alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
226 So.2d 922

#### Frank L. SMITH v. JUNG HOTEL CORPORATION and The Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 50033.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: Frank L. Smith applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 224 So.2d 111.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment..
§ 820.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Scope.* This part sets forth the procedures to govern the conduct of persons involved in DOE nuclear activities and, in particular, to achieve compliance with the DOE Nuclear Safety Requirements by all persons subject to those requirements.
( b ) *Questions not addressed by these rules.* Questions that are not addressed in this part shall be resolved at the discretion of the DOE Official.
( c ) *Exclusion.* Activities and facilities covered under E.O. 12344, 42 U.S.C. 7158 note, pertaining to Naval nuclear propulsion are excluded from the requirements of subparts D and E of this part regarding interpretations and exemptions related to this part. The Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors or his designee will be responsible for formulating, issuing, and maintaining appropriate records of interpretations and exemptions for these facilities and activities.
[58 FR 43692, Aug. 17, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 68732, Nov. 28, 2006]
### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 12

- 3084

State of Nebraska

Petitioner

v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy, Administrator, United

States Environmental Protection Agency

Respondents

Sierra Club, et al.

Intervenors

No: 12

- 3085

National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club

Petitioners

v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Respondents

Nebraska Public Power District and State of Nebraska

Intervenors

______________________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Administration

(EPA

- R07

- OA R

- 2012

- 0158)

(EPA

- R07

- OAR

- 2012

- 0158)

______________________________________________________________________________

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Entry ID: 4256313ORDER

Respondents' motion for an order remanding, without vacatur, a portion of the final

action in these consolidated petitions, to allow the EPA to provide a more detailed and complete

explanation of its decision is granted. It is further ordered that the motion of the Petitioners

National Parks Conservation Association, et al., to set a briefing schedule and resume briefing is

also granted.

The intervenors' briefs are due April 10, 2015 and the final reply briefs by NPCA and the

State of Nebraska are due May 1, 2015.

March 19, 2015

Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

_________________________________ ___

/s/ Michael E. Gans

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Entry ID: 4256313
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Ephraim J. Liebowitz, Deceased. Robert Liebowitz et al., as Executors, Appellants; Aimee R. Liebowitz et al., Respondents.

Order entered on or about July 8, 1969, unanimously modified on the law by striking therefrom the second ordering paragraph and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. It appears that stock of Publix Shirt Corporation was the most valuable asset of the decedent’s estate. It further appears that the executor sought to be examined personally owns approximately half of the voting shares of that corporation, the other half being owned by a relative not involved in this proceeding. Also, individually and as executor and trustee he owns somewhat more than half of the nonvoting shares. It is perfectly clear that what executive control of the corporation he exercises does not stem from the stock owned by him in a fiduciary capacity either as executor or trustee. It follows that the corporation and the estate cannot be regarded as a single entity and that the Surrogate’s Court has no jurisdiction over the management of the corporation *(Matter of Sylvester,*5 A D 2d 970; see, also, *Matter of Auditore,*278 N. Y. 234, 244). It appears that the respondents, beneficiaries of the estate, are dissatisfied with the corporation’s dividend policy. The proper forum for any such claim would be an action in the Supreme Court. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewich, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID HUNG VO MANH DUONG, a/k/a “D”, a/k/a Martin Nguyen, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-98-MU) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hung Vo Manh Duong, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: David Hung Vo Manh Duong seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for correction of sentence, pursuant toFed. R. Crim. P. 35(c). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Duong’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Criminal defendants are accorded ten days after entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). The district court can extend that time period for up to another thirty days upon a finding of good cause and excusable neglect. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978); United States v. Raynor , 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). Here, the district court entered the order denying the Rule 35 motion on June 19, 2000. Duong’s notice of appeal was filed on August 14 and dated August 8, 2000, forty-nine days after the order. Therefore, because Duong failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 79 

Recognizing the public service of Archbishop Patrick Flores. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2005 

Mr. GONZALEZ (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BONILLA, and Mr. 

CUELLAR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the public service of Archbishop Patrick Flores. 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores became the first Mexican-American bishop in the United States, on Cinco de 

Mayo, May 5, 1970; 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores retired in December 

2004 with the longest active service of any Hispanic 

bishop in the United States; 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores served over 34 years in 

the Archdiocese of San Antonio and he was only the second Hispanic Archbishop in the United States; 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores has been a leader in developing the next generation of Hispanic leadership and 

in the promotion of multi-cultural understanding with the 

creation of the Mexican-American Cultural Center; 
2 

•HRES 79 IH 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores has been a leader in the 

foundation and growth of the Hispanic Scholarship 

Fund, which has provided over 68,000 scholarships in excess of $144 million to Hispanics across the United 

States; 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores has been a leader in the 

restoration of the historic San Fernando Cathedral; 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores has been a leader in promoting the economic development of long neglected 

neighborhoods in his Archdiocese; 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores has been a leader in the 

cause of civil rights, immigrant rights, public housing, 

public health, education, and the rights and welfare of 

the poor and the vulnerable; and 

Whereas Archbishop Patrick Flores has been a leader in the 

effort to engage more young Catholics in service to their 

community, their country, and their Church: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representative— 

2 (1) recognizes Archbishop Patrick Flores for his 

3 leadership in improving the opportunities of His4 panics in the United States; 

5 (2) praises Archbishop Patrick Flores for his 

6 34 years of service as bishop serving the diverse and 

7 growing needs of the Archdiocese of San Antonio; 

8 (3) thanks Archbishop Patrick Flores for a life 

9 of public service in the causes of civil rights, health, 

10 and education for all Americans; and 
3 

•HRES 79 IH 

1 (4) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent2 atives to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution 

3 to Archbishop Patrick Flores and to the Archdiocese 

4 of San Antonio for appropriate display. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 752 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 752

 Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives 
 not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution 
 documents in the possession of the President relating to the receipt 
   and consideration by the Executive Office of the President of any 
 information concerning the variation between the version of S. 1932, 
 the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, that the House of Representatives 
   passed on February 1, 2006, and the version of the bill that the 
                 President signed on February 8, 2006.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2006

   Mr. Waxman (for himself, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. 
 Cummings, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Norton, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. 
  Watson, and Mr. Clay) submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives 
 not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution 
 documents in the possession of the President relating to the receipt 
   and consideration by the Executive Office of the President of any 
 information concerning the variation between the version of S. 1932, 
 the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, that the House of Representatives 
   passed on February 1, 2006, and the version of the bill that the 
                 President signed on February 8, 2006.

    Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House 
of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of 
this resolution, all documents, including telephone and electronic mail 
records, logs and calendars, and records of internal discussions in the 
possession of the President relating to the receipt and consideration 
by the Executive Office of the President of any information concerning 
the variation between the version of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act 
of 2005, that the House of Representatives passed on February 1, 2006, 
and the version of the bill that the President signed on February 8, 
2006.
                                 <all>
```
Milkweed can be a pest when it 

grows in fields of crops. But what 

would happen if it disappeared? 

Monarch caterpillars eat milkweed. 

Without milkweed, what would 

happen to monarchs? 

A

weed is a plant growing where you don’t want 

it. Weeds steal sunlight, growing space, and 

moisture from grass and 

plants we do want. 

Weeds spread by seeds. 

Pull weeds before they set 

seeds. Then you’ll have fewer 

weeds in the future! 

Each letter is something

plants (including weeds) 

need to survive.

P place

L light

A air

N nutrients

Tthirst-quenching

water 

"Leaves 

of three, 

let it be." 

Take a whack

at weeds!

• Pull or hoe weeds out.

Be sure to get every tiny

bit of root so the weed

doesn’t grow back.

• The best time to get rid

of weeds is when they

are small.

• Weeds pull more easily

from moist soil. 

Who 

Needs 

Weeds? 

4 United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003 

Poison ivy is a pest when it grows 

where we hike or play. It gives you an 

itchy rash and weepy blisters. Is 

poison ivy good for anything? 

Some animals and birds eat 

the leaves and berries. 

Bees sip nectar 

from the 

flowers. 

“Seeds one year, 

weeds for seven.” 

Tip for Grown-ups: 

Teach children to know poison ivy 

when they see it and to stay away! See 

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/796_ivy.html 

What’s a Weed? 

Monarch butterflies taste bad to birds 

because when they were caterpillars they ate 

milkweed.
#### § 1401.255 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 742 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 742

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 30, 2006.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965. No 
further general debate shall be in order. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no further amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 1138.400 Purpose of SUB Article IV. SUB Article IV specifies the financial and program management requirements that recipients must include in subawards they make under DoD grants and cooperative agreements. It thereby implements OMB guidance in the following portions of 2 CFR part 200, as they apply to subawards: ( a ) Sections 200.209 and 200.302 through 200.309; and
( b ) Subparts E and F.
H. Res. 668

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

February 28, 2006.

Whereas Don Haskins was a high school basketball star at 

Enid High School in Enid, Oklahoma, a college standout 

at Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State) under his mentor, Coach Hank Iba, and a successful Texas high school 

basketball coach, amassing a 157–41 win-loss record 

coaching Benjamin, Hedley, and Dumas High Schools; 

Whereas in 1961 Don Haskins became the coach of the 

men’s basketball team at Texas Western College, which 

was later renamed the University of Texas at El Paso; 

Whereas early in the 1965–1966 basketball season Don 

Haskins told Texas Western president Joseph Ray, ‘‘The 

way our boys line up now, my six best boys are black. 

If I leave two or three of them out because they’re black, 

they’ll know it. [And] the white boys will know it.’’; 

Whereas the 1966 Texas Western team of Bobby Joe Hill 

(Detroit, Michigan), Orsten Artis (Gary, Indiana), Togo 

Railey (El Paso, Texas), Willie Worsley (New York, New 

York), David Palacio (El Paso, Texas), Dick Myers (Peabody, Kansas), Harry Flournoy (Gary, Indiana), Louis 

Baudoin (Albuquerque, New Mexico), Nevil Shed (New 

York, New York), Jerry Armstrong (Eagleville, Missouri), Willie Cager (New York, New York), and David 
2

•HRES 668 EH 

‘‘Big Daddy’’ Lattin (Houston, Texas) finished the basketball season 28–1; 

Whereas on March 19, 1966, Coach Don Haskins’ all-black 

starting line-up, the first such line-up to ever appear in 

a major championship contest, defeated the heavily-favored University of Kentucky to win the NCAA Basketball Championship, an event defined by many as the 

‘‘Brown v. Board of Education of athletics’’; 

Whereas the Miners’ victory accelerated the pace of racial integration in college athletics and contributed to the expansion of the civil rights movement into the realm of 

sports; 

Whereas when recounting his historic impact on diversity in 

college sports, Don Haskins said, ‘‘I just played my best 

guys, like any coach would do.’’; and 

Whereas over the course of his career Don Haskins also 

coached the Miners to 32 winning seasons, seven Western 

Athletic Conference championships, four Western Athletic 

Conference tournament titles, and 21 post-season appearances, creating a proud tradition of college basketball 

success and community spirit in El Paso that persists to 

this day and winning entry into the Naismith Memorial 

Basketball Hall of Fame in 1997: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives celebrates 

the 40th anniversary of Texas Western’s 1966 NCAA Basketball Championship and recognizes the groundbreaking im-
3

•HRES 668 EH 

pact of the title game victory on diversity in sports and civil 

rights in America. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### HALL v. WOODMERE HOMESTEAD CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by *1119Martin V. W. Hall against the Woodmere Homestead Company and others.

PER CURIAM.

Order of the County Court of Nassau County affirmed, with $10 costs and. disbursements. Inasmuch as it affords the appellant an opportunity to try the case, the County Court should see to it that, although the period for trial named in the order has expired, the defendant may still have such opportunity, but, in justice to the respondent, at the earliest day possible. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1118.
9. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

(Attachments A and B to be completed by the engineer.

Attachment C to be completed by the manufacturer.)

> 
Attachment A, Pole Framing Drawings

Attachment B, Application Requirements

Attachment C, Bid Summary (PDF file)
118 STAT. 654 PUBLIC LAW 108–233—MAY 28, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1598:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–306 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–244 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Oct. 15, considered and passed House.

Vol. 150 (2004): May 19, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–233

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in projects within

the San Diego Creek Watershed, California, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102–575, title XVI;

43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1635

the following:

‘‘SEC. 1636. IRVINE BASIN GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the

Irvine Ranch Water District, California, is authorized to participate

in the design, planning, and construction of projects to naturally

treat impaired surface water, reclaim and reuse impaired groundwater, and provide brine disposal within the San Diego Creek

Watershed.

‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs of the projects

authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total

cost.

‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide funds for

the operation or maintenance of a project authorized by this section.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections in section

2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act

of 1992 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section

1635 the following:

‘‘1636. Irvine basin groundwater and surface water improvement projects.’’.

Approved May 28, 2004.

43 USC 390h–18.

Irvine Basin

Surface and

Groundwater

Improvement Act

of 2004.

43 USC 390h

note.

May 28, 2004

[H.R. 1598]
§ 435.501 Scope. ( a ) The energy conservation performance standards in this subpart will apply to all Federal residential buildings for which design of construction began before January 3, 2007 except multifamily buildings more than three stories above grade.
( b ) The primary types of buildings built by or for the Federal agencies, to which the energy conservation performance standards will apply, are: ( 1 ) Single-story single-family residences;
( 2 ) Split-level single-family residences;
( 3 ) Two-story single-family residences;
( 4 ) End-unit townhouses;
( 5 ) Middle-unit townhouses;
( 6 ) End-units in multifamily buildings (of three stories above grade or less);
( 7 ) Middle-units in multifamily buildings (of three stories above grade or less);
( 8 ) Single-section mobile homes; and
( 9 ) Multi-section mobile homes.
[53 FR 32545, Aug. 25, 1988, as amended at 71 FR 70284, Dec. 4, 2006. Redesignated at 79 FR 61571, Oct. 14, 2014]
§ 1134.135 Reporting significant developments. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.328(d) states that a recipient must promptly notify the awarding agency about significant developments under grants and cooperative agreements.
( b ) *DoD implementation.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must require recipients to report significant developments, as described in 2 CFR 200.328(d).
( c ) *Award terms and conditions.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include the wording that appendix A to this part provides for Section E of REP Article I on reporting of significant developments.
**North Carolina**

**North Carolina 10 Haywood**