determined that the fact of the existence or nonexistence of the requested information was classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958, and would relate directly to information concerning intelligence sources andNo. 99-10327 -2- methods which the Director of Central Intelligence has the responsibility to protect from disclosure pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3). Thus, the information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA §§ 552(b)(1) and (b)(3). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Arabian Shield has not shown that the district court erred in concluding that the CIA had met its burden of establishing an exemption under FOIA § 552(b)(1). See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Nor has Arabian Shield shown that the district court erred in concluding that the information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA § 552(b)(3). See Knight v. CIA , 872 F.2d 660 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

§ 4.570 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities conducted by the agency.
( b ) The agency shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Civil Rights Program Manager, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights, shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints should be sent to the NRC using an appropriate method listed in § 4.5.
( d ) The agency shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The agency may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the agency receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The agency shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), or section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 792), is not readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by § 4.570(g). The agency may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the agency.
( j ) The head of the agency shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the agency determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The agency may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[51 FR 22888, 22896, June 23, 1986, as amended at 68 FR 58799, Oct. 10, 2003]
(September 30, 1980)

#### Alro Builders and Contractors, Inc., Appellant, v Chicken Koop, Order Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 3, 1980, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendant’s motion in its entirety and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term correctly concluded that the motion and cross motion for summary judgment were premature. Issue had not been joined by service of an answer (CPLR 3212). Special Term incorrectly dismissed the complaint. Although the facts alleged in the complaint appear to be unclear, nevertheless the liberal construction which must be afforded to that pleading (CPLR 3026) in this motion before us, supports the conclusion that the complaint sets forth a cause of action for the return of the deposit. Contrary to the finding at Special Term, it cannot be said as a matter of law on the complaint that there was a willful default, or for that matter any default under the parties’ contract as amended, that would entitle defendant to retain the deposit given by plaintiff to defendant in this contemplated real estate transaction. Such conclusion, espoused by defendant, should rest upon facts to be adduced at trial or more detailed evidentiary disclosures on an appropriate motion for summary judgment. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
P.1 

OAR Box 1834 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

2) VI-C-01 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:33 PM Sheet 2 of 61 
USB UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD 

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 

P.2 

4-10-07 

I[-c-o\ 

JAN 11 1995 OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Ned J. Seppi ^TT^TO--^4 ? 

Environmental and Safety Coordinator 1\^V-''\.---"*"" W^f 

Operations Support i',' > • __ - 0 \QQS \*J 

Corporate Health, Environment, and Safety-, y fEB " J ' V 

Marathon Oil Company j'-''--••'; ._-~*-J 

539 South Main Street < L^-s^^TTr */•'£? 

Findlay, Ohio 45840-3295 \ --r\ L\\-A^"-'ZLZ 

"- \ &A 

Dear Mr. Seppi: 

Charles Gray has asked me to respond to your letter of 

December 12, 1994, which requested that we reconsider the grouping 

specifications in the Fuels and Fuel Additives (F/FA) Registration 

Regulations pertaining to fuels derived from synthetic crude oil 

sources. In particular, you requested that the grouping rules be 

changed such that fuels derived from tar sands crude would be 

included in the baseline category. 

The existing grouping rules, which exclude synthetic fuels 

from the baseline groups, were based on our understanding that the 

composition of these fuels could be appreciably different from 

conventional petroleum-based fuels. However., we are carefully 

reviewing the data you have provided, along with other information 

we have received since publication of the new regulations. If a 

change appears to be warranted, we will consider proposing a 

revision to the current grouping rules. 

We appreciate your interest in this regulation and the useful 

information you provided with your letter. 

Sincerely yours, 

..Judith Graj 

/Senior Project M.an£ger 

Regulation Development 

and Support Division 

cc: Charles Gray 

Printed on Recycled Paper
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32408]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Earth Sciences Proposal Review Panel; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.
    Name: Proposal Review Panel in Earth Sciences (1569).
    Date and Time: January 13, 2011, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.; January 14, 
2011, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
    Place: UNAVCO, Inc. Headquarters, 67350 Nautilus Drive, Boulder, CO 
80301-5554.
    Type of Meeting: Part Open.
    Contact Person: Mr. Russell Kelz, Program Director, Instrumentation 
& Facilities Program, Division of Earth Sciences, Room 785, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: 
(703) 292-8558.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out review of UNAVCO, Inc. management 
and leadership as stipulated in cooperative agreement EAR-0735156.

Agenda

    Closed:
    January 13, 2011--8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: organization meeting, 
introductions, review of charge to review panel, discussion of COI.
    January 13, 2011--1 p.m.-5 p.m.: panel discussion, write up of 
summary of findings and recommendations.
    January 14, 2011--8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.: complete panel summary and 
recommendations.
    Open:
    January 13, 2011--9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: Presentation by UNAVCO, 
Inc. management and Q&A between panel and UNAVCO, Inc.
    January 14, 2011--3:30 a.m.-4 p.m.: Presentation of panel draft 
findings to NSF/EAR/IF Program.
    Reason for Closing: During the closed sessions, the panel will be 
reviewing information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information, financial data such as salaries, and 
personal information that could harm individuals if they are disclosed. 
If discussions were open to the public, these matters that are exempt 
under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine 
Act would be improperly disclosed.

    Dated: December 21, 2010,
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-32408 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### § 60.78 Material control and accounting records and reports.

DOE shall implement a program of material control and accounting (and accidental criticality reporting) that is the same as that specified in §§ 72.72, 72.74, 72.76, and 72.78 of this chapter.

[63 FR 26961, May 15, 1998]
#### § 780.43 Response.

Any party may file a response with the Board containing a concise statement of the facts or law or any other relevant information in opposition to or in support of the application which that party believes should be considered by the Board. Such response must be filed by a party within twenty (20) days after being served a copy of the application.
BLD

- 058 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 15

- 1890

___________ JOHN W. MCGILL,

Appellant

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

______________________________ ______ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 15

- cv - 00031) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 November 19, 2015 Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

( F iled : November 25, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

John McGill appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which dismissed his complaint for declaratory judgment. We will vacate the District Court’s order and remand for further proceedings. McGill’s complaint, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 an d 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), sought a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen of the United States. The District Court entered an order stating that it had sua sponte reviewed the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ashcrof t v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and had determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court stated, “Plaintiff seeks relief that is beyond the jurisdiction of the court,” and stated that amendment would not be allowed, as it would be futile. McGill timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s order dismissing McGill’s complaint. We exercise plenary review over a district court’s
decision to dismiss for fail ure to state a claim. Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The District Court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of McGill’s complaint pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Section 1503 (a) provides that “any person who claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied such right or privilege can institute an action for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States.” See Mathin v. Kerry , 782
F. 3d 804, 805 (7th Cir. 2015). The statute provides for a de novo determination of citizenship by the district court. Id. McGill’s complaint states that he sought a certificate3

of citizenship and that it was denied. The District Court did not provide any legal reasoning for its determination that it lacked jurisdiction over McGill’s complaint, and we are unaware of any legal reason why the District Court could not adjudicate it. For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s order and rem and for further proceedings.
#### NELSON, Appellant, v. CONNOR, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June *5,*1914.)

Action by Charles M. Nelson, an infant, by Charles J. Nelson, his guardian ad litem, against Benjamin F. Connor.

No opinion. Motion denied, on condition that appellant serve his proposed case on appeal by July 3, 1914, place the case on the next calendar, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted, with $10 costs.
# EUR-Lex - 31975D0320 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31975D0320

**75/320/EEC: Council Decision of 20 May 1975 setting up a pharmaceutical committee **

*
Official Journal L 147 , 09/06/1975 P. 0023 - 0023 Finnish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 4 P. 0108 Spanish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 4 P. 0102 Swedish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 4 P. 0108 Portuguese special edition Chapter 13 Volume 4 P. 0102 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 20 May 1975 setting up a pharmaceutical committee (75/320/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission;

Whereas the implementation of the measures adopted by the Council as regards the approximation of the laws relating to proprietary medicinal products for human use may raise problems which should be jointly examined;

Whereas, to this end, a Committee should be set up, chaired by a representative of the Commission and composed of representatives of the Member States from those States' administrations,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

A Committee called the "Pharmaceutical Committee" shall be set up and attached to the Commission.

Article 2

Without prejudice to the tasks of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products referred to in Article 8 of the Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC (1) of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, the task of this Committee shall be to examine: - any question relating to the application of Directives on proprietary medicinal products which are brought up by its Chairman - either on his initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State;

- any other question in the field of proprietary medicinal products brought up by its Chairman - either on his initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State.

The Commission shall consult the Committee when preparing proposals for Directives in the field of proprietary medicinal products, and in particular when it considers any amendments to Council Directive 65/65/EEC (2) of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products which it might have occasion to propose.

Article 3

1. The Committee shall consist of senior experts in public health matters from the Member States' administrations and each Member State shall have one representative.

2. There shall be one deputy for each representative. This deputy shall be entitled to participate in meetings of the Committee.

3. A representative of the Commission shall chair the Committee.

Article 4

The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.

Done at Brussels, 20 May 1975.

For the Council

The President

R. RYAN (1)See page 13 of this Official Journal. (2)OJ No 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369/65.