alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T W I LLI A M RA I N ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D . C H A P M A N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 17128 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 4 - c v - 0 5 3 4 3 - O WW DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W a nge r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 12, 2013 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , R E IN H A R D T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F orm e rC a l i f

orni as t a t e pr i s one rW i l l i am R a i ne rappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i ons . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de 

# FI LED MA R 22 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 17128 2 novo adi s m i s s a l f

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde r28 U . S . C . §§ 1915A a nd 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) . R es ni ck

v. H ayes , 2 1 3 F .3 d4 4 3 , 4 4 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; B arre n v. H arr i ngton , 1 5 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( o r d e r ) . W e a f f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d R a i ne r ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m s ba s e d on hi s r e m ova l f

r om hi s w ork a s s i gnm e nta nd tr a ns f e rf r om the f a c i l i tyw he r e hi s j ob w a s lo c a te d b e c au s e th e s e a lle g a tio n s d idn o t g iv e r is e to ac o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d lib e rtyo rp r o p e rtyin te r e s t. See San di n v. C on ner , 515 U . S . 472, 484 ( 1995) ( r e qui r i ng “ a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c a ntha r ds hi p on the i nm a t e i n r e l a t i on t o the ordi naryi nci dent s of pri son l i fe ” or are stra i ntthatexce eds the pri soner’ s s ent ence in “a n u n e x p e c te d m a n n e r ” to s ta te alib e rtyin te r e s t) ; W alke r v . G om ez , 370 F . 3d 969, 973 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( the r e i s no l i be rtyorpr ope rtyi nt e r e s ti n pr i s on em pl oym ent ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d R a i ne r ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m ba s e d on de f e nda nt s ’ pr oc e s s i ng of

R a i ne r ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve gr i e va nc e s be c aus e pr i s one r s do n o t h a v e ap r o te c te d lib e rtyin te r e s t in ap a rtic u la rg r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e . See R a m i rez v. G a la za , 33 4 F . 3d 85 0, 86 0 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). AF F I RME D.
§ 835.204 Planned special exposures. ( a ) A planned special exposure may be authorized for a radiological worker to receive doses in addition to and accounted for separately from the doses received under the limits specified in § 835.202(a), provided that each of the following conditions is satisfied: ( 1 ) The planned special exposure is considered only in an exceptional situation when alternatives that might prevent a radiological worker from exceeding the limits in § 835.202(a) are unavailable or impractical;
( 2 ) The contractor management (and employer, if the employer is not the contractor) specifically requests the planned special exposure, in writing; and
( 3 ) Joint written approval is received from the appropriate DOE Headquarters program office and the Secretarial Officer responsible for environment, safety and health matters.
( b ) Prior to requesting an individual to participate in an authorized planned special exposure, the individual's dose from all previous planned special exposures and all doses in excess of the occupational dose limits shall be determined.
( c ) An individual shall not receive a planned special exposure that, in addition to the doses determined in § 835.204(b), would result in a dose exceeding the following: ( 1 ) In a year, the numerical values of the dose limits established at § 835.202(a); and
( 2 ) Over the individual's lifetime, five times the numerical values of the dose limits established at § 835.202(a).
( d ) Prior to a planned special exposure, written consent shall be obtained from each individual involved. Each such written consent shall include: ( 1 ) The purpose of the planned operations and procedures to be used;
( 2 ) The estimated doses and associated potential risks and specific radiological conditions and other hazards which might be involved in performing the task; and
( 3 ) Instructions on the measures to be taken to keep the dose ALARA considering other risks that may be present.
( e ) Records of the conduct of a planned special exposure shall be maintained and a written report submitted within 30 days after the planned special exposure to the approving organizations identified in § 835.204(a)(3).
( f ) The dose from planned special exposures is not to be considered in controlling future occupational dose of the individual under § 835.202(a), but is to be included in records and reports required under this part.
[58 FR 65485, Dec. 14, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 59682, Nov. 4, 1998]
#### JOHN REIS CO., Respondent, v. POST, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by the John Reis Company against Mary Elizabeth Post, executrix, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs, without prejudice to an application by plaintiff to this court at a Special Term thereof for leave to amend its complaint upon such terms as may be just. Plaintiff sought no relief by way of motion. The relief now asked for was not included in defendant’s notice of motion. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 845.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7254 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7254

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction of 
                 moving expenses of Federal employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2018

   Mr. Heck introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction of 
                 moving expenses of Federal employees.

    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 ``Keeping the Promise to American 
Public Servants Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF MOVING EXPENSES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DURING 
              SUSPENSION OF DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 217 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsections (j) and (k) as subsections (k) 
and (l), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (i) the 
following new subsection:
    ``(j) Moving Expenses for Federal Employees.--In the case of moving 
expenses reimbursed or furnished in kind to an individual--
            ``(1) pursuant to chapter 41, or subchapter II of chapter 
        57, of title 5, United States Code, and
            ``(2) with respect to a move--
                    ``(A) between a location inside the continental 
                United States and a location outside the continental 
                United States,
                    ``(B) between Alaska and Hawaii, or
                    ``(C) between Alaska or Hawaii and a location 
                outside the continental United States (other than 
                Alaska or Hawaii),
the limitations under subsection (c) shall not apply, subsection (l) 
shall not apply, and the individual shall be treated for purposes of 
this section as commencing work as an employee at a new principal place 
of work. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `continental 
United States' means the several States and the District of Columbia, 
but does not include Alaska or Hawaii.''.
    (b) Qualified Moving Expense Reimbursement.--Section 132(g)(2) of 
such Code is amended by inserting ``, or a payment or reimbursement 
described in section 217(j) (relating to moving expenses for Federal 
employees),'' after ``change of station,''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 31986D0131 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31986D0131

**86/131/EEC: Commission Decision of 11 March 1986 amending Decision 83/471/EEC relating to the Community Inspection Committee on the application of the classification scale for carcases of adult bovine animals **

*
Official Journal L 101 , 17/04/1986 P. 0040 - 0040 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 20 P. 0191 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 20 P. 0191 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 11 March 1986

amending Decision 83/471/EEC relating to the Community Inspection Committee on the application of the classification scale for carcases of adult bovine animals

(86/131/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1208/81 of 28 April 1981 determining the Community scale for the classification of carcases of adult bovine animals (1), and in particular the fourth paragraph of Article 5 thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 83/471/EEC (2), as amended by Decision 84/375/EEC (3), laid down rules applying to the on-the-spot inspections made by the Community Inspection Committee, as specified in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1208/81;

Whereas as a result of the enlargement of the Community on the one hand and in the light of experience on the other, changes should be made in these rules, in particular in the composition of the Committee and in the frequency of on-the-spot inspections; whereas Decision 83/471/EEC should therefore be amended;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 83/471/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

1. The words 'and of the specific nature of the work to be carried out' are added to the second subparagraph of Article 2 (1).

2. In Article 2 (2):

(a) the words 'six members' in the first sentence are replaced by 'nine members',

(b) the words 'two Commission experts' in the first indent are replaced by 'three Commission experts',

(c) the fourth indent is deleted,

(d) the following indent is added:

'- three experts from other Member States'.

3. Article 3 (2) is replaced by the following:

'2. On-the-spot inspections shall be carried out at least every two years in each Member State and may where necessary be followed by supplementary visits. On such visits the size of the Committee may be reduced.

The programme of inspection visits shall be drawn up by the Commission after consulting the Member States. Representatives of the Member State visited may take part in the inspections.'

4. In Article 3 (4) the words 'not later than three weeks prior to each visit ' are replaced by 'as far in advance as possible before each visit'.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 March 1986

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 123, 7. 5. 1981, p. 3.

(2) OJ No L 259, 20. 9. 1983, p. 30.

(3) OJ No L 196, 26. 7. 1984, p. 53.
§ 800.102 Review by Application Evaluation Panel. ( a ) Applications for loans under this regulation shall be reviewed by an Application Evaluation Panel, which shall be appointed by the Application Approving Official. The Panel shall include, at a minimum, a representative of the Office of Minority Economic Impact, the contracting officer and a representative of the Office of the Controller.
( b ) Panel review shall be conducted pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as applicable, to evaluate, to clarify and to develop information contained in the application and such other information as the Application Approving Official or the Panel may request. ( 1 ) The Panel shall give priority to applications relating to a competitive solicitation, because of time limits on such solicitations. The Panel may defer action a maximum of five days after a solicitation has been announced in the *Commerce Business Daily* to provide all interested applicants an opportunity to apply.
( 2 ) Initial screening will be in the order applications are received, but time required to process an application may vary from case to case.
( c ) *Panel review of specific loan requests.* ( 1 ) If an application contains a specific loan request, and complies with § 800.101, the Panel shall arrange for risk analysis, independent of any such analysis submitted by or on behalf of the applicant. Risk analysis shall be directed both to the loan request and to applicant's prospective performance of work pursuant to the bid or proposal.
( 2 ) The Panel shall evaluate the loan request in light of the risk analysis, and shall give its conclusions in writing to the Application Approving Official, with respect to the following and to such other considerations as that official may direct: ( i ) Applicant's eligibility as a minority business enterprise.
( ii ) Compliance with the application requirements of § 800.101.
( iii ) Compliance with § 800.200 on allowable costs.
( iv ) Applicant's financial ability to make the bid or proposal without the loan.
( v ) Applicant's contribution of, or ability to contribute, the 25% minimum share of allowable costs, or more.
( vi ) Applicant's ability to prepare an adequate bid or proposal, if the loan is made.
( vii ) Possibility of award to applicant pursuant to its bid or proposal. Note:
Normally, not more than three loans will be approved for the same competitive award.
( viii ) Applicant's ability to perform pursuant to the bid or proposal.
( ix ) Likelihood that applicant will repay the requested loan, regardless of success of applicant's bid or proposal.
( x ) Optimal use of available program funds.
( xi ) The Panel's recommendation.
( d ) *Panel review of other applications.* If the application was submitted without a specific loan request, the Panel shall review the application in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section with the limited purpose of determining whether the applicant has complied with § 800.101, except as to matters determinable only with respect to a future specific loan request, and shall inform the Application Approving Official in writing as to its determinations.
§ 710.1 Purpose. ( a ) This part establishes the procedures for determining the eligibility of individuals described in § 710.2 for access to classified matter or special nuclear material, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or for access to national security information in accordance with E.O. 13526 (Classified National Security Information), or eligibility to hold a sensitive position pursuant to E.O. 13467 (Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information).
( b ) This part implements: E.O. 12968, 60 FR 40245 (August 2, 1995), as amended; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707 (January 5, 2010) as amended; E.O. 10865, 25 FR 1583 (February 24, 1960), as amended; E.O. 13467, 73 FR 38103 (June 30, 2008) as amended; and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, issued as SEAD 4, by the Director of National Intelligence on December 10, 2016, or successor directive.
[89 FR 59595, July 23, 2024]
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.48 Termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance.

No order suspending, terminating, or refusing to grant or continue Federal financial assistance shall become effective until: (a) The responsible NRC official has advised the applicant or recipient of his failure to comply and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means, (b) there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure by the applicant or recipient to comply with the requirement imposed by or pursuant to this subpart, (c) the action has been approved by the Commission pursuant to § 4.72, and (d) the expiration of thirty (30) days after the Commission has filed with the committee of the House and the committee of the Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program involved, a full written report of the circumstances and the grounds for such action. Any action to suspend or terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other applicant or recipient as to whom such finding has been made and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.
#### § 1134.500 Purpose of REP Article V.

REP Article V of the general terms and conditions specifies requirements for recipients to provide any type of report not addressed in REP Articles I-IV.
#### § 1128.4 Organization of this part.

(a) The content of this part is organized into subparts and associated appendices.

(1) Each subpart provides direction to DoD Components on how to construct one article of general terms and conditions for grants and cooperative agreements.

(2) For each subpart, there is a corresponding appendix with standard wording for terms and conditions of the article addressed by the subpart. Terms and conditions address rights and responsibilities of the Federal Government and recipients.

(b) A DoD Component must use the wording provided in each appendix in accordance with the direction in the corresponding subpart. That direction may permit DoD Components to vary from the standard wording in some situations.

(c) Table 1 shows which article of general terms and conditions may be found in each of appendices A through G to this part (with the associated direction to DoD Components in Subparts A through G, respectively):

| In . . . | You will find terms and conditions specifying recipients' rights and responsibilities related to . . . | That would appear in an award within FMS Article . . . |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Appendix A | Financial management system standards | I. |
| Appendix B | Payments | II. |
| Appendix C | Allowable costs, period of availability of funds, and fee or profit | III. |
| Appendix D | Revision of budget and program plans | IV. |
| Appendix E | Non-Federal audits | V. |
| Appendix F | Cost sharing or matching | VI. |
| Appendix G | Program income | VII. |

Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 706 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should 

enact legislation to provide direct emergency assistance to American 

farmers who were adversely affected by natural disasters and unforeseen 

production costs during the 2005 crop year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2006 

Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mr. ROSS, Mr. BONNER, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, 

Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. 

BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. 

SKELTON, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

MELANCON, Ms. HERSETH, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. KIND, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. EVANS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

CARDOZA, Mr. LEACH, Mr. FORD, and Mr. CLAY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Congress should enact legislation to provide direct emergency assistance to American farmers who were adversely 

affected by natural disasters and unforeseen production 

costs during the 2005 crop year. 

Whereas the hurricanes and drought of 2005 caused significant and widespread damage to the agricultural economy 

of the United States; 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 706 IH 

Whereas American farmers were forced to pay record prices 

for production inputs, such as fertilizer, natural gas and 

diesel fuels; 

Whereas predetermined market prices prevent American 

farmers from passing unexpected input costs on to consumers; 

Whereas many American farmers are struggling financially 

and lender concern is escalating; 

Whereas protecting domestic agricultural production is a 

matter of national security; and 

Whereas it is vital for American farmers and rural communities to realize that Congress understands their plight 

and is prepared to provide relief: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) Congress should promptly enact agricultural 

4 disaster assistance legislation to assist American 

5 farmers who were adversely affected by natural dis6 asters and unforeseen production costs during the 

7 2005 crop year; and 

8 (2) this legislation should give farmers a choice 

9 of a supplemental direct payment under section 

10 1103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

11 Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7913) or disaster payments 

12 based on yield loss. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Parker, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant’s confession which was obtained outside the presence of counsel after the filing of a felony complaint and the issuance of an arrest warrant should be suppressed *(People v Samuels,*49 NY2d 218). The claim that defendant was deprived of counsel may be raised for the first time *on*appeal *(People v Samuels, supra,*p 221). Although the defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued following the filing of the felony complaint on October 27, 1977, *People v Samuels (supra),*decided on January 15, 1980, must be given retroactive application (see *People v Cullen,*50 NY2d 168; see, also, *People v Bell,*50 NY2d 869). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County court—manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.