alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 108–68—AUG. 1, 2003 117 STAT. 883

Public Law 108–68

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the PROTECT Act to clarify certain volunteer liability.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE PROTECT ACT.

Section 108 of the PROTECT Act (Public Law 108–21) is

amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(e) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—In connection with the Pilot

Programs established under this section, in reliance upon the fitness

criteria established under section 108(a)(3)(G)(i), and except upon

proof of actual malice or intentional misconduct, the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or a director, officer,

employee, or agent of the Center shall not be liable in any civil

action for damages—

‘‘(1) arising from any act or communication by the Center,

the director, officer, employee, or agent that results in or

contributes to a decision that an individual is unfit to serve

as a volunteer for any volunteer organization;

‘‘(2) alleging harm arising from a decision based on the

information in an individual’s criminal history record that an

individual is fit to serve as a volunteer for any volunteer

organization unless the Center, the director, officer, employee,

or agent is furnished with an individual’s criminal history

records which they know to be inaccurate or incomplete, or

which they know reflect a lesser crime than that for which

the individual was arrested; and

‘‘(3) alleging harm arising from a decision that, based on

the absence of criminal history information, an individual is

fit to serve as a volunteer for any volunteer organization unless

the Center, the director, officer, employee, or agent knows

Ante, p. 655.

Aug. 1, 2003

[S. 1280]

117 STAT. 884 PUBLIC LAW 108–68—AUG. 1, 2003

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1280:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):

July 14, considered and passed Senate.

July 21, considered and passed House.

Æ

that criminal history records exist and have not been furnished

as required under this section.’’.

Approved August 1, 2003.
Case 2:05-cv-05684-JF Document 84 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-05684-JF Document 84 Filed 10/05/10 Page 2 of 2
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0642 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-262-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
No. 54574.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 153569-K.

(Initial No. 141670-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 57256.

protest 194174-K (New York).

#### Standard Wine & Liquor Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, facts, and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. ■ The protest was sustained to this extent
No. 48478.

#### Protests 815256-G, etc., of Lekas & Drivas et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 221 Filed 12/04/08 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 221 Filed 12/04/08 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 221 Filed 12/04/08 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 221 Filed 12/04/08 Page 4 of 4
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Query Card Transaction History

To complete a card transaction query, complete the following steps:

1. From the Card Processing tab, click Card Transaction Query.

2. The Card Processing – Query Card Transaction History page appears. Enter your search 

criteria. 

• Under Search Criteria,

o Enter an Endpoint, optional

o Enter the Chain Code, optional

o Enter Division, optional

o Enter ALC (Agency Location Code), optional

o Enter Merchant ID, optional

o Enter Invoice ID, optional

o Select a From and To Date range, optional

o Under Transaction Status, click the Processed or Refund radio button, 

optional

• The maximum Date range is 30 days.

• A Processed payment is a completed payment.

• A Refunded payment is a payment that has been credited back to a customer.

3. Click Search. The Search Results table appears, as shown in Figure 1. Click Count to 

display the Total Records and Total Card Amount.

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Figure 1: Card Processing – Query Card Transaction History, Transaction Status

Total Records are displays showing the total number of records that are displayed from 

the query results.

• Total Records = Captured + Refunded

Total Card Amount displays the total amount value for all the transactions that are 

displayed from the query search results.

• Total Card Amount = Capture – Refunded

4. Click the Invoice ID hyperlink of the card transaction details you wish to view. The View 

Card Transaction History Details page displays. Review the details of the selected 

transaction record. 

5. Refund a credit or gift card transaction by clicking Refund Transaction.

6. Refund a debit card transaction with cash by clicking Refund With Cash. Click Print Sale 

Receipt to print a paper receipt. 

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

3

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• Click Refund Transaction to refund a card transaction.

• Click Print Sale Receipt to print a paper receipt.

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page.

Additional Buttons
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RANDY DAVIS : CIVIL ACTION

 : 

v. :

 :

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. :

 : NO. 05-CV-4571

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11 day of August 2009, upon consideration of defendant City

of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Randy Davis’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the

Federal Arbitration Act, (FAA) 9 U.S.C. § 1, the Labor Management Relations Act, (LMRA) 29

U.S.C. § 141, the Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), and plaintiff’s common

law breach of contract and arbitration award claims, defendants Charlotte Council, Aaron Horne,

John Gaittens and Captain Levins’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 and the

Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (PHRA) and plaintiff’s response thereto, for the reasons stated

in the accompanying memorandum it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Council, Horne, Gaittens and Levins’ motion to dismiss plaintff’s § 1983

and PHRA claims is DENIED;

2. Defendant City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FAA claim is DENIED;

3. Defendant City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s common law contract

claim is DENIED without prejudice to permit rebriefing; parties have 20 (twenty) business days

from the date of this ORDER to simultaneously rebrief this issue;

4. Defendant City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim against it for

Case 2:05-cv-04571-LFR Document 61 Filed 08/11/09 Page 1 of 2
punitive damages under § 1983, the PERA claim and the common law arbitration claim is

GRANTED; plaintiff’s claims under the PERA and common law arbitration and the claim for

punitive damages under § 1983 are DISMISSED;

5. Defendant City of Philadelphia’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s § 1983 and LMRA

claims is GRANTED and these counts of the complaint are dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is given leave to amend his complaint for these counts within 20 (twenty) business days

from the date of this ORDER.

____s/ Thomas O’Neill 

THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J. 

 

Case 2:05-cv-04571-LFR Document 61 Filed 08/11/09 Page 2 of 2
U

. S

. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENE RGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20 585 Wednesday

, March 1 4 , 20 12

9 a.m.

– 4 p.m. ET, Room 8E

- 089

Purpose The Department of Energy (DOE) will receive comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( S NOPR) and the proposed standards as stated in the notice

. In addition, DOE will present the methodology used for the S NOPR analysis and example

results. The Department will present its plans for the remaining analysis

— the analysis to support the Final Rule

— and will seek input from interested parties on the methodologies, assumptions, data sources , and analysis results

.

Agenda

9:00

- 9:05 am Welcome

9:05

- 9:15 am O pening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15

- 9:30 am Rulemaking Overview

Wes Anderson

O verview of the analyses in the rulemaking , the tools DOE uses to generate results for each analysis, and the issues on which DOE would like input during today’s meeting.

9:30

- 9 : 45 am Comments from Participants

Doug Brookman Open forum for participants to make a brief summary statement and/or identify their key issues regarding the

S NOPR analyses, methods, data , and results

.

9 : 45

- 11 : 0 0 a m Engineering Analysis

Judith Reich

S ummary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screening analysis, and engineering analysis, and a characterization of the results.

11 : 0 0

- 11 : 1 5 am Break1 1 : 1 5 am

- 1 1 : 45 pm Energy Use Analysis , Markups for Equipment Price Determination, Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis , Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, Trial Standard Levels, Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis Greg Rosenquist

S ummary presentatio n and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the energy and water use analysis, markups to determine equipment prices,

life

- cycle cost and payback period analys e s, shipments analysis, national energy savings, net present value

, trial standard levels, and utility, employment, environmental, and regulatory analyses, and a characterization of the

results.

1 1 : 45

- 1 2 : 00 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Ben Barrington Summary presentation and discussion regarding , and the approach use d and factors consider ed for the manufacturer impact analysis

.

1 2 : 00

- 1 2 : 15 pm Proposed Standards

Ben Barrington Summary presentation and discussion regarding the proposed standards

.

1 2 : 15

- 1 2 : 30 pm Discussion of Other Issues

Doug Brookman

O pen forum to discuss any remaining questions or issues identified by participants.

1 2 : 30

- 1 2 : 45 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Wes Anderson Participants will discuss outstanding issues and concluding

remarks

.

1 2 : 45 pm Adjourn
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 20, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant Officer Carver was returned unserved

with a notation that said defendant has retired. Plaintiff must provide additional information if

this defendant is to be served. Plaintiff may seek such information through discovery, the

California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available to

plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may

seek judicial intervention.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 37 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed April 7, 2004;

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Officer Carver; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed April 7, 2004; and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) 

or show good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: June 2, 2005.

12/kf

keet0697.8e 

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 37 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 form

 2 copies of the April 7, 2004 

 Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 37 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 3
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 11, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00050-CV

MAN DO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MR. DO COIN LAUNDRY, 

Appellant

V.

TUAN DO AND CHAU NGUYEN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-13345

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

We reinstate this appeal. In 2018, we abated this case due to Chau Nguyen’s 

bankruptcy. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of 

the federal Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which 

shows the bankruptcy case associated with this appeal was terminated on January 

22, 2019, effectively dissolving the automatic stay.

We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status 

of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would 
–2–

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c). To 

date, neither party has responded.

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this 

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31312990, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not designated for 

publication).

160050f.p05

/Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MAN DO, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

D/B/A MR. DO COIN LAUNDRY, 

Appellant

No. 05-16-00050-CV V.

TUAN DO AND CHAU NGUYEN, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-13345.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Osborne and Pedersen, III 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 11th day of June, 2021.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41030

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL T. GRUBERT

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:08-CR-7-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael T. Grubert pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and

was sentenced to a 90-month term of imprisonment and to a 10-year period of

supervised release. As a special condition of his supervision, Grubert was

ordered to “participate in a mental health program as deemed necessary and

approved by the probation officer.” 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 28, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-41030

2

Grubert argues that the district court committed plain error by delegating

to the probation officer the authority to decide whether he should undergo

mental health treatment. Citing United States v. Albro, 32 F.3d 173, 174 (5th

Cir. 1994), he argues that the district court impermissibly delegated its Article

III power to impose conditions of supervised release by giving the probation

officer discretion to decide whether he should participate in a mental health

program. 

To show plain error, Grubert must show an error that is clear or obvious

and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332

(5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962 (2009). Our precedents do not plainly

require the result Gruber urges. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 851-54

(5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002).

The judgment is 

AFFIRMED.
----

Action brought on 12 May 2006 — France v Commission

(Case T-139/06)

(2006/C 165/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Belliard, acting as Agent, G. de Bergues, acting as Agent, S. Gasri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 11 June 1991 (1), the Court of Justice of the European Communities found that the applicant had failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on Member States by Community law in the area of fisheries policy. Since that judgment was not implemented, the Commission brought an action before the Court of Justice based on Article 228 EC and by judgment of 12 July 2005 (2) the applicant was ordered to pay to the Commission a penalty payment for each period of six months as from delivery of the judgment as well as a fixed sum. Following that judgment, the Commission carried out examinations as to the extent of the applicant's implementation of the judgment of the Court of 11 June 1991 and, on finding that the applicant had not executed it fully, the Commission directed a decision at it requesting the payment of the financial penalties imposed on it by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 12 July 2005. The decision in question is the contested decision.

In support of its action the applicant is relying on several pleas.

Principally, it submits that the contested decision should be annulled due to the Commission's lack of competence in that the Commission cannot adopt a decision which imposes on a Member State the recovery of a periodic penalty payment imposed by the Court of Justice in the context of Article 228 EC. It submits that under Article 228 EC only the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to call for such a payment in that that implies a prior finding that the failure to fulfil obligations is persisting.

Alternatively, the applicant submits the procedural irregularity of the taking of a decision by the Commission owing to infringement of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the French authorities did not have the opportunity of properly presenting their observations before the contested decision was taken.

In the further alternative, the applicant submits an argument as to the incorrect assessment by the Commission of the measures taken by France to execute fully the judgment of the Court of Justice.

In the even further alternative, it submits that, given the implementing measures which it has introduced since the Court of Justice's judgment, the Commission should have set the amount of the periodic penalty payment at a lower level.

Lastly, in the further alternative again, the applicant submits that if the Court of First Instance considers that the Commission did not itself have the power to reduce the amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed in the judgment of the Court of Justice, it is for the Court of First Instance to do so itself in the context of its unlimited jurisdiction.

----

(1)  Case C-64/88 Commission v France [1991] ECR I-2727

(2)  Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263

----