alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 30265

**Colby Dranoel Leonard,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Cranford Jordan, Louisiana**  **Sheriff Association; James Keith Deville, Warden, Winn Correctional Center; David Yount, Education**  **Director,**

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the Un ited States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:22

- CV

- 369

Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Colby Leonard , Louisiana inmate # 536844 , appeals the dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim

. Leonard allege s

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 14, 2022
Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 22-30265 Document: 00516543333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2022No. 22

- 30265

2 that the defendants deprived him of his constitutional right to pursue educational and vocational opportunities while incarcerated

. The magist rate judge ’s report rightly concluded that “a state has no constitutional obligation to provide basic educational or vocational training to prisoners.” Beck v. Lynaugh , 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1988).

Leonard ’s appeal is without arguable merit and, the refore, is

**DISMISSED** as frivolous

. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) ; **5 TH**  **C IR** 

**. R.**  42.2. The dismissal counts as a “strike” under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

– 88 (5th Cir.1996). Leonard is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(g).

**APPEAL DISMISSED ; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.**  Case: 22-30265 Document: 00516543333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2022
#### § 587.306 [Reserved]
HomeMalaysia

# Malaysia

111 items

        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (14-411) – Education Agreement on Teaching Assistant Program	  April 11, 2014 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Humanitarian Assistance  		Malaysia/Gender-Based Violence Prevention Programs with Refugees [Archive]	  July 26, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (12-808) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Fulbright English Teaching Assistant Program	  August 8, 2012 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (10-1102.1) – Memorandum of Understanding on Science and Technology Cooperation	  November 2, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (10-920.1) – Agreement Concerning the Establishment of the Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange	  September 20, 2010 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (09-121) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  January 21, 2009 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (08-227) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation to Prevent Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material	  February 27, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (06-1020) – Agreement Amending the Agreement Regarding Air Transport Services	  October 20, 2006 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (05-509) – Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement	  May 9, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		Malaysia (12871) – Air Transport Agreement	  June 21, 1997 

previous page1…9101112next page

Back to Top
#### Samuel Friedman and Rose Friedman, his wife, complainants, *v.*Adolph Gold, defendant.

[Decided October 8th, 1929.]

*Mr. William N.*Beclcer, for the complainants.

*Mr. Thomas Bruneito,*for the defendant.

Backes, V. C.

This hill is by a vendor for the specific performance of a contract. At the time of the contract the male complainant was engaged in building ten adjoining houses. The contract for the plumbing, heating and metal work was let to the defendant’s company in consideration that the defendant purchase the "two-family frame building now in the course of erection on Jefferson street, and being the fifth house from the intersection of Joralemon and Jefferson streets, Belle-ville, New Jersey, including a two-car cement block garage.” *178That is the description in the contract. Part of the purchase price was to he deducted from the plumbing contract' price. Each house stands on a lot thirty-nine feet front by one hundred feet in depth, and was to be built according to then existing plans and specifications. After the house was completed, the defendant, after having directed counsel to search the title and prepare the conveyance, and after two or more appointments for the closing, refused to take title, because, as he then claimed, he was not in funds and also because his wife objected to the locality as a home.

At the hearing the defendant set up that the houses were to be built on fifty-foot lots and that the house he was to take was not built according to plans and specifications, in that the sun-parlor was to be in the front instead of the side of the house. These defenses were abandoned on the argument because obviously untrue, to the knowledge of the defendant. He had had the plans which show the sun-parlor as presently located, and he saw and knew that the houses were on lots thirty-nine feet in width. The complainant at first intended building on lots thirty-three feet in width, but in conference with the defendant decided on the larger frontage.

A half dozen other alleged deficiencies in construction were set up but the testimony shows substantial compliance with the plans and specifications. The defendant was familiar with the construction and in touch with its progress, through the part he took in it. He never questioned the workmanship, and not until he concluded not to live up to his part of the bargain, for the reasons already stated, did he become critical. The deviations from the plans are such as can be remedied or compensated for, and if the amount cannot be amicabl} adjusted there will be a reference.

A point of law is raised, that the description of the lot to be conveyed is indefinite. “The fifth house from the intersection of Joralemon and Jefferson streets” is sufficient for accurate identification. Five houses adjacent the corner, including the one involved, were in the course of erection and equally distant apart, at the time of the contract. An equal *179division of the total frontage among the five houses will give the width of lot for each house and a definite description, which may he determined *aliunde. Wollenburg v. Rynar, 96 N. J. Eg. 38.*

The complainant is entitled to a decree.
§ 1001.2001 Notice of intent to exclude. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if the OIG proposes to exclude an individual or entity in accordance with subpart C of this part, or in accordance with subpart B of this part where the exclusion is for a period exceeding 5 years, it will send written notice of its intent, the basis for the proposed exclusion and the potential effect of an exclusion. Within 30 days of receipt of notice, which will be deemed to be 5 days after the date on the notice, the individual or entity may submit documentary evidence and written argument concerning whether the exclusion is warranted and any related issues.
( b ) If the OIG intends to exclude an individual or entity under the provisions of § 1001.701, § 1001.801, or § 1001.1552, in conjunction with the submission of documentary evidence and written argument, an individual or entity may request an opportunity to present oral argument to an OIG official.
( c ) *Exception.* If the OIG intends to exclude an individual or entity under the provisions of § 1001.901, § 1001.951, § 1001.1301, § 1001.1401, § 1001.1601, or § 1001.1701, paragraph (a) of this section will not apply.
( d ) If an entity has a provider agreement under section 1866 of the Act, and the OIG proposes to terminate that agreement in accordance with section 1866(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the notice provided for in paragraph (a) of this section will so state.
[63 FR 46690, Sept. 2, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 57918, Oct. 29, 1998; 82 FR 4116, Jan. 12, 2017]
§ 110.53 Documentation the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased injured countermeasure recipient must submit for the Secretary to make a determination of eligibility for benefits to the estate. ( a ) The executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased injured countermeasure recipient must submit the following documentation in order for a determination of eligibility for benefits to the estate to be made: ( 1 ) All of the documentation required for individuals in § 110.51;
( 2 ) A death certificate for the deceased injured countermeasure recipient. If a death certificate is unavailable, the executor or administrator must submit a letter providing the reasons for its unavailability. The Secretary has the discretion to accept other documentation as evidence that the injured countermeasure recipient is deceased; and
( 3 ) Documentation showing that the individual is the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased injured countermeasure recipient, *e.g.,* Letter of Administration issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; and
( 4 ) Even if a Request Form had previously been filed by the injured countermeasure recipient, the executor or administrator of the estate must submit a new Request Form.
( b ) [Reserved]
Opinion issued June 7 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 17 - 00818 - CV

——————————— OYEDEMI & ASSOCIATES , P.C. , Appella nt

V. LEONARD BELL, JOSE Z UNIGA, JR., JUAN DIA Z, RONNIE WILLIAMS, JR. JOE SALAZAR, ANTOINETTE CORTEZ, A ND CATHERINE GREY , Appell e e s On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 15 - DCV - 227567
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Oyedemi & Assocites, P.C., attempts to appeal the trial court’s October 1 3 , 2017 interlocutory order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the underlying case. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
.2

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments . See Lehmann v. Har

– Con Corp ., 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge , 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if the judgment disposes of all pending parties and claims before the trial court. Aldridge , 400 S.W.2d at 895. The cl erk’s record filed in this appeal does not show, and appellant has not asserted, that the trial court has signed a final judgment that disposes of all parties and claims before the Court. An appellate court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order if a statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352

– 53 (Tex. 1998); see , e.g. , T EX . R. C IV . P ROC . § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). No statute authorizes an appeal of th e interlocutory order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss in this case. On April 17 , 201 8 , the C lerk of this Court notified appellan t that its appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless it filed a written response by April 27, 2018 d emonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case after notice)
. Appellant failed to file a response to the notice. Accordingly, because a final judgment has not issued in t he underlying case and an interlocutory appeal of the order is not authorized, we dismiss the appeal for3

want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f)
. We dismiss any pending motions as moot
. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice s Bland, Lloyd, and Caughey
.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [Docket# EPA-RO4-SFUND-2009-0643, FRL-8951-8]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice of settlement.

# SUMMARY:

Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response costs concerning the Vertut Blending and Packaging Superfund Site located in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee for publication.

# DATES:

The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until October 1, 2009. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

# ADDRESSES:

Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2009-0643 or Site name Vertut Blending and Packaging Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
      -  http://www.regulations.gov:                          Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.                    
      - http://www.epa.gov/​region4/​waste/​sf/​enforce.htm.
      - E-mail: Painter.Paula@epa.gov.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

      ( print page 45204)    
Dated: August 17, 2009.

Anita L. Davis,

Chief,  Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch,  Superfund Division.

[FR Doc. E9-21122 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### § 594.306 Interest.

Except as otherwise provided in this part, the term *interest* when used with respect to property (e.g., “an interest in property”) means an interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.
HomeIsrael

# Israel

906 items

        -    Remarks to the Press  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Icelandic Foreign Minister Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 18, 2021Harpa Concert Hall and Conference CenterReykjavik, Iceland 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Moroccan Foreign Minister Bourita	  May 18, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Bahraini Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani	  May 18, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi 	  May 17, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Borrell	  May 17, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with the United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan	  May 17, 2021 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Johannes Langkilde of DR-TV	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 17, 2021Marriott HotelCopenhagen, Denmark 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Jesper Steinmetz of TV2	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 17, 2021Marriott HotelCopenhagen, Denmark 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Jordanian Foreign Minister Safadi	  May 17, 2021 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 17, 2021Eigtveds PakhusCopenhagen, Denmark 

previous page1…7879808182…91next page

Back to Top
HomeUnited States

# United States

		Conflict Diamonds Archive (2009-2017)		

201 items

        -    		Kimberley Process Review Visit Report on the United States (12/2012)	  December 3, 2012 

previous page1…192021

Back to Top
§ 901.7 Liquidation of collateral. ( a ) Agencies should liquidate security or collateral through the exercise of a power of sale in the security instrument or a nonjudicial foreclosure, and apply the proceeds to the applicable debt(s), if the debtor fails to pay the debt(s) within a reasonable time after demand and if such action is in the best interest of the United States. Collection from other sources, including liquidation of security or collateral, is not a prerequisite to requiring payment by a surety, insurer, or guarantor unless such action is expressly required by statute or contract.
( b ) When an agency learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, the agency should seek legal advice from its agency counsel concerning the impact of the Bankruptcy Code, including, but not limited to, 11 U.S.C. 362, to determine the applicability of the automatic stay and the procedures for obtaining relief from such stay prior to proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 405.1024 Objections to the issues. ( a ) If a party objects to the issues described in the notice of hearing, he or she must notify the ALJ in writing at the earliest possible opportunity before the time set for the hearing, and no later than 5 calendar days before the hearing.
( b ) The party must state the reasons for his or her objections and send a copy of the objections to all other parties who were sent a copy of the notice of hearing, and CMS or a contractor that elected to be a party to the hearing.
( c ) The ALJ makes a decision on the objections either in writing, at a prehearing conference, or at the hearing.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 65335, Dec. 9, 2009; 82 FR 5115, Jan. 17, 2017]
HomeBureau of Information Resource ManagementRemarks & Releases...Department of State Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Policy Statement

# 									Department of State Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Policy Statement							

Bureau of Information Resource Management

September 21, 2021

						Download PDF												[144 KB]

In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum 21-07 (M-21-07), dated November 19, 2020, by Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, all new Department of State information systems must be IPv6-enabled at the time of deployment. It is also the strategic intent of the Department of State (Department) to phase out the use of IPv4 for all current Department systems by meeting the milestones laid out by M-21-07.

This policy statement designates the Director, Office of the Chief Architect as the lead of the Department’s IPv6 Integrated Project Team (IPT) to coordinate these actions. The IPT is responsible for developing and overseeing the overall IPv6 transition plan which shall be inclusive of strategies, acquisitions, processes, status, and milestones required of all bureaus and offices. In most circumstances, this will require that newly procured and legacy computing devices and networking equipment be IPv6 capable and that these IPv6 capabilities are enabled during the transition period.

Additionally, all bureaus and offices shall ensure system budgets and other plans detail transition to IPv6 and that these plans align with the agency’s overall IPv6 Implementation Plan. In support of this mandate, key stakeholders will be identified and the IPT will:
        - Provide strategies, processes, status, and milestones for inclusion in the agency’s overall IPv6 implementation plan;
        - Collaborate with the Office of the Chief Architect to identify opportunities for IPv6 pilots on operational systems and nominate them to the IPT;
        - Oversee implementation of the agency’s IPv6 Implementation Plan;
        - Work with the Office of the Chief Architect to ensure that processes for approving new systems for operation, or upgrading existing systems, include a review of the system’s IPv6 readiness to ensure consistency with the agency’s overall IPv6 Implementation Plan; and
        - Work with the Office of the Chief Architect to ensure processes are in place to ensure all new agency acquisitions are capable of operating in an IPv6-only environment according to the milestones established in the agency’s Implementation Plan.

References: OMB Memorandum M-21-07

Tags

Bureau of Information Resource ManagementInformation Technology

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
# C_2005271EN.01000802.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-278/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC - Animal health - Protection of pigs - Failure to transpose)

(2005/C 271/15)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-278/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and A. Bordes) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: A. Tiemann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 June 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Federal Republic of Germany

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 and Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 and Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.

1

---