alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t

Decided and Entered: January 19, 2017 5 19940

________________________________
In the Matter of COUNTY OF DELAWARE, Respondent,

v DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION HOWARD A. ZUCKER, as Commissioner of Health, et al., Appellants.

________________________________ Motion for reargument, renewal or permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

In the decision on the appeal in this matter, this Court modified Supreme Court's judgment, which, among other things, allowed petitioner to claim reimbursement for pre-2006 Medicaid overburden expenditures pursuant to Social Services Law § 368-a (135 AD3d 1260, 1260-1261 [2016]). While we found that Supreme Court erred in holding that the 2012 amendment to the Medicaid Cap Statute, which barred counties from claiming reimbursement for pre-2006 overburden expenses (see L 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, § 61), was unconstitutional, we determined that petitioner's reimbursement claim for pre-2006 overburden expenditures was properly filed in February 2014, within the six-month grace period established by this Court in Matter of County of St. Lawrence v Shah (124 AD3d 88, 93 [2014], revd ___ NY3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op 07043 [2016]; see Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 124 AD3d 963, 964 [2015], revd ___ NY3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op 07043 [2016]). However, before service of this Court's order with notice of entry, the Court of Appeals determined that section 61 of the 2012 amendment to the Medicaid Cap Statute "is constitutional, and that the State is under no further obligation to address outstanding county reimbursement claims filed after April 1, 2012" (Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2016 NY Slip Op 07043, *1 [2016]). Respondents now move in this Court for reargument, renewal or permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. In light of the guidance provided by the Court of Appeals (id.), it is evident that section 61 of the 2012 amendment barred petitioner's claim made in February 2014. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed and a declaration-2- 519940

should be made in favor of respondents that section 61 of the 2012 amendment to the Medicaid Cap Statute has not been shown to be unconstitutional (see id. at *10).

ORDERED that the motion is granted, without costs, to the extent that reargument is granted, the memorandum and order decided and entered January 28, 2016 is vacated, the judgment of Supreme Court entered October 3, 2014 in Delaware County is reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition is dismissed and it is declared that the Laws of 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, § 61 has not been shown to be unconstitutional.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
§ 552.513 Transactions related to the provision of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates for personal, non-commercial use. ( a ) All transactions prohibited by this part that are related to the provision, directly or indirectly, of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to an individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part are authorized, provided the items are in quantities consistent with personal, non-commercial use.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices are defined as follows: ( 1 ) *Agricultural commodities.* For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities are: ( i ) Products that fall within the term “agricultural commodity” as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602); and
( ii ) That are intended for ultimate use as: ( A ) Food for humans (including raw, processed, and packaged foods; live animals; vitamins and minerals; food additives or supplements; and bottled drinking water) or animals (including animal feeds);
( B ) Seeds for food crops;
( C ) Fertilizers or organic fertilizers; or
( D ) Reproductive materials (such as live animals, fertilized eggs, embryos, and semen) for the production of food animals.
( 2 ) *Medicine.* For the purposes of this section, medicine is an item that falls within the definition of the term “drug” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
( 3 ) *Medical devices.* For the purposes of this section, a medical device is an item that falls within the definition of “device” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
Note 1 to § 552.513 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[87 FR 78492, Dec. 21, 2022]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-71,687]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on July 15, 2009 by three workers on behalf of workers of Atmel Corporation, Test Department, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification, (TA-W-64,701) which expires on January 13, 2011. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of August 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-20471 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
§ 510.207 Prohibited vessel transactions related to North Korean registration and flagging. ( a ) U.S. persons may not register a vessel in North Korea, obtain authorization for a vessel to fly the North Korean flag, or own, lease, operate, or insure any vessel flagged by North Korea.
( b ) The prohibitions in this section apply except to the extent provided by regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date.
HomeBiographies...Vedant Patel

# 				Vedant Patel			

															Principal Deputy Spokesperson												

				June 6, 2022 -									Present							

Vedant Patel serves as the Principal Deputy Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State. He previously served as an Assistant Press Secretary and Spokesperson for President Biden in The White House. Prior to this he served as a spokesperson on the Presidential Inaugural Committee and the Biden-Harris Transition. Patel also held communications positions on the Biden Campaign both in the primary and general election. Previously, Patel worked as Communications Director to Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Communications Director to Congressman Mike Honda. Patel is a graduate of the University of California – Riverside and received a M.B.A. from the University of Florida. He is originally from San Jose, California.

Tags

Bureau of Global Public AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonState Department Official

Back to Top
Sanitized

Process Flow 

Diagram
```

[House Document 110-145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

From the House Documents Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]

                                     

110th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - House Document 110-145
                                                                  

 
THE TERMINATION OF A PROPOSED AGREEMENT REGARDING COOPERATION WITH THE 
   GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FOR PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR 
                                 ENERGY

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE 
 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
  RUSSIAN FEDERATION FOR COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF PEACEFUL USES OF 
   NUCLEAR ENERGY, PRESIDENTIAL DECLARATION 2008-19, IS TERMINATED, 
 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 123b. AND 123d. OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954

 September 10, 2008.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    On May 13, 2008, I transmitted a message to the Congress 
transmitting the text of a proposed Agreement for Cooperation 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Russian Federation for Cooperation in the 
Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (the ``proposed 
Agreement''), pursuant to sections 123b. and 123d. of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2153(b), (d)) 
(the ``Act'').
    In view of recent actions by the Government of the Russian 
Federation incompatible with peaceful relations with its 
sovereign and democratic neighbor Georgia, I have determined 
that the determination regarding the proposed Agreement in 
Presidential Determination 2008-19 is no longer effective. 
Accordingly, a statutory prerequisite for the proposed 
Agreement to become effective, as required by section 123b. of 
the Act, is no longer satisfied. If circumstances should permit 
future reconsideration of the proposed Agreement, a new 
determination will be made and the proposed Agreement will be 
submitted for congressional review pursuant to section 123 of 
the Act.

                                                    George W. Bush.
    The White House, September 8, 2008.

                                  

```
#### § 501.708 Director's finding of no penalty warranted.

If after considering any written response to the Prepenalty Notice submitted pursuant to § 501.707 and any other relevant facts, the Director determines that there was no violation or that the violation does not warrant the imposition of a civil monetary penalty, the Director promptly shall notify the respondent in writing of that determination and that no civil monetary penalty pursuant to this subpart will be imposed.
UNITED STATES

BATHYMETRIC FISHING MAP

GULF OF mENICO
FORT WALTON BEACH

” —
x

a
SOR

ee mee mente entry, = op Be Mets
‘Gunes Fave PS SR Spang ay
tee abe aby aes ee

Per hement Peban errosers
Serre Tan nares tm ooh be

Sener Te

«/) fo

ew [Hoa
—_—f
a

Tienes va te .
ht om -
_ .

fi
ai

Pr cay ed OO Sie Fates eee OF
teats tiie

Washioggon 1

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHEDC ADMINISTRATION
PATICINAL OCTABS SERVICE

ean AAG CEMA LC WRT

RAAT MOEA PECTIN
wea HR

ervey CONTOUR MITDRYACS: DAAETERE TO MARIMRUAA DEPT.
‘SUPPLEMENTAL Br AAETTR TH Rp LS

CST css 7
TSE SSH Se EST ee ee

FORT WALTON BEACH

BATHYMETRIC FISHING MAP

Fy]

(OSAMA are: OCA
eter “eee ewe
ectacaismseersns " ai
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000857644
<NAME> TEPPCO PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          32,118
<SECURITIES>                                       840
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,889
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,240
<PP&E>                                         753,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                 187,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 691,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,448
<BONDS>                                        389,714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     226,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   691,681
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,994
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (72,767)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,332)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 539.202 Prohibition on import-related transactions.

Except as otherwise authorized, no United States person may finance, act as broker for, transfer, transport, or otherwise participate in the importation into the United States on or after the effective date of any goods, technology, or services produced or provided by a designated foreign person, other than information or informational materials.
BATHYMETRIC FISHING MAP

|
BRITISH COLUMBIA

VANCOUVER ISLAND:

2

lel \ { ! | L | =
ae = e an Ba a
Ta iam aby tthe ty Hs rh wwe tendons Ndvibed ot Watvagie, 0.
ee Ree Som, ey tte Md Cet tae % .S DEEAIaA) —=: PORT ANGELES
= = ones a nat ance mon =
Seueneainctieerdemereckaccee | MeN OER ATONAL OCU EEVCE _— BATHYMETRIC FISHING MAP
Savcomn ppnteere ros ie
aes ~~ . =
Sw een evan Cd Zan I MnO asa) pear e 1990 4
pareve sy — =
a soy ine pd m0 be Meare a - alienating COmtOUE AVTREWALE TO METNIES TC 200 WATER CET =
orn —. ‘SUPPLEMENTED 1 2 METER INTERVALS. THRE $9 Mb TERS POD MOAR 3 =
(AAA CFTG UP TAMEDSTED BVA Me TE TEP = =!
Aan MEAN LOWEREOW WATIE = =
. arena wencaron OCT a
3 a my 8
H oe — 7 : a, & Fy
; oes ee a a a : Hy
¥ uF oes ina =
#### § 535.420 Transfers of accounts under § 535.508 from demand to interest-bearing status.

Section 535.508 authorizes transfer of a blocked demand deposit account to interest-bearing status at the instruction of the Iranian depositor at any time.

[44 FR 76784, Dec. 28, 1979]
#### § 535.402 Effect of amendment of sections of this part or of other orders, etc.

Any amendment, modification, or revocation of any section of this part or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by or under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act shall not, unless otherwise specifically provided, be deemed to affect any act done or omitted to be done, or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal case, prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation and all penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such order, regulation, ruling, instruction or license shall continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made.

[45 FR 24433, Apr. 9, 1980]
2004 VT 116

#### In re E. Michael McGINN, Esq.

[864 A.2d 665]

No. 04-505

November 17, 2004.

¶ 1. The respondent, E. Michael McGinn, is a lawyer licensed to practice law in the State of Vermont. Disciplinary counsel and the respondent’s counsel have stipulated that the Court may suspend the respondent’s license to practice law on an interim basis pending the final resolution of all disciplinary matters that are pending against him. Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court concludes that it sufficiently establishes that the respondent has violated the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct and presently poses a substantial threat of harm to the public. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 18(B) of Administrative Order 9, the Court ORDERS:

> 1. That the respondent’s license to practice law is immediately suspended on an interim basis pending the final disposition of the disciplinary proceedings that are pending against him;

> 2. That the respondent shall comply with all of the provisions of Rule 23 of Administrative Order 9;

> 3. That respondent shall not transfer or cause to be transferred, withdraw or cause to be withdrawn, or take any other action that affects client funds in the trust, escrow and bank accounts maintained by the respondent; and

> 4. That the respondent shall provide disciplinary' counsel with names and addresses of all current clients no later than No- ■ vember 19,2004.

> 5. That William Dorsch, Esq. is appointed as trustee to protect the interests, financial and otherwise, of the respondent’s clients.
FILED: August 2, 2004 **PUBLISHED** UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT **No. 03-4253** UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MOHAMAD YOUSSEF HAMMOUD, a/k/a Ali Albousaleh, a/k/a Ali Abousaleh, Defendant - Appellant,

____________________________________________ CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; NATIONAL COALITION TO PROTECT POLITICAL FREEDOM; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, Amici Supporting Appellant.
**ORDER** After oral argument was heard by a panel of judges, a majority of the judges in active service voted to hear this appeal en banc. The en banc court heard argument on the matter on August 2, 2004.According to the vote of a majority of the en banc court constituted to hear this appeal, we affirm the judgment and hold that Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), does not operate to invalidate Hammoud’s sentence under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, district courts within the Fourth Circuit are hereby instructed to continue sentencing defendants in accordance with the guidelines, as was the practice before Blakely . In the interest of judicial economy, however, and pending a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court, we recommend that district courts within the Fourth Circuit also announce, at the time of sentencing, a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2004), treating the guidelines as advisory only. Majority and dissenting opinions will follow in due course. Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Wilkins, with the concurrence of the court. For the Court /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6648

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THEODORE ACKERS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-208, CA-96-755-6) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Theodore Ackers, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ackers , Nos. CR-94-208; CA-96-755-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 1998). 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
#### Graciela JENKINS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 99-70285.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 12, 2001.

Decided Jan. 29, 2001.

*320Before McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER *

The Board of Immigration Appeals has reopened Ms. Jenkins’s case. As a consequence, there is no final appealable order and we have no jurisdiction over the petition. *See*8 U.S.C. § llOSaCa).1

PETITION DISMISSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA”) repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a and replaced it with a new judicial review provision codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *See*IIRIRA § 306(a)-(c)(l), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996), *as amended by*Act of Oct. 11, 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656. The new review provision, however, does not apply to petitioners whose deportation proceedings commenced, as here, before April 1, 1997; 8 U.S.C. § 1105a continues to govern review of those petitions. *See*IIRIRA § 309(c)(1).
#### George Balis, Appellant, v Maxine Balis, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 600]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated November 4, 1996, the plaintiff former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered March 1, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated January 27, 2003, which, upon his default, granted the motion of the defendant former wife to adjudge him in contempt for failure to pay child support arrears.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs contentions on this appeal concern alleged er*420rors made by a Special Referee at a hearing conducted in October 2000. By order entered September 6, 2001, the Supreme Court, inter aha, granted the defendant’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s ensuing report. The plaintiff appealed from that order, but failed to perfect that appeal. Accordingly, by decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 7, 2002, that appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules of this Court.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the alleged errors of which he complains are not brought up for review in the context of this appeal. Since he advances no argument regarding the March 1, 2004 order on appeal in this case, we are compelled to affirm that order. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.