alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1008 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude cannabidiol and 

cannabidiol-rich plants from the definition of marihuana, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2017 

Mr. GARDNER (for himself, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. 

ISAKSON, Mr. LEE, Mr. JOHNSON, Ms. BALDWIN, and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude 

cannabidiol and cannabidiol-rich plants from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Therapeutic Hemp 

5 Medical Access Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1008 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CANNABIDIOL AND CANNABIDIOL2 RICH PLANTS FROM DEFINITION OF MARI3 HUANA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 102(16) of the Controlled 

5 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended, in the 

6 second sentence— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or the sterilized seed’’ and in8 serting ‘‘the sterilized seed’’; and 

9 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

10 following: ‘‘, cannabidiol, or cannabidiol-rich plants’’. 

11 (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 102 of the Controlled 

12 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), as amended, is further 

13 amended by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(57)(A) The term ‘cannabidiol-rich plant’ 

15 means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of 

16 such plant, whether growing or not, with a tetrahy17 drocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 

18 percent on a dry weight basis. 

19 ‘‘(B) A cannabidiol-rich plant shall not be treat20 ed as a controlled substance under this Act. 

21 ‘‘(58)(A) The term ‘cannabidiol’ means the sub22 stance cannabidiol, as derived from a cannabidiol23 rich plant. 

24 ‘‘(B) Cannabidiol shall not be treated as a con25 trolled substance under this Act. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1008 IS

1 ‘‘(59) The term ‘tetrahydrocannabinol concen2 tration’ means— 

3 ‘‘(A) the percent of the delta-9 tetrahydro4 cannabinol content per dry weight of any part 

5 of the plant Cannabis sativa L. or per volume 

6 of weight of marihuana product; or 

7 ‘‘(B) the combined percent of the delta-9 

8 tetrahydrocannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol9 ic acid in any part of the plant Cannabis sativa 

10 L., regardless of moisture content.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

12 Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this 

13 Act, shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise restrict 

14 any activities related to the use, production, or distribu15 tion of marijuana in a State in which such activities are 

16 legal under State law. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79051-79052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31667]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission For OMB Review; Request For Review of a Revised 
Information Collection: (OMB Control No. 3206-0136; Standard Form 2823)

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revised information 
collection. This information collection, ``Designation of Beneficiary: 
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance'' (OMB Control No. 3206-0136; 
Standard Form 2823), is used by any Federal employee or retiree covered 
by the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program to instruct the 
Office of Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance how to distribute the 
proceeds of his or her life insurance when the statutory order of 
precedence does not meet his or her needs.
    We estimate 47,000 SF 2823 forms are completed annually by 
annuitants and 1,000 forms are completed by assignees. Each form takes 
approximately 15 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden is 
12,000 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Cyrus S. Benson on (202) 606-
4808, FAX (202) 606-0910 or via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d2e141f181e432f08031e02032d021d00430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1a298939492cfa3848f928e8fa18e918ccf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Christopher N. Meuchner, 
Program Analysis Officer, HI/FEIO/FLL, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 2H22, Washington, DC 20415-3661, 
and OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725 
17th Street, NW. Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

[[Page 79052]]

    For information regarding administrative coordination contact: 
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RB/RM/Administrative 
Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 
4332, Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-4808.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-31667 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Osborne, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Osborne,*116 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2008-Ohio-261.]

(No. 2007-1597

Submitted January 8, 2008

Decided January 30, 2008.)

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary H. McGrath, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

James J. McDonnell, for appellant.

{¶ 1} Appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of the discretionary appeal in this matter, reported at 116 Ohio St.3d 1413, 2007-Ohio-6140, 876 N.E.2d 970.

{¶ 2} The motion for reconsideration is granted. The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. V, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State v. Bezak,*114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, and the cause is remanded.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
H. Res. 681

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

March 7, 2006.

Whereas engineers use their scientific and technical knowledge and skills in creative and innovative ways to fulfill 

society’s needs; 

Whereas in just this past year, engineers have helped meet 

the major technological challenges of our time—from rebuilding towns devastated by natural disasters to designing an information superhighway that will speed our 

country into the next century; 

Whereas engineers are a crucial link in research, development, and demonstration and in transforming scientific 

discoveries into useful products, and we will look more 

than ever to engineers and their knowledge and skills to 

meet the challenges of the future; 

Whereas engineers play a crucial role in developing the consensus engineering standards that permit modern economies and societies to exist; 

Whereas the recent National Academy of Sciences report entitled ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ highlighted 

the worrisome trend that fewer students are now focusing 

on engineering in college at a time when increasing numbers of today’s 2,000,000 United States engineers are 

nearing retirement; 
2

•HRES 681 EH 

Whereas the National Society of Professional Engineers 

through National Engineers Week and other activities is 

raising public awareness of engineers’ positive contributions to our quality of life; 

Whereas National Engineering Week activities at engineering 

schools and in other forums are encouraging our young 

math and science students to see themselves as possible 

future engineers and to realize the practical power of 

their knowledge; 

Whereas National Engineers Week has grown into a formal 

coalition of more than 70 engineering, education, and cultural societies, and more than 50 major corporations and 

government agencies; 

Whereas National Engineers Week is celebrated during the 

week of George Washington’s birthday to honor the contributions that our first President, a military engineer 

and land surveyor, made to engineering; and 

Whereas February 19 to 25, 2006, has been designated by 

the President as National Engineers Week: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) will work with the engineering community to 

make sure that the creativity and contribution of that 

community can be expressed through research, development, standardization, and innovation; and 

(2) supports the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week and its aims to increase understanding of 
3

•HRES 681 EH 

and interest in engineering and technology careers and 

to promote literacy in math and science. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Shelia WINSETT, Appellant, v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary Of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

No. 95-1109.

United States Court of Veterans Appeals.

Sept. 21, 1998.

Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and GREENE, Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On July 23, 1998, the Secretary filed a motion to strike portions of the appellant’s brief and appendix, specifically Appendix C to the appellant’s brief consisting of two memoranda from one member of the Paralyzed Veterans of America to another and that portion of the appellant’s brief which references the memoranda. The Secretary contends that the material is not appropriately a part of the record because it was not before the Board. *Rogozinski v. Derwinski,*1 Vet.App. 19 (1990). The appellant argues it is a computer-generated distillation of medical opinions rendered by VA doctors in other cases and, for that reason, must be considered as having been before the Secretary. Further, the appellant argues that these opinions are always consistent in finding no nexus between exposure to Agent Orange and diseases not presumptively establishing service connection, and therefore the opinion rendered by Dr. McPhail is suspect as to truthfulness. *See also*Appellant’s Brief (Br.) at 16 (“It is ... virtually impossible to imagine a VHA doctor taking a position that supports a veteran’s argument rather than the VA’s”). Appellant’s purpose in wanting Appendix C to be included in the record on appeal is to show that “[t]he opinion evidences bias, indicating that its author was predisposed toward rendering an unfavorable opinion.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. Ultimately, she seeks readjudication without consideration of VA medical testimony. Neither she nor the Secretary addresses how our consideration of the appendix, as evi*456dence of bias, can be consistent with 38 U.S.C. § 7261(c), which precludes a trial de novo on factual issues in this Court.

“In no event shall findings of facts made by the Secretary or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals be subject to trial de novo by the Court.” 38 U.S.C. § 7261(c). The appellant’s attempt to have this Court entertain her assertions of bias on the part of VA doctors rendering opinions as to nexus between Agent Orange exposure and diseases not, by law, presumed to establish service connection is an invitation to engage in fact finding. We may not do so. Thus, preter-mitting whether the Appendix C is properly a part of the Record on Appeal, or otherwise knowable by the Court, the relief appellant seeks (remand for readjudieation without consideration of VA employed expert medical opinion) is unavailable in this Court. That material is “not relevant to the issues on appeal” *(see*U.S. VetApp. R. 10(d)) because the question of bias is not before the Court in this appeal. It is, therefore

ORDERED that the Secretary’s motion to strike is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk make appropriate entries in the Court’s record implementing this order.
§ 1.1415 How may I request a waiver for an individual entity? You may request a waiver of one or more requirements of this subpart for an individual entity by submitting a written request to the Food and Drug Administration as described at *www.fda.gov .* The request for a waiver must include the following: ( a ) The name, address, and point of contact of the individual entity to which the waiver would apply;
( b ) The requirements of this subpart to which the waiver would apply;
( c ) Information demonstrating why application of the requirements requested to be waived would result in an economic hardship for the entity, including information about the unique circumstances faced by the entity that result in unusual economic hardship from the application of these requirements;
( d ) Information demonstrating why the waiver will not significantly impair FDA's ability to rapidly and effectively identify recipients of a food to prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak or to address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals as a result of such food being adulterated under section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or misbranded under section 403(w) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and
( e ) Information demonstrating why the waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the public interest.
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.950 Federal agency.

*Federal agency* means any United States executive department, military department, defense agency or any other agency of the executive branch. Other agencies of the Federal Government are not considered “agencies” for the purposes of this part unless they issue regulations adopting the governmentwide Debarment and Suspension system under Executive Orders 12549 and 12689.
§ 52.93 Exemptions and variances. ( a ) Applicants for a combined license under this subpart, or any amendment to a combined license, may include in the application a request for an exemption from one or more of the Commission's regulations. ( 1 ) If the request is for an exemption from any part of a referenced design certification rule, the Commission may grant the request if it determines that the exemption complies with any exemption provisions of the referenced design certification rule, or with § 52.63 if there are no applicable exemption provisions in the referenced design certification rule.
( 2 ) For all other requests for exemptions, the Commission may grant a request if it determines that the exemption complies with § 52.7.
( b ) An applicant for a combined license who has filed an application referencing an early site permit issued under subpart A of this part may include in the application a request for a variance from one or more site characteristics, design parameters, or terms and conditions of the permit, or from the site safety analysis report. In determining whether to grant the variance, the Commission shall apply the same technically relevant criteria as were applicable to the application for the original or renewed site permit. Once a construction permit or combined license referencing an early site permit is issued, variances from the early site permit will not be granted for that construction permit or combined license.
( c ) An applicant for a combined license who has filed an application referencing a nuclear power reactor manufactured under a manufacturing license issued under subpart F of this part may include in the application a request for a departure from one or more design characteristics, site parameters, terms and conditions, or approved design of the manufactured reactor. The Commission may grant a request only if it determines that the departure will comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.7, and that the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the departure.
( d ) Issuance of a variance under paragraph (b) or a departure under paragraph (c) of this section is subject to litigation during the combined license proceeding in the same manner as other issues material to that proceeding.
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1





Amendment No. 4 to Sublease Agreement




	 	 	 
	Amendment No. 4 Effective Date:

	 	July 28, 2006
	 
	 	 
	Amendment No. 3 Effective Date:

	 	July 8, 2005
	 
	 	 
	Amendment No. 2 Effective Date:

	 	January 1, 2004
	 
	 	 
	Amendment No. 1 Effective Date:

	 	January 1, 2003
	 
	 	 
	Sublease Agreement Date:

	 	July 26, 2001
	 
	 	 
	Master Lease Date:

	 	March 24, 2000
	 
	 	 
	Sublessor:

	 	WJ Communications Inc., A Delaware
Corporation successor by merger to Watkins
Johnson Company a California Corporation.
	 
	 	 
	Sublessee:

	 	Emulex Communications Corporation
	 
	 	 
	Subject Premises:

	 	The first floor, right side (as viewed from
River Oaks Parkway) of 405 River Oaks
Parkway, San Jose, approximately 11,251
square feet plus the first floor, back one
half of the left side of 405 River Oaks
Parkway, San Jose, approximately 3,950 square
feet. Total square feet of approximately
15,201.





This Sublease Agreement Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into as of the Amendment No. 4 Effective
Date shown above, by and between Sublessor and Sublessee.



The Parties Enter this Amendment on the basis of modifying the following terms and provisions of
the following sections and portions of the Sublease Agreement dated July 26, 2001 and Amendment No.
1 dated January 1, 2003 and Amendment No. 2 dated January 1, 2004 and Amendment No. 3 dated July 8,
2005.





	 	1.	 	The sublease term is hereby extended for the longer of twelve months from August 1,
2006 or three months from the notice to terminate which ever is longer.






	 	2.	 	The Subject Premises shall be increased by 10,641 square feet located on the right
side of the second floor of 405 River Oaks Parkway, San Jose. The total square feet shall
be 25,842 square feet.






	 	3.	 	The monthly Base Rent is unchanged from the current Base Rent of $1.35 per square
foot per month, full service gross. The Base Rent shall be Thirty Four Thousand, Eight
Hundred Eighty Six Dollars and 70/100ths ($34,886.70) per




 









 






	 	 	 	month as of the Amendment No. 4 effective date. Included in this monthly Base Rent of
$34,886.70 are the Sublessee expenses per Section 5.b of the Sublease.






	 	4.	 	The Sublessor will not pay a commission to any agent related to Amendment No. 4.




All other terms and conditions of the Sublease Agreement dated July 26, 2001 and Amendment No. 1
dated January 1, 2003 and Amendment No. 2 dated January 1, 2004 and Amendment No. 3 dated July 8,
2005 shall apply and remain in effect through the end of the Amendment No. 4 Lease Term.




	 	 	 
	Agreed By:

	 	Agreed By:
	 
	 	 
	WJ Communications Inc.

	 	Emulex Communications Corporation
	 
	 	 
	Sublessor

	 	Sublessee
	 
	 	 
	/s/ R. Gregory Miller

	 	/s/ Jim McCluney
	 

	 	 
	R. Gregory Miller

	 	Jim McCluney
	Chief Financial Officer

	 	President, Chief Operating Officer
	 
	 	 
	August 1, 2006

	 	July, 31, 2006
	 

	 	 
	Dated

	 	Dated
§ 603.920 Termination and enforcement requirements. ( a ) *Termination.* A TIA must include the following conditions for termination: ( 1 ) An award may be terminated in whole or in part by the contracting officer, if a recipient materially fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the award.
( 2 ) Subject to a reasonable determination by either party that the project will not produce beneficial results commensurate with the expenditure of resources, that party may terminate in whole or in part the agreement by providing at least 30 days advance written notice to the other party, provided such notice is preceded by consultation between the parties. The two parties will negotiate the termination conditions, including the effective date and, in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. If either party determines in the case of partial termination that the reduced or modified portion of the award will not accomplish the purpose for which the award was made, the award may be terminated in its entirety.
( 3 ) Unless otherwise negotiated, for terminations of an expenditure based TIA, DOE's maximum liability is the lesser of: ( i ) DOE's share of allowable costs incurred up to the date of termination, or
( ii ) The amount of DOE funds obligated to the TIA.
( 4 ) Unless otherwise negotiated, for terminations of a fixed-support based TIA, DOE shall pay the recipient a proportionate share of DOE's financial commitment to the project based on the percent of project completion as of the date of termination.
( 5 ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (4) of this section, if the award includes milestone payments, the Government has no obligation to pay the recipient beyond the last completed and paid milestone if the recipient decides to terminate.
( b ) Enforcement. The standards of 10 CFR 600.352 (for enforcement) and the procedures in 10 CFR 600.22 (for disputes and appeals) apply.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129850 & (13) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 129850 COA: 264485 Wayne CC: 04-002400-01 DALION LAMARR DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 15, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is DENIED.

p0320 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.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10254 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REGINA RENEE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-41-18

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Regina Renee Jones on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jones has responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief, Jones’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
2007-2111.

#### State v. Babb.

Summit App. No. 23631, 2007-0hio-5102. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I; cause held for the decision in 2007-1703, *State v. Kalish,*Lake App. No. 2006-L-093, 2007-Ohio-3850; and briefing schedule stayed.
#### § 175.20 Referral.

An agency official should inform the agency's suspending or debarring official if he or she terminates an award based on a violation of a prohibition contained in the award term under § 175.15.
#### § 71.53 [Reserved]