Of the funds made available by the Department of Energy for activities at government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories funded in this Act 11 See References in Text note below. or subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts, the Secretary may authorize a specific amount, not to exceed 8 percent of such funds, to be used by such laboratories for laboratory directed research and development: Provided, That the Secretary may also authorize a specific amount not to exceed 4 percent of such funds, to be used by the plant manager of a covered nuclear weapons production plant or the manager of the Nevada Site Office for plant or site directed research and development: Provided further, That notwithstanding Department of Energy order 413.2A, dated January 8, 2001, beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, all DOE laboratories may be eligible for laboratory directed research and development funding.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Sloan, 35 M.J. 4 (1992).
· cites it 5× “A The Government reminds us that this Court cited 10 USC § 6332 in support of our observation that “a transfer of a [Naval retiree] to the retired list is conclusive in all aspects as to grade and rate of pay based on his years of service.”
United States v. Dinger, 76 M.J. 552 (N.M.C.C.A. 2017).
· cites it 3× “2d 243 (1992), that for tax purposes, military retirement benefits are not current compensation for reduced services; and (2) that Congress’ statement in 10 U.S.C. § 6332 that the transfer of a member of the naval service to a retired status “is conclusive for all purposes”…”
United States v. Allen, 33 M.J. 209 (1991).
“10 USC § 6332 . Further, the Comptroller General has held that a member of the Fleet Reserve (legally, an almost identical status 14 ) who was court-martialed during a period of active duty and reduced in rating was to be paid at the higher rate once he returned to inactive duty.”
United States v. Dinger (C.A.A.F. 2018).
· cites it 6× “We granted review to determine whether such a sen- tence is prohibited for a Marine Corps retiree by 10 U.S.C. § 6332 (2012). We hold that a court-martial is not prohibited from adjudging a punitive discharge in the case of such a re- tiree and, to the extent our precedents…”
United States v. Reynolds (N.M.C.C.A. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Punitive discharge Having established that the appellant was subject to court-martial after his retirement for permanent disability, we find no grounds to except him from our Dinger holding that 10 U.S.C. § 6332 does not preclude removing a member who received a punitive…”
United States v. Begani (N.M.C.C.A. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Dinger, where, after examining the statute in its historical and statutory context, we decline[d] to override long-standing, military justice-specific provisions in the [Manual for Courts-Martial] subjecting those in a retired status to courts-martial and broadly authorizing…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.