alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Berman, Respondent, v Nathan Szpilzinger, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered March 22, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion for a default judgment on the counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the attorneys disputed whether plaintiff had served a reply to defendant’s counterclaims by mail, the issue was immaterial, as any such failure was at worst inadvertent. Where the omission to reply, if any, caused defendant no prejudice and was corrected by plaintiff upon the first mention thereof to him, the omission should be excused and the counterclaims should proceed to determination on the merits *(Stevenson Corp. v Dormitory Auth.,*112 AD2d 113, 118). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
## MAR 1 7 2009

Dr. ,Tames R

. Moselev r Chair Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee 7418 East Countyline Road South Clarks Hill, Indiana 47930 Dear Dr. Moselev: THEADMINISTRATOR

I thank youand the members ofthe Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee for writing and for providing comments on the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency's Draft Biofuel Strategy. The Agency steering committeeoverseeing completion ofthis document informed me that they have reviewed the FRRCCletter. Based on the FRRCC's comments, as well as the input ofother external reviewers, significant modifications to the draft document have been made. Specifically, in consideration ofseveral key overarching comments by both the FRRCC and the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, the Draft Biofuel Strategy has been appropriately refocused into an EPACoordinating Framework. The CF's goal is to promoteand enhance intra-agency activities that anticipate and respond to existing and future potentially significant environmental impacts across the biofuel system . Another goal of the CF is to propose management recommendations, actions, and research necessary to support a sustainable biofuel system . The CF intends to guide coordination ot~EPA's cross-Agency multi-media responsibilities with regard to biofuels. Since biofuel production and use impact nearly all EPA programs and regions, effective coordination across all programs is vital for the Agency to accomplish its mission of protecting public health and the environment. The recommendations and actions included in the revised CF are essential and urgent if EPA is to full-ill its mission, including meeting current and new legislative mandates as well as related emerging issues. Establishing this CF emphasizes the need for strong cooperation and coordination across the Agency, as well as with federal, state, and other stakeholders. This is the foundation fromwhich the Agency can develop and implement more effective and protective strategies. With regard to thespecific comments provided in the attachment to your letter, they will be valuable in informing our current and future efforts in developing the proposed rule to UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Internet Address (URL) 9 http:l/www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable * Printedwith VegetableOil Based Inks on 100°oPostconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperimplement the national Renewable Fuels Standard program as mandated under the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007. I thank the members ofthe FRRC'C for their time, considerable efforts, and support. Theexpertise, perspective, and guidance your committee offers will be ofgreat value to the Agency in helping us meet our important mission. Again, thank you, and I look forward to the opportunity to meet with you and to hear your perspectiveand advice regarding these and other important issues. Sincerely, Lisa P. Jackson cc: Sally Shaver Alan Hecht Paul Argyropoulos Alicia Kaiser
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00786- CR

Gilbert Hernandez, Appellant
v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 119 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. B -13 -02 49- SA, TH E H ONO RAB LE TH OM AS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Gilbert Her

nandez has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appea l. The motion is signe d by appellant and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a)
. Acc ording ly , we g rant the motion and dismiss the appe al.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: June 3, 2014 Do Not Publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Meredith, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), dated February 8, 1990, denying defendant’s motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction arose out of his arrest for possession of substantial quantities of heroin and cocaine, along with drug manufacturing equipment, seized from two apartments which were under his control. Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. At the plea proceeding, the court inadvertently had accepted defendant’s plea to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, which it mistakenly believed to be an A-II felony. The court agreed to impose a minimum sentence of 5 years to life, and a maximum sentence of 6 years to life. At the sentencing proceeding, with counsel’s consent, the court entered a plea of guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, an A-II felony, with the same term of sentence previously agreed to. Defendant has never challenged this sentence by direct appeal.

Prior to the present charges, defendant had been incarcerated for 30 months, on an unrelated charge, the conviction for which was reversed by the Second Department after defendant had served his full sentence. *(See, People v Callendar,*71 AD2d 1028.) After judgment was entered in the present case, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate the present sentence, alleging that the sentencing court had failed to consider defendant’s prior period of incarceration, imposed pursuant to a defective conviction, as a factor in mitigation of the present sentence. It is that motion which we now consider.

Initially, we note that defendant’s claims do not set forth allegations sufficient to trigger relief under CPL 440.20. Additionally, as counsel concedes, it would be inappropriate to extend to defendant jail time credit under the circumstances of this case *(see,*Penal Law § 70.30 [3]; *see, Matter of Hawkins*
      *365
      *v Coughlin,*72 NY2d 158). The sentencing court is not required to consider prior periods of incarceration, albeit wrongfully imposed, as potential mitigating circumstances for sentencing on the present crime.

Defendant neither challenged the sentence by direct appeal, nor requested to withdraw his plea. Notwithstanding defendant’s argument that the court, in initially misapprehending the degree of felony, evinced an intention of sentencing defendant to a minimum term, the court clearly intended to sentence defendant to the term imposed, and corrected the classification of the felony, *nunc pro tunc.*Defendant bargained for this sentence, and we find no reason to disturb it. *(See, People v Brito,*154 AD2d 293.)

Accordingly, there exists no basis to set aside this sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3922 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3922

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade for each of the vessels SHAMROCK V and ENDEAVOUR.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 1994

 Mr. Machtley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade for each of the vessels SHAMROCK V and ENDEAVOUR.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for each of--
            (1) the vessel SHAMROCK V (United States official number 
        900936); and
            (2) the vessel ENDEAVOUR (United States official number 
        947869).

                                 <all>
```
#### Lisa Skolnick, Appellant, v Stefanie Zucker et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated July 10, 1989, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated December 22, 1988, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon the plaintiff’s default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Stefanie Zucker.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the defendants satisfied their initial burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not suffer "serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The plaintiff then failed to adduce any evidence to warrant a trial on this issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment to the defendants. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Gonzalez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin H. Rettinger, J.), rendered October 10, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 6 to 12 years, and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested following a "buy and bust” operation, when he and co-defendant Calderon were observed by an undercover police officer hawking heroin on the street. At trial, the arresting officer testified that immediately subsequent to the arrest the undercover officer had made a drive-by identification, confirming that the correct suspects were in custody.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932), we find that defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. Defendant’s bolstering claim is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hendricks,*159 AD2d 396, *lv denied*76 NY2d 736). Were we to review it in the interest of justice, we would find the claim to be without merit. Police testimony concerning the execution of a "buy and bust” operation is permissible and does not constitute improper bolstering when the identification testimony is provided by a trained undercover officer, after a face-to-face drug transaction, and another officer testifies as to what he observed at the scene, including the drive-by confirmatory identification. *(People v Hendricks, supra; People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921, 922-923.) Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60240

Summary Calendar

 

BRIAN F HOGAN

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CHRISTOPHER B EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; EMMITT L SPARKMAN,

Superintendent; GLEN ADAMS, Classification

Officer; LATITIA ROACH, Classification Director;

RICKY SCOTT, STG Coordinator; RONALD ROBINSON,

STG Coordinator

Defendants - Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CV-253-DA

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brian Hogan, Mississippi prisoner # 67383, challenges the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He
No. 03-60240

-2-

has moved for initial hearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 35(b). 

This motion is DENIED.

Hogan contends that he was denied due process at a prison

classification hearing, at which he was determined to be a gang

member and was lowered in custody status. He also asserts that

his lengthy placement in administrative segregation denies due

process. He has not established that he has a liberty interest

in his classification or custodial status. See Harper v.

Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999); Martin v. Scott, 156

F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). Hogan has not shown that the

district court erred in dismissing his civil rights complaint. 

See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

After Hogan filed the instant appeal in forma pauperis

(IFP), this court imposed the three-strikes bar against him. See

Hogan v. Johnson, No. 02-60631 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2003)

(unpublished). Hogan is admonished that, in the future, he may

not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious bodily injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED; WARNING ISSUED.
#### People v Frederick Mills, Defendant.

Motion to extend time to take appeal denied. Memorandum: There has been no improper conduct on the part of assigned counsel; he strictly complied with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a). Present—Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10527]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice of extension of passport travel restriction.

# SUMMARY:

On September 1, 2017, all United States passports were declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) unless specially validated for such travel. If not renewed, the restriction is set to expire on August 31, 2018. This notice extends the restriction until August 31, 2019 unless extended or sooner revoked by the Secretary of State.

# DATES:

The extension of the travel restriction is in effect on September 1, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anita Mody, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Legal Affairs, 202-485-6500.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On September 1, 2017, pursuant to the authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603), and in accordance with 22 CFR 51.63(a)(2), all United States passports were declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) unless specially validated for such travel. If not renewed, the restriction is set to expire on August 31, 2018.

The Department of State has determined that there continues to be serious risk to United States nationals of arrest and long-term detention representing imminent danger to the physical safety of United States nationals traveling to and within the DPRK, within the meaning of 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3). Accordingly, all United States passports shall remain invalid for travel to, in, or through the DPRK unless specially validated for such travel under the authority of the Secretary of State. This extension to the restriction of travel to the DPRK shall be effective on September l, 2018, and shall expire August 31, 2019 unless extended or sooner revoked by the Secretary of State.

Dated: August 27, 2018.

Michael R. Pompeo,

*Secretary of State, Department of State.*

[FR Doc. 2018-18858 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 621 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to make any substance containing 

hydrocodone a schedule II drug. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2013 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to make any 

substance containing hydrocodone a schedule II drug. 

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 ‘‘Safe Prescribing Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HYDROCODONE AMENDMENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Schedule III(d) in section 202 of 

8 the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) is amend9 ed by— 

10 (1) striking paragraphs (3) and (4); and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 621 IS

1 (2) redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and 

2 (8) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6), respectively. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 6 

5 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

6 SEC. 3. PHYSICAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. 

7 Notwithstanding the amendments made by section 2, 

8 the Attorney General shall immediately, without regard to 

9 chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, amend section 

10 1301.72 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, relating 

11 to the physical security controls for non-practitioners, nar12 cotic treatment programs and compounders for narcotic 

13 treatment programs, and storage areas for controlled sub14 stances, to allow, for the 3-year period beginning on the 

15 date of enactment of this Act, manufacturers and distribu16 tors to store hydrocodone combination products in accord17 ance with the physical security requirements for schedule 

18 III, IV, and V controlled substances. 

19 SEC. 4. GAO REPORT. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after 

21 the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

22 of the United States shall submit to Congress a report 

23 on the reclassification of hydrocodone products under this 

24 Act. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 621 IS

1 (b) CONTENTS.—The report required under sub2 section (a) shall include— 

3 (1) an assessment of the degree to which the 

4 reclassification of hydrocodone products under this 

5 Act impacts the ability of patients with legitimate 

6 medical needs, particularly those in rural areas and 

7 nursing home facilities, to access adequate pain 

8 management; and 

9 (2) recommendations necessary to address 

10 issues, if any, relating to patient access to adequate 

11 pain management. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20460 January 1 7 , 2012 OFFICE OF SOLID W ASTE AND EMERGENCY

RESPONSE Mr. Tim Pohle Managing Director U.S. Environmental Affairs & Assistant General Counsel Airlines for Americ a 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004
- 1707 Dear Mr. Pohle: Thank you for y our letter of January 5, 2012 , to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting a 60
- day extension to the public comment period for the proposed changes to the Underground Storage Tank ( UST ) regulations publ ished November 18, 2011 in the Federal R egister . At this time, E PA has decided not to extend the comment period for several reasons. EPA started this rulemaking in 2008 by reaching out to stakeholders to ask for their suggestions on changes to make to the existing UST regulations. We met with many stakeholder groups f

rom 2008 through 2011, including your organization in February 2011. We feel that the pub l ic was well aware that this rulemaking was coming and , through the stakeholder process, had input into what those changes would be. In addition, we intentionally ma de the comment period 90 day s rather than the standard 60 day s , in order to provide the public with additional time to review the propos al and submit their comments. Thank you for y our interest in the proposed changes to the UST regulations. Please not e the deadline for submitting comments is February 16, 2012. If you have additional questions or would like to meet before the end of the comment period , please contact Elizabeth McDermott of my staff at mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov or at 703
- 603
- 7175. S incerel y, Caroly n Hoskinson, Director Office of Underground Storage Tanks
February 25, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting N otes for the July 2 , 201 3 Conference Call with AF&PA , URS, and NCASI

FROM: Kelley Spence (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)

TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0640

This memorandum summarizes the meeting between t he American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA)

, URS Corporation

, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI)

, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) on July 2 , 2013 . The purpose of the meeting was to discuss periods of startup and sh utdown impacted by the proposed New Source Performance Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills.

Meeting Attendees:

John Bradfield

– EPA/SPPD Tim Hunt

– AF&PA Amy Marshall

– URS Corporation Kelley Spence

– EPA/SPPD Vipin Varma

- NCASI

Discussion Points:

 ESP parameter monitoring during startup and shutdown

 Self

- optimizing power systems on ESPs

 Excess emission allowances for subpart BBa and subpart S units