alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[L. A. No. 974.

Department Two.

December 27, 1901.]

#### WILLIAM CHAPMAN, Respondent, v. FISHER AMES, Appellant.

Street Assessments—Vrooman Act—Constitutional Law.—The act regulating assessments for street improvements, known as the “Vrooman Act,” is constitutional and valid. The prior decisions of this court, distinguishing the case of *Norwood*v. *Balcer,*172 U. S. 269, and upholding the constitutionality of the Vrooman Act, are affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. Lucien Shaw, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Leon F. Moss, for Appellant.

Charles Lantz, for Respondent.

HAYNES, C.

Action to foreclose a lien for street work, performed under the statute commonly known as the “Vrooman Act.” The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.

Appellant contends that said act is unconstitutional, and relies upon the case of *Norwood*v. *Baker,*172 U. S. 269, to sustain his contention. Since the appeal was taken and the briefs filed in this case, the case of *Norwood*v. *Baker,*172 U. S. 269, has been twice considered by this court in cases not distinguishable from the one now before us, and the constitutionality of the Vrooman Act was in both cases sustained. (See *Hadley*v. *Dague,*130 Cal. 207, 217, and *San Francisco Paving Co.*v. *Bates,*134 Cal. 39, and cases there cited.) In the latter ease, referring to the case of *Hadley*v. *Dague,*130 Cal. 207, 217, it was said: “Although invited by appellants to overrule that case, we decline to do so, as we are satisfied with it as a final declaration of the law on the subject.” A careful examination of appellant’s very able brief discloses no ground *247upon which those cases should be overruled or distinguished, and I therefore advise that the judgment and order appealed from be affirmed.

Smith, C., and Cooper, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Henshaw, J., McFarland, J., Temple, J.
#### § 21.113 Suspension or Termination of IRB Approval of Research.

An IRB shall have authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Any suspension or termination of approval shall include a statement of the reasons for the IRB's action and shall be reported promptly to the investigator, appropriate institutional officials, and the department or agency head.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1224]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1220

[No. LS-99-17]


Soybean Promotion and Research: the Procedures To Request a 
Referendum; Correction

AGENCY:  Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Final rule; correction of effective date.

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

SUMMARY:  This document corrects the effective date of the correction 
published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2000. The effective 
date is being changed from January 3, 2000, to December 30, 1999, to 
permit the corrected subpart F, Procedures to Request a Referendum, to 
be published in the 2000 issue of the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES:  The effective date of the January 3, 2000 rule is corrected to 
December 30, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ralph L. Tapp, Chief, Marketing 
Programs Branch, Livestock and Seed program, (202) 720-1115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Department of Agriculture (Department) 
published a correction in the Federal Register on January 3, 2000 (65 
FR 1), redesignating section numbers to a final rule published in the 
Federal Register on August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45413), which established 
the procedures for a Request for Referendum pursuant to the Soybean 
Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311) 
and the Soybean Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR part 1220).
    The substance of the January 3, 2000, correction requires no 
change. However, the effective date of the correction is being changed 
to December 30, 1999, to enable those changes to appear in the 2000 
issue of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Correction

    In the Federal Register issue of January 3, 2000 (65 FR 1), make 
the following correction. On page 1, in the first column, under the 
caption EFFECTIVE DATE correct the date to read: ``December 30, 1999.''

    January 12, 2000
Barry L. Carpenter,
Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program.
[FR Doc. 00-1224 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-M
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 67 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Establishing the Joint Congressional Committee on 

Inaugural Ceremonies. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE. 

4 There is established a Joint Congressional Committee 

5 on Inaugural Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as 

6 the ‘‘joint committee’’), consisting of 3 Senators and 3 

7 Members of the House of Representatives appointed by 

8 the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House 

9 of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is 

10 authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the 

11 inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presi12 dent-elect of the United States. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

SCON 67 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 

2 The joint committee— 

3 (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equip4 ment and the services of appropriate personnel of 

5 departments and agencies of the Federal Govern6 ment, under arrangements between the joint com7 mittee and the heads of the departments and agen8 cies, in connection with the inaugural proceedings 

9 and ceremonies; and 

10 (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods 

11 and services to carry out its responsibilities. 

Passed the Senate February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
[No. 27780-8-II.

Division Two.

October 18, 2002.]

#### Samuel Winters, *Respondent,*v. Sarah Fowler, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 00-2-03134-7, Edwin L. Poyfair, J., entered August 3, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C. J., and Houghton, J.
EXHIBIT
32.2





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Rahul
Sen Gupta, Chief Financial Officer of Manas Petroleum Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)           the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  May
9, 2008





/S/Rahul
Sen Gupta


Rahul Sen
Gupta


Chief
Financial Officer
#### § 36.610 [Reserved]
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

March 31, 2011

Before

     RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

     JOEL M FLAUM, Circuit Judge

     DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐3446

SALLY A. RANDALL and RONA C.

PEPMEIER,

Plaintiffs‐Appellants,

        and

KAREN GOVERNOR and BARBARA JONES,

Proposed Intervening Plaintiffs/Appellants,

          v.

ROLLS‐ROYCE CORPORATION, et al.,

          Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Southern

District of Indiana, Indianapolis

Division.

No. 1:06‐cv‐00860‐SEB‐WGH

Sarah Evans Barker,

         Judge.

O R D E R

The Court’s opinion issued on March 30, 2011, is hereby amended as follows:

At the end of the first paragraph on page 2, lines 16 and 17, the references to “N.D.”

in the three district court opinions cited should be “S.D.”.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7140

ROLAND LEE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Onslow County,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-358-5-BO-3)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roland Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1997). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Onslow County Sheriff's Dep't, No. CA-97-358-5-BO-3 (E.D.N.C. July 28, 1997). 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
§ 35.21 Recipient responsibility to provide notice. ( a ) *Notice to other recipients.* Where a recipient of Federal financial assistance from DOL passes on funds to other recipients, that recipient shall notify such other recipients of their obligations under the Act and this part.
( b ) *Notice to beneficiaries.* A recipient shall notify its beneficiaries about the provisions of the Act and this part and their applicability to specific programs or activities. The notification must also identify the responsible employee designated under § 35.24 by name or title, address, and telephone number.
#### A. M. Fridley and Wife, Appellants, *vs.*Wm. L. Bitley and Wife, Respondents.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY.

This was an action commenced by the Respondents, for the foreclosure of a Mortgage, executed by the Appellants. The Defendants answered setting up a defence to the action, to which answer the Plaintiff demurred. The District Court sustained the Demurrer, and judgment was entered for want of ;an answer.

The Defendant appealed from the Order sustaining the Demurrer.

The record in this cause is so imperfect, that no report can be prepared.

The judgment of the District Court was reversed, but no 'Opinion is on file.
#### § 4041A.2 Definitions.

The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: annuity, ERISA, insurer, IRS, mass withdrawal, multiemployer plan, nonforfeitable benefit, PBGC, plan, and plan year. In addition, for purposes of this part:

*Actuarial valuation* means a report submitted to a plan of a valuation of plan assets and liabilities that is performed in accordance with subpart B of part 4281 of this chapter.

*Available resources* means available resources as described in section 4245(b)(3) of ERISA.

*Benefits subject to reduction* means those benefits accrued under plan amendments (or plans) adopted after March 26, 1980, or under collective bargaining agreements entered into after March 26, 1980, that are not eligible for PBGC's guarantee under section 4022A(b) of ERISA.

*Financial assistance* means financial assistance from PBGC under section 4261 of ERISA.

*Insolvency benefit level* means the greater of the resource benefit level or the benefit level guaranteed by PBGC for each participant and beneficiary in pay status.

*Insolvency year* means insolvency year as described in section 4245(b)(4) of ERISA.

*Insolvent* means unable to pay benefits when due during the plan year.

*Nonguaranteed benefits* means those benefits that are eligible for PBGC's guarantee under section 4022A(b) of ERISA, but exceed the guarantee limits under section 4022A(c).

*Resource benefit level* means resource benefit level as described in section 4245(b)(2) of ERISA.

[61 FR 34052, July 1, 1996; 61 FR 36626, July 12, 1996, as amended at 84 FR 18722, May 2, 2019]
#### § 4010.15 OMB control number.

The collection of information requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 1212-0049.

[61 FR 34022, July 1, 1996. Redesignated at 74 FR 11035, Mar. 16, 2009]
Exhibit 32.2

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO and President
of American International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended June
30, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly
presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Industries,
Inc. and results of its operations.

Date: August 15, 2005
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer and President/s/ Gary D. Woerz
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33341-33342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research 
Initial Review Group, NINR IRG.
    Date: June 19-20, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 am to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or 
proposals.

[[Page 33342]]

    Place: Holiday Inn--Chevy Chase, Terrace Room, 5520 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Mary J. Stephens-Frazier, Phd, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Nursing Research, National 
Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN32, 45 Center Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5971.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12897 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 23.550 Proceedings of the Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) *General.* The Office of Administrative Law Judges has jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals concerning questions of law and fact from the Administrator's investigative findings letters issued under §§ 23.510 and 23.520. Any party may, when requesting an appeal or during the pendency of a proceeding on appeal, timely move an Administrative Law Judge to consolidate a proceeding initiated hereunder with a proceeding initiated under the Service Contract Act or the Davis-Bacon Act.
( b ) *Proposed findings of fact, conclusions, and order.* Within 20 calendar days of filing of the transcript of the testimony or such additional time as the Administrative Law Judge may allow, each party may file with the Administrative Law Judge proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed order, together with a supporting brief expressing the reasons for such proposals. Each party shall serve such proposals and brief on all other parties.
( c ) *Decision.* ( 1 ) Within a reasonable period of time after the time allowed for filing of proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, or within 30 calendar days of receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue a decision. The decision shall contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order, and be served upon all parties to the proceeding.
( 2 ) If the respondent is found to have violated Executive Order 14026 or this part, and if the Administrator requested debarment, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order as to whether the respondent is to be subject to the ineligible list, including findings that the contractor disregarded its obligations to workers or subcontractors under the Executive Order or this part.
( d ) *Limit on scope of review.* The Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended, does not apply to proceedings under this part. Accordingly, Administrative Law Judges shall have no authority to award attorney's fees and/or other litigation expenses pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act for any proceeding under this part.
( e ) *Orders.* If the Administrative Law Judge concludes a violation occurred, the final order shall mandate action to remedy the violation, including, but not limited to, monetary relief for unpaid wages. Where the Administrator has sought imposition of debarment, the Administrative Law Judge shall determine whether an order imposing debarment is appropriate.
( f ) *Finality.* The Administrative Law Judge's decision shall become the final order of the Secretary, unless a timely petition for review is filed with the Administrative Review Board.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**736 CA 13-00626**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL JAY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered February 4, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that he violated multiple inmate rules. “Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record does not establish that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from the alleged bias” ( Matter of Amaker v Fischer , 112 AD3d 1371, 1372; see Matter of Alvarez v Fischer , 94 AD3d 1404, 1406). “The mere fact that the Hearing Officer ruled against the petitioner is insufficient to establish bias” ( Matter of Edwards v Fischer , 87 AD3d 1328, 1329 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Also contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer did not improperly deny petitioner his right to present evidence inasmuch as the evidence petitioner sought to present, i.e., petitioner’s prison disciplinary history, was not relevant to the instant charges against petitioner ( see Matter of Pujals v Fischer , 87 AD3d 767, 767). In any event, the failure of the Hearing Officer to permit petitioner to submit that evidence “does not require annulment of the administrative determination, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of petitioner’s guilt” ( Matter of Auricchio v Goord , 275 AD2d 842, 842).

Finally, petitioner challenges the penalty imposed. Inasmuch as petitioner failed to raise that challenge in his administrative appeal, he “thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and**-2- 736 CA 13-00626** 
this Court has no discretionary power to reach that issue” ( Matter of Medina v Coughlin , 202 AD2d 1000, 1000; see Matter of Francisco v Coombe , 231 AD2d 917, 917; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin
, 188 AD2d 1071, 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834).

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
§ 2700.9 Extensions of time. ( a ) The time for filing or serving any document may be extended for good cause shown. Filing of a motion requesting an extension of time is effective upon receipt. A motion requesting an extension of time shall be received no later than 3 days prior to the expiration of the time allowed for the filing or serving of the document, and shall comply with § 2700.10. The motion and any statement in opposition shall include proof of service on all parties by a means of delivery no less expeditious than that used for filing the motion, except that if service by electronic transmission (email) is impossible, the filing party must serve in person, by third party commercial carrier, or by facsimile transmission, resulting in same-day delivery.
( b ) In exigent circumstances, an extension of time may be granted even though the request was filed after the designated time for filing has expired. In such circumstances, the party requesting the extension must show, in writing, the reasons for the party's failure to make the request before the time prescribed for the filing had expired.
( c ) This rule does not apply to petitions for discretionary review filed pursuant to section 113(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 823(d)(2)(A)(i), and § 2700.70(a).
[64 FR 48713, Sept. 8, 1999, as amended at 71 FR 44207, Aug. 4, 2006; 78 FR 77358, Dec. 23, 2013]
#### ROANOKE IRON WORKS, INC., A CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 44178.

Decided May 7, 1945]

*761
      *Mr. Fred B. Rhodes*for plaintiff.

*Mr. Gwrrell Vanoe,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea,*for defendant.

*763The court decided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as to the Littleton, N. H. claim only, in an opinion *for curiam,,*as follows:

*Per Curiam:*

The facts show (finding 7) that except as to the claim for increased costs incurred in connection with the building at Littleton, N. H., plaintiff’s claim is barred by sec. 1 of the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1197).

The proof satisfactorily establishes that as to the Littleton, N. H., contract plaintiff incurred and paid increased labor costs of $467.42 and increased material costs of $115 as a result of the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Judgment is therefore entered in plaintiff’s favor for $582.42. It is so ordered.
#### § 4003.60 Referral of appeal to the Director.

The Appeals Board may, in its discretion, refer any appeal to the Director of PBGC for decision. In such a case, the Director will have all the powers vested in the Appeals Board by this subpart and the decision of the Director will meet the requirements of and have the effect of a decision issued under § 4003.59 of this part.

[61 FR 34012, July 1, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 38120, July 3, 2008; 85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]