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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 848 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 848

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

          For the relief of Sepandan Farnia and Farbod Farnia.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 848

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
          For the relief of Sepandan Farnia and Farbod Farnia.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SEPANDAN FARNIA AND FARBOD 
              FARNIA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sepandan Farnia and Farbod 
Farnia shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Sepandan Farnia or Farbod Farnia 
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Sepandan Farnia and Farbod 
Farnia, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by two, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 3, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 301-70.802 Must we ensure that travel on Government aircraft is the most cost-effective alternative? ( a ) Yes, you must ensure that travel on a Government aircraft is the most cost-effective alternative that will meet the travel requirement. Your designated travel approving official must— ( 1 ) Compare the cost of all travel alternatives, as applicable, that is— ( i ) Travel on a scheduled commercial airline;
( ii ) Travel on a Federal aircraft;
( iii ) Travel on a Government aircraft hired as a commercial aviation service (CAS); and
( iv ) Travel by other available modes of transportation; and
( 2 ) Approve only the most cost-effective alternative that meets your agency's needs.
( 3 ) Consider the cost of non-productive or lost work time while in travel status and certain other costs when comparing the costs of using Government aircraft in lieu of scheduled commercial airline service and other available modes of transportation. Additional information on costs included in the cost comparison may be found in the “U.S. Government Aircraft Cost Accounting Guide,” published by the General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy. To obtain a copy of the guide, please contact *aviationpolicy@gsa.gov .*
( b ) The aircraft management office in the agency that owns or hires the Government aircraft must provide your designated travel-approving official with cost estimates for a Government aircraft trip (*i.e.,* a Federal aircraft trip cost or a CAS aircraft trip cost).
( c ) When an agency operates a Government aircraft to fulfill a non-travel related governmental function or for required use travel, using any space available for passengers on official travel is presumed to result in cost savings.
[FTR Amdt. 2004-02, 69 FR 34305, June 21, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 39849, July 2, 2020]
###### Editorial Note on Part 101-8

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-8 appear at 68 FR 51374, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 101-8.723 Remedial action by recipient.

If GSA finds a recipient discriminated on the basis of age, the recipient must take any remedial action that GSA may require to overcome the effects of the discrimination. If another recipient exercises control over the recipient that discriminated, GSA may require both recipients to take remedial action.
182P10-2

#### State v. Charles R. Goodson

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR

1. Dismissed

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

Ervin, J.,

recused
#### §§ 105-8.112-105-8.129 [Reserved]
H. R. 4190

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act

To designate the building located at 41–42 Norre Gade in Saint Thomas, Virgin

Islands, for the period of time during which it houses operations of the United

States Postal Service, as the Alvaro de Lugo Post Office; and to amend title

39, United States Code, to make applicable with respect to the United States

Postal Service certain exclusionary authority relating to the treatment of reemployed annuitants under the civil service retirement laws, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The building located at 41–42 Norre Gade in Saint Thomas,

Virgin Islands, shall, for the period of time during which it houses

operations of the United States Postal Service, be known and designated as the ‘‘Alvaro de Lugo Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall, with respect to the period referred to in section

1, be deemed to be a reference to the Alvaro de Lugo Post Office.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF EXCLUSIONARY AUTHORITY.

Section 1005(d) of title 39, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘(d)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)(1)’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(2) The provisions of subsection (g) of section 5532, subsections

(i) and (l)(2) of section 8344, and subsections (f) and (i)(2) of section

8468 of title 5 shall apply with respect to the Postal Service.

For purposes of so applying such provisions—

‘‘(A) any reference in such provisions to the head of an

Executive agency shall be considered a reference to the Postmaster General; and

‘‘(B) any reference in such provisions to an employee shall

be considered a reference to an officer or employee of the

Postal Service.’’.
H. R. 4190—2

SEC. 4. ASSIGNMENT AUTHORITY.

Section 8706(e) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Federal judge’’ and inserting ‘‘employee

or former employee’’; (2) by striking ‘‘judge’s’’ and inserting ‘‘employee’s or former

employee’s’’; and (3) by striking ‘‘purchase’’ and inserting ‘‘purchased’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 10-11188.

#### Mosley *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

KATHLEEN BREEN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05-0654 (PLF)

)

ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary of )

Transportation, Department of )

Transportation, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion [Dkt. No. 400] to reinstate all individuals 

who have expressed their intention to participate as plaintiffs in this case is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to Kendra K. 

Chapman. Kendra K. Chapman, listed in Exhibit A of Dkt. No. 403, is denied reinstatement in

this case; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to the 211 

other individuals listed in Exhibit A of Dkt. No. 403. For the reasons explained in the 

accompanying Opinion, those 211 individuals are either reinstated or permitted to join as 

plaintiffs in this case; it is 
2

FURTHER ORDERED that the prior motions filed by plaintiffs [Dkt. Nos. 383, 

385] have been incorporated into plaintiffs’ instant motion [Dkt. No. 400], and therefore, by this 

Order, are GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to the three 

individuals who were voluntarily dismissed from this case, listed in Exhibit B of Dkt. No. 400; 

and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that any additional prospective plaintiffs – whether they 

seek reconsideration of the Court’s prior denial of their joinder or were previously dismissed 

from the case – that move to be reinstated in this case following the issuance of this Order and 

the accompanying Opinion must show good cause as to why they did not meet the Court’s prior 

deadlines. 

SO ORDERED. 

_______________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: March 21, 2019
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 00-44] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21   July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 00-44 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: June 22, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 39880)          ( print page 39881)          ( print page 39882)    

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M

[FR Doc. 00-16261  Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-C
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000 included herein and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      Dec-31-2000
<CASH>                                                    632
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            0
<PP&E>                                                584,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                        122,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        487,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       0
<BONDS>                                               346,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                            117,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          487,273
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      108,821
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          33,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       26,218 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     27,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         5,268
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     5,268
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            5,268
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.31
<FN>
<F1> Depreciation and amortization
</FN>


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAUDIA J. ROHR,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION COMMISSION, of the State of Hawai ʻ i,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 15051

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv

- 00162

- LEK

- RT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15 , 2022 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND

, Circuit Judges.

Claudia J. Rohr appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in her action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

decision on cross

- motions for s ummary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 18 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15051

County of San Diego , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant

because

, assuming without deciding that 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) applies, Roh r failed

to file her action within the applicable limitations period or establish any basis for

equitable estoppel

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a); Bibeau v. Pac. Nw. Rsch. Found.

Inc. , 188 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 1999) ( explaining that under the discovery rul e ,

the statute begins to run once a plaintiff has knowledge that s he has been hurt and

knowledge of who has inflicted the injury ) ; see also Johnson v. Henderson , 314

F.3d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 2002) ( explaining that application of equitable estoppel

under federal law requires active conduct by a defendant to prevent plaintiff from

suing in time, above and beyond the alleged wrongdoing underlying the claim)

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying R ohr’s motion s for

reconsideration and for relief from judgment because Rohr failed to demonstrate

any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of

revi ew and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b)).

We reject as without merit Rohr’s contention that the district court violated

due process.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 20

- 15051

in the opening br ief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
§ 302-12.114 What policies must we establish when offering our employees the services of a RSC? If you choose to offer the services of a RSC to your employees, you must establish policies governing: ( a ) The conditions under which you will authorize an employee to use the contract with the RSC;
( b ) Which employees you will allow to use the contract with the RSC;
( c ) Which services the RSC will provide to the employee;
( d ) Who will determine in each case if an employee may use the contract with the RSC and which services the RSC will provide;
( e ) How you will monitor and evaluate the counseling provided by you and/or the RSC to your employees; and
( f ) How you will monitor and maintain an appropriate balance between the three types of homesale transactions in your homesale programs (appraised value, buyer value option, and amended value).
[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18344, Apr. 1, 2011]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7401** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JUSTIN DEONTA STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J

- Dirt , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00159

- JCC

- 1; 1:15

- cv - 00632

- JCC )

Submitted : January 29, 2016 Decided: February 17, 2016

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Inayat Delawala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Justin Denota Strom seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that th e motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Strom has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil ity and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16146]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV-910-00-0777-30]


Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council Meeting 
Location and Time

June 13, 2000.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Resource Advisory Council's Meeting Location and Time.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C., the 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Council 
meetings will be held as indicated below. The agenda for the July, 2000 
meeting includes: approval of minutes of the previous meeting, wild 
horses, sage grouse, Great Basin Restoration Initiative, Land Health 
Standards, Off-Highway Vehicles, Field Manager reports, identification 
of additional issues to be resolved and determination of the subject 
matter for future meetings.
    All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written 
comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have 
time allocated for hearing public comments. The public comment period 
for the Council meeting is listed below.
    Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time 
available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. 
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.

DATES, TIMES, PLACE: The time and location of the meeting is as 
follows: Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Elko Field 
Office, 3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada 89801; July 14 starting at 
9:00 a.m.; public comments will be at 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.; 
tentative adjournment at 5:00 p.m.

SPECIAL MEETING: On July 13, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Stockmen's Motor 
Hotel, the Resource Advisory Council will host a public meeting to 
discuss public ideas and concerns for off-highway vehicle use.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Howle, Environmental 
Coordinator, Ely Field Office, 702 North Industrial Way, HC 33 Box 
33500, Ely, NV 89301-9408, telephone 775-289-1873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Council is to advise the 
Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning 
and management issues, associated with the management of the public 
lands.

Helen Hankins,
Field Office Manager, Elko Field Office.
[FR Doc. 00-16146 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M