alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 18 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of 

Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public Charge Ground 

of Inadmissibility’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the final rule submitted by the 

4 Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public 

5 Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 55472 

6 (September 9, 2022)), and such rule shall have no force 

7 or effect. 

Passed the Senate May 17, 2023. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 18 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the DepartCharge Ground of Inadmissibility’’. ment of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2598
CAROL A. SANSONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-397-A) Submitted: April 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carole A. Sansone, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Neal Barkus, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Washington, D. C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Carol A. Sansone appeals a district court order granting Defendant summary judgment in an action in which she alleges breach of contract and employment discrimination under Title VII of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e17 (1994). After reviewing the record, and the reasoning articulated by the district court in open court during summary judgment proceedings, we find no reversible error and accordingly affirm the district court order. We further deny Sansone's "Motion for General Relief and for Expeditious Hearing" as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1705.5 Disclosure of requested information to individuals.

Upon verification of identity, the System Manager shall disclose to the individual: (a) The information contained in the record which pertains to that individual; and (b) the accounting of disclosures of the record, if any, required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(c).
Hillsborough,

No. 5270.

#### State *v.*James E. Colcord.

Argued November 4, 1964.

Decided November 30, 1964.

*91
      *William Maynard,*Attorney General, *George S. Pappagianis,*Deputy Attorney General and *Emile R.*Bussiere, commissioner to perform the duties of county attorney *{Mr. Pappagianis*orally), for the State.

*Leonard & Leonard*and *David M. Prolman {Mr. Prolman*orally), for the defendant.

Wheeler, J.

RSA 159:3 provides: “Possession by aliens; felons. No unnaturalized foreign-born person, and no person who has been convicted of a felony against the person or property of another, shall own or have in his possession or under his control a pistol or revolver. . . . Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be imprisoned not more than two years, and upon conviction the pistol or revolver shall be confiscated and destroyed.”

By statute accessories after the fact may be tried and convicted either before or after the conviction of the principal and shall be punished in the same manner as the principal except in capital cases. RSA 590:2.

This court has long recognized the fact that the distinction between principals and accessories has little to commend it. *State*v. *Demos,*81 N. H. 318. “It has been more than twenty-five years since it was emphasized in the *Demos*case, *supra,*that there is little logical foundation for the distinction between principal and accessory but now, as then, any improvement in line with modern criminal procedure requires legislative rather than judicial action.” *State*v. *Lacoshus,*96 N. H. 76, 80.

The defendant contends here that since the charge of being an accessory after the fact is a distinct offense from that of the principal he cannot be charged with violation of RSA 159:3.

It is elemental law that breaking and entering and larceny are offenses against the right of property or possessions of another. Here the defendant became an accessory after the fact by aiding the principal in transporting and disposing of the stolen goods. Sometime later the police found a rifle and revolver in a motor vehicle which the defendant was operating.

Despite the technical distinction between principal and accessory, we are of the opinion that the defendant’s conviction of the offense of being an accessory after the fact to the crime of breaking, entering and larceny constituted a conviction “of a *92felony against . . . property of another” within the meaning of RSA 159:3.

*Exception overruled.*

All concurred.
§ 223.114 Acquisition by third party. No agreement permitting a third party to acquire the rights of a purchaser under a timber sale contract may be recognized and approved by the Forest Service except in writing, signed by the officer approving the sale, his successor, or superior officer. Such approval shall not relieve the purchaser of his responsibilities or liabilities under the timber sale contract and may be given only if— ( a ) The third party is acceptable to the Forest Service as a purchaser of timber under the conditions and requirements then in effect for similar timber sales and assumes in writing all of the obligations to the Forest Service under the terms of the timber sale contract as to the uncompleted portion thereof, or
( b ) The rights are acquired in trust as security and subject to such conditions as may be necessary for the protection of the public interests.
#### John Bosoian, Respondent, *v.*Samuel T. Hubbard et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of Hubbard Bros. & Company, Appellants.

Reported below, 129 App. Div. 637.

(Submitted February 8, 1909;

decided February 16, 1909.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 7, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover on contract.

The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment of the Appellate Division was unanimous and the exceptions frivolous.

*Nathan F. Griffin*and *George F. Maguire*for motion.

*Eugene D. Hawkins*and *Alfred Gregory*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
QUESTION 1: Do states that now collect manifests make individual manifests available

at public request , or are there restrictions on access? How long after hazardous waste shipments are completed does it ty picall y take the state to make such manifests av ailable to requestors?
QUESTION 2: Do states that now collect manifests make aggregate d data from manifests , multiple manifests, or data reports freely availabl e to the public upon request ? (Examples would be a request for all manifests with a particular waste code or all manifests going to or managed b y a particular company or facility .) Have states imposed any CBIrelated limitation s on the information they will disclose in response to such requests? How long after hazardous waste shipments are co mpleted does it ty picall y take the state t o provide aggregate data in response to such a request ?

QUESTION 3: In a survey conducted for ASTSWMO by L iz Bols (MI DEQ) in January , 2007, nine States provided responses to questions related to manifests and a future electronic manifest sy stem. The States that responded were NY, OR, SC, FL , MI, WA, CT, ID, and OH. Of these nine states, eight states responded that manifest data would probabl y not be subject to CBI under state laws and policies, while Ohio ind icated that manifest data might be subject to CBI claims based on the experience in Ohio with Ohio’s Hazardous Waste Annual Report. In addition, several states on the e

- Manifest rule workgroup, including MD, PA, NJ, and CA, stated that they would also rel ease their HW manifests as public information without allowing CBI claims.

However, i n August, 2004, Paula Canter of the Ohio EPA polled the States on their Site ID , manifest tracking, and Hazardous Waste Reporting requirements. As part of the 2004

surve y, 44 States responded to the question “Do you allow CBI claims on the Hazardous Waste Report?” The responses to this question in 2004 from the 44 respondents was evenl y split between states that would allowed and states that would not allow CBI claims fo r their HW Report data.
Given that the request for aggregate manifest data may be viewed as presenting many of the same data and issues as requests for a state’s HW Report data insofar as the disclosure of customer list information, how should we reconc ile the answers given in response to the 2004 and 2007 surveys? Should aggregate manifest requests and requests for HW Annual Report data be treated differentl y for purposes of CBI claims?

QUESTION 4 : Do you think that your state ’ s current policy on pub lic disclosure of information of the ty

pe described in Question 2 would be at all affected b y the fact that an electronic manifest s ystem may make information available more rapidly than it is available under the current paper s ys tem?
§ 2105.59 When can you expect a decision on your appeal? ( a ) The basic time limit for responding to an appeal is 20 workdays after receipt of an appeal meeting the requirements of § 2105.56.
( b ) If the Agency is unable to reach a decision on your appeal within the given time limit for response, the appropriate deciding official for FOIA appeals will notify you of your statutory right to seek review in a United States District Court.
§ 1149.30 How are the functions of the ALJ separated from those of the investigating official and the reviewing official? ( a ) The investigating official, the reviewing official, and any employee or agent of the authority who takes part in investigating, preparing, or presenting a particular case may not, in such case or a factually related case: ( 1 ) Participate in the hearing as the ALJ;
( 2 ) Participate or advise in the review of the initial decision by the authority head; or
( 3 ) Make the collection of penalties and assessment.
( b ) The ALJ must not be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of the investigating official or the reviewing official.
#### Emil Haenschen, as Administrator of the Estate of Emil Haenschen, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Roebling Construction Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

*.Haenschen*v. *Allison Realty*Oo., 124 App. Div. 920, affirmed.

(Argued December 9,1908;

decided January 12, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 18, 1908, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in" favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have occurred through the maintenance of a dangerous nuisance by the defendants.

*Gilbert E. Roe*and *James J. Mahoney*for appellant.

*Moses L.*Malevinsky, *Frank A. Acer*and *Frank F. Davis*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray,' Edward T. Bartlett, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ. Absent: Werner, J.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 29475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11907]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[PUBLIC NOTICE: 8743]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Holocaust'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Holocaust,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement 
with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the United States 
Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC, from on or about June 12, 
2014, until on or about June 11, 2017, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 15, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-11907 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Willis v. Weaver, appellant.

*Verdict against the weight of evidence*— *Vendor and purchaser*— *services and expenses in managing property.*

Where it appears to the court from the evidence, that a verdict has been rendered for the plaintiff for a sum largely in excess of any just claim on his part, the judgment will be reversed on appeal, unless it can be modified by reducing it to what seems to be the fair and reasonable amount, at the plaintiff’s election, so as to avoid the expense and delay of a new trial. But if the court is unable to fix upon items so clearly recoverable as to warrant a modification of the verdict, to make it conform to them, a new trial will be ordered.

The defendant being the plaintiff’s surety, the latter, to indemnify him against a contingent liability as such for some $10,000, conveyed to him by deed a tract of land with the understanding that whatever should be ultimately realized, beyond such indemnity and incumbrances and liens, and the expenses the defendant might be subjected to in the management and disposition of the property, should bé paid to the plaintiff. From the date of this conveyance the plaintiff had the management and disposition of the property for ten or twelve years. *Seld,*that his services in so doing were a part of the *expenses*contemplated and provided for, and were not a just debit against the defendant, without at the same time being a fair credit in his favor.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying a new trial. The action was brought *758by Anson Willis against James Weaver, to recover for the amount of the consideration of a conveyance of real estate unpaid, and for services in disposing of the real estate in question, and other real estate.

*Chambers & Pomeroy,*for appellants.

*Brainard & Rice,*for respondents.

Davis, P. J.

The only points passed upon in the opinion appear fully in the head-note. The case involved chiefly a disputed question of the state of facts.

*Judgment reversed and neto trial ordered.*
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF NANCY ERICKSON, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

Monday, March 5, 2007

FIRST SESSION {

SECOND SESSION {

Issue No. 23

CONVENED JANUARY 4, 2007

RESOLUTIONS

CALENDAR 

NO.

S. RES. 

NO.

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

1

 
TREATIES

CALENDAR 

NO.

TREATY

DOC. NO.

SUBJECT REPORTED 

BY

2

 
* Signifies nominee’s commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 

NOMINATIONS

CALENDAR 

NO.

MESSAGE

NO.

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR REPORTED 

BY

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

* 14 104 Carl Joseph Artman, of Colorado, to be an 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior, vice David 

Wayne Anderson. 

Feb 01, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Dorgan, Committee on Indian 

Affairs, without printed report. 

THE JUDICIARY 

27 19 John Alfred Jarvey, of Iowa, to be United States 

District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, 

vice Ronald E. Longstaff, retired. 

Feb 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

28 21 Sara Elizabeth Lioi, of Ohio, to be United States 

District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, 

vice Lesley Brooks Wells, retired. 

Feb 08, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

36 4 John Preston Bailey, of West Virginia, to be 

United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, vice Frederick P. 

Stamp, Jr., retired. 

Mar 01, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

37 32 Otis D. Wright II, of California, to be United 

States District Judge for the Central District of 

California, vice Gary L. Taylor, retired. 

Mar 01, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 

38 33 George H. Wu, of California, to be United States 

District Judge for the Central District of 

California, vice Ronald S. W. Lew, retired. 

Mar 01, 2007 Reported by Mr. 

Leahy, Committee on the 

Judiciary, without printed 

report. 
NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY’S DESK

4
§ 156.929 Computation of time and extensions of time. ( a ) For purposes of this subpart, in computing any period of time, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default and includes the last day of the period unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal government, in which event it includes the next business day. When the period of time allowed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the Federal government are excluded from the computation.
( b ) The period of time for filing any responsive pleading or papers is determined by the date of receipt (as defined in § 156.901) of the submission to which a response is being made.
( c ) The ALJ may grant extensions of the filing deadlines specified in these regulations or set by the ALJ for good cause shown (except that requests for extensions of time to file a request for hearing may be granted only on the grounds specified in § 156.905(b)).
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 25, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Interface Technologies, Haslemere, Surrey, United Kingdom has been added as a party to this venture. Also, Aquiris, Monroe, NY has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activities of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May, 27, 2003, Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 17, 2003 (68 FR 35913).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 3, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53134).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-9337 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M