alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.419 Form of comments and replies; number of copies.

(a) Comments, replies, and other documents filed in a rulemaking proceeding shall conform to the requirements of § 1.49.

(b) Unless otherwise specified by Commission rules, an original and one copy of all comments, briefs and other documents filed in a rulemaking proceeding shall be furnished to the Commission. The distribution of such copies shall be as follows:

| Secretary (original) | 1 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference Information Center | 1 |
| Total | 2 |

Participants filing the required 2 copies who also wish each Commissioner to have a personal copy of the comments may file an additional 5 copies. The distribution of such copies shall be as follows:

| Commissioners | 5 |
| --- | --- |
| Secretary (original) | 1 |
| Reference Information Center | 1 |
| Total | 7 |

Similarly, members of the general public who wish to express their interest by participating informally in a rulemaking proceeding may do so by submitting an original and one copy of their comments, without regard to form, provided only that the Docket Number is specified in the heading. Informal comments filed after close of the reply comment period, or, if on reconsideration, the reconsideration reply comment period, should be labeled “ex parte” pursuant to § 1.1206(a). Letters submitted to Commissioners or Commission staff will be treated in the same way as informal comments, as set forth above. Also, to the extent that an informal participant wishes to submit to each Commissioner a personal copy of a comment and has not submitted or cannot submit the comment by electronic mail, the participant may file an additional 5 copies. The distribution of such copies shall be as follows:

| Commissioners | 5 |
| --- | --- |
| Secretary (original) | 1 |
| Reference Information Center | 1 |
| Total | 7 |

(c) Any person desiring to file identical documents in more than one docketed rulemaking proceeding shall furnish the Commission two additional copies of any such document for each additional docket. This requirement does not apply if the proceedings have been consolidated.

(d) Participants that file comments and replies in electronic form need only submit one copy of those comments, so long as the submission conforms to any procedural or filing requirements established for formal electronic comments.

(e) Comments and replies and other documents filed in electronic form by a party represented by an attorney shall include the name and mailing address of at least one attorney of record. Parties not represented by an attorney that file comments and replies and other documents in electronic form shall provide their name and mailing address.

[28 FR 12432, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 41 FR 50399, Nov. 16, 1976; 50 FR 26567, June 27, 1985; 54 FR 29037, July 11, 1989; 63 FR 24125, May 1, 1998; 63 FR 56091, Oct. 21, 1998; 67 FR 13223, Mar. 21, 2002; 76 FR 24392, May 2, 2011]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND E. FOWLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 98-6700 RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-356-3) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Raymond E. Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM:Raymond E. Fowler appeals from a district court order that concluded his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1) (West Supp. 1998). Fowler's conviction became final in 1990, and he executed his petition on April 1, 1997; it was received in the district court on April 18, 1997. Fowler had until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2254 petition. See Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). Therefore, his petition wasnot time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings. 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. REMANDED 2
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4216

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to limit the amount a

provider may charge an individual for an outpatient hospital service

furnished under part B of the medicare program to 20 percent of

the reasonable cost of the service, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 14, 1994

Mr. COYNE introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to limit

the amount a provider may charge an individual for

an outpatient hospital service furnished under part B

of the medicare program to 20 percent of the reasonable

cost of the service, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Beneficiary

5 Coinsurance Protection Act’’.
2

•HR 4216 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AMOUNT PROVIDER MAY CHARGE

2 FOR OUTPATIENT HOSPITAL SERVICES

3 UNDER MEDICARE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1866(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the

5 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(2)(A)(ii)) is

6 amended by striking ‘‘an amount equal to 20 per centum

7 of the reasonable charges’’ and all that follows through

8 ‘‘the Secretary)’’ and inserting ‘‘with respect to items and

9 services for which payment is made under part B or which

10 are durable medical equipment furnished as home health

11 services, an amount equal to 20 percent of the reasonable

12 cost of the item or service (as determined under section

13 1861(v))’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

15 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services furnished

16 on or after January 1, 1995.

17 SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF FORMULA-DRIVEN OVERPAY18 MENTS FOR CERTAIN OUTPATIENT HOSPITAL

19 SERVICES.

20 (a) AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER PROCE21 DURES.—Section 1833(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Social Secu22 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(i)(3)(B)(i)(II)) is amended—

23 (1) by striking ‘‘of 80 percent’’; and

24 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert25 ing the following: ‘‘, less the amount a provider may
3

•HR 4216 IH

1 charge as described in clause (ii) of section

2 1866(a)(2)(A).’’.

3 (b) RADIOLOGY SERVICES AND DIAGNOSTIC PROCE4 DURES.—Section 1833(n)(1)(B)(i)(II) of such Act (42

5 U.S.C. 1395l(n)(1)(B)(i)(II)) is amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘of 80 percent’’; and

7 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert8 ing the following: ‘‘, less the amount a provider may

9 charge as described in clause (ii) of section

10 1866(a)(2)(A).’’.

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 this section shall apply to services furnished during por13 tions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after Janu14 ary 1, 1995.

Æ
# Comments on: 2021-1561: Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton

VIRGINIA LINEN SERVICE AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2866-05-2 PER CURIAM MARCH 28, 2006 JOHN W. WISE, JR. (DECEASED), SHANNON WISE, MAKAY LA ELIZABETH WISE, JESSICA DIANNE WISE , JOHN MICHAEL WISE AND MILTON E. WISE

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Roger T. Williams; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on brief), for appellants. (B. Mayes Marks, Jr.; Marks an d Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellees John W. Wise (Deceased), Shannon Wise, Makayla Elizabeth Wise and Jessica Dianne Wise. (Steven M. Oser, on brief), fo r appellees John Michael Wise and Milton E. Wise.

Virginia Linen Service and its insurer appe al a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Shannon Wise, Makayla Elizabeth Wise , Jessica Dianne Wise, John Michael Wise, and Milton E. Wise, the beneficiarie s of John W. Wise, Jr. (deceased), were not precluded pursuant to Code § 65.2-306 from recovering benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act based upon the deceased’s alle ged willful misconduct in failing to use a safety harness and the “buddy system.” We ha ve reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Virginia Linen Service v. John W. Wise, Jr.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - (Deceased), et al. , VWC File No. 208-22-13 (Nov. 16, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
SCWC-14-0000856
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I NICHOLAS R. PAO, JR., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. RICHARD C. DEWAELE, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0000856; CIV. NO. 04-1-1339)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Nicholas R. Pao, Jr.’s application for writ of certiorari filed on May 22, 2015, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, July 7, 2015. Nicholas R. Pao, Jr., petitioner pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0000856 07-JUL-2015 09:32 AM
No. 11-5072.

#### Smith *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2249

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Deandre Darnell Blakely lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

____________ Submitted: December 20, 2021 Filed: January 20, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Deandre Darnell Blakely appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and gun offenses, and the district court 1 imposed a sentence below the advisory guideline

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.range in the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. His counsel has filed a

brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing the propriety of an obstruction-of-justice enhancement and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We conclude the district court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. See United States v. Abdul-Aziz , 486 F.3d 471, 478 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining the standard of review); see also United States v. Vera-Gutierrez , 964 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2020) (reiterating the district court’s broad discretion to apply the enhancement to a wide range of conduct), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1252 (2021). Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we also conclude the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Lazarski , 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that when a district court varies below the guideline range, “it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further”). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
No. 10-11110.

#### Soto-Guevara *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1408 Imputation of rates; modification costs. ( a ) A utility that engages in the provision of telecommunications services or cable services shall impute to its costs of providing such services (and charge any affiliate, subsidiary, or associate company engaged in the provision of such services) an equal amount to the pole attachment rate for which such company would be liable under this section.
( b ) The costs of modifying a facility shall be borne by all parties that obtain access to the facility as a result of the modification and by all parties that directly benefit from the modification. Each party described in the preceding sentence shall share proportionately in the cost of the modification. A party with a preexisting attachment to the modified facility shall be deemed to directly benefit from a modification if, after receiving notification of such modification as provided in subpart J of this part, it adds to or modifies its attachment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a party with a preexisting attachment to a pole, conduit, duct or right-of-way shall not be required to bear any of the costs of rearranging or replacing its attachment if such rearrangement or replacement is necessitated solely as a result of an additional attachment or the modification of an existing attachment sought by another party. If a party makes an attachment to the facility after the completion of the modification, such party shall share proportionately in the cost of the modification if such modification rendered possible the added attachment.
[61 FR 43025, Aug. 20, 1996; 61 FR 45619, Aug. 29, 1996. Redesignated at 83 FR 44841, Sept. 4, 2018]
# Comments on: 22-1811: RADOGNA v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential
ACCEPTED 06-15-00144-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/31/2015 1:34:46 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
#### § 301-70.201 May we issue a blanket actual expense authorization for our employees during a Presidentially-Declared Disaster?

Yes. A blanket authorization regarding actual expense reimbursement may be issued to your employees assigned to perform TDY travel in an area subject to a Presidentially-Declared Disaster. These authorizations must apply to a specific Declaration, and must end on the expiration date of the Declaration, or one year from the date the Declaration is issued, whichever is sooner. A blanket authorization issued under this section shall not apply to any travel performed pursuant to chapter 302 of this title.

[FTR Amdt. 2011-03, 76 FR 55275, Sept. 7, 2011]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4392

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

to authorize the distribution of Federal surplus property to nonprofit

organizations providing assistance to the hungry and the indigent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 11, 1994

Mr. MCCURDY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 to authorize the distribution of Federal

surplus property to nonprofit organizations providing assistance to the hungry and the indigent.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO DISTRIBUTE SURPLUS PROP4 ERTY TO CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZA5 TIONS.

6 Subparagraph (B) of section 203(j)(3) of the Federal

7 Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40

8 U.S.C. 484(j)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, or to non-
2

•HR 4392 IH

1 profit organizations which are exempt from taxation under

2 such section and provide assistance to the hungry or the

3 indigent, for the purpose of providing such assistance’’

4 after ‘‘for any such purpose)’’.

Æ
Order filed December 8, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00668-CV

____________

SHELLY R. ROWLANDS, Appellant

V.

BRADLEY J. HARTZOG AND TOMBALL FOREST EXPRESS, LLC, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-82895

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due November 30, 2020.No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or 

before December 30, 2020, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Hassan.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.10006 Is electronic filing mandatory?

Electronic filing is mandatory for all applications for international and satellite services for which an International Communications Filing System (ICFS) form is available. Applications for which an electronic form is not available must be filed through the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) in PDF format until new forms are introduced. *See* §§ 63.20 and 63.53 of this chapter. As each new ICFS form becomes available for electronic filing, the Commission will issue a public notice announcing the availability of the new form and the effective date of mandatory filing for this particular type of filing. As each new form becomes effective, manual filings will not be accepted by the Commission and the filings will be returned to the applicant without processing. Mandatory electronic filing requirements for applications for international and satellite services are set forth in this part and parts 25, 63, and 64 of this chapter. A list of forms that are available for electronic filing can be found on the ICFS homepage. For information on electronic filing requirements, see §§ 1.1000 through 1.10018 and the ICFS homepage at *https://licensing.fcc.gov/icfs.*

[88 FR 21436, Apr. 10, 2023]
§ 302-8.1 When may extended storage of HHG be authorized? Your agency may authorize extended storage of HHG under the following circumstances: ( a ) Extended storage of HHG may be authorized in lieu of shipment when: ( 1 ) You are assigned to an isolated duty station within CONUS (see subpart B of this part);
( 2 ) You are assigned to an overseas official station where your agency limits the amount of HHG you may transport to that location;
( 3 ) You are assigned to an OCONUS official station and your agency determines extended storage is in the public interest or cost effective to do so; or
( 4 ) It is necessary for a temporary change of station (TCS).
( b ) Extended storage of HHG is not permitted for a career SES employee eligible for last move home benefits.
§ 302-17.7 What limitations and Federal income tax treatments apply to various relocation reimbursements? ( a ) Some relocation expenses reimbursed to you or paid directly by the Government on or after January 1, 2018, and on or before December 31, 2025, must be reported as income and you cannot claim them as deductible expenses on your Federal tax return.
( b ) A table summarizing the FTR allowances, limitations, and tax treatment of each reimbursement, allowance, or direct payment to a service provider or vendor is published at *https://gsa.gov/ftrbulletins .* The table also cites relevant FTR paragraphs for details. GSA will revise the table to reflect any changes as quickly as possible; however, users of this part may wish to consult with a tax advisor to determine what limitations and Federal income tax treatments apply to your relocation reimbursement(s).
[FTR Amdt. 2020-02, 84 FR 64782, Nov. 25, 2019. Redesignated at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
No. 11-9528.

#### Guzman *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 102-83.30 What basic location of space policy governs a Federal agency? ( a ) All Federal agencies when planning for location decisions under the authorities of the Administrator, including those using delegated real property authority, are required to apply the applicable laws, regulations, and E.O.s outlined in this part to their activities. This applies to agencies using the space and to agencies acquiring a leasehold interest or a new site to accommodate a space requirement.
( b ) Federal agencies intending to use space under this part are responsible for identifying the geographic area within which to locate their activities (*i.e.,* the delineated area) to support their mission and program requirements. Agencies must define delineated areas that support the applicable laws, regulations, and E.O.s outlined in this part. In addition to these responsibilities, agencies conducting a space acquisition have certain additional specific responsibilities as outlined in this part.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ASHOK KUMAR, NELLITHANATH THANKACHEN 

BYJU,

Appellants

v.

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2017-1825

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 106,029.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

BARRY EASTBURN BRETSCHNEIDER, Baker & Hostetler 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by CHARLES C. CARSON; PETER JAMES KNUDSEN, 

Seattle, WA. 

 SARAH E. CRAVEN, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 
argued for intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W.

KRAUSE, ROBERT J. MCMANUS. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 November 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court