alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 39.130 Can ISEF funds be used for Language Development Programs?

Yes, schools can use ISEF funds to implement Language Development programs that demonstrate the positive effects of Native language programs on students' academic success and English proficiency. Funds can be distributed to a total aggregate instructional weight of 0.13 for each eligible student.
IV

House Calendar No. 258

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 554

[Report No. 106–757]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department of Defense

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 18, 2000

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations

for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for

4 the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending Sep5 tember 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All points of

6 order against the conference report and against its consid-
2

HRES 554 RH

1 eration are waived. The conference report shall be consid2 ered as read.

House Calendar No. 258

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 554

[Report No. 106–757]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4576) making

appropriations for the Department of Defense forthe fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, andfor other purposes.

JULY 18, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### Shirley Henry et al., Appellants, v William Rivera et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 282]

*353Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 18, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants satisfied their initial burden by establishing, prima facie, that none of the plaintiffs sustained “serious injury” within the definition of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and plaintiffs failed to meet their consequent burden to show, through the submission of admissible medical evidence, the existence of a triable question of fact. Plaintiffs all suffered from preexisting degenerative conditions; one of the plaintiffs suffered from diabetic neuropathy. None of the plaintiffs, however, adduced medical evidence adequately linking their purportedly disabling conditions to the subject automobile accident (see *Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 579-580 [2005]; *Franchini v Palmieri,*1 NY3d 536, 537 [2003]). Moreover, plaintiffs never accounted for the total cessation of their treatment for the alleged serious injuries some four or five months after the accident (see *Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d at 574; *Agramonte v Marvin,*22 AD3d 322 [2005]). Even if it were accepted that the accident caused plaintiffs certain cervical, dorsal or lumbosacral spine injuries, there is no objective medical proof that they endured significant resultant physical limitations, and subjective complaints are insufficient to raise a triable issue (see *Scheer v Koubek,*70 NY2d 678, 679 [1987]; *Rivera v Benaroti,*29 AD3d 340, 342 [2006]). Concur—Friedman, J.P, Sullivan, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
##### 





Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Eric J. Pulaski, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BindView Development Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 20, 2004

/s/ ERIC J. PULASKI

Eric J. Pulaski
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer
MEMORANDUM

TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293

FROM: EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

SUBJECT: Calls and Meetings with Global Clean Energy Holdings and Emerald Biofuels, LLC

This memorandum provides a record of conversations that EPA staff had with representatives of Global 

Clean Energy Holdings (GCEH) and/or Emerald Biofuels, LLC (Emerald) regarding their petition submitted 

pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for the use of neat 

jatropha oil as a transportation fuel.

Date of Conversation Topics Discussed

January 22, 2013 Status of petition review, 

including literature review

February 20, 2013 Status of petition review

April 4, 2013 Status of petition review

June 24, 2013 Status of petition review

September 12, 2013 Status of petition review

March 13, 2014 Status of petition review

November 6, 2014 Land used for Mexico plantation

April 6, 2015 Status of petition review

September 18, 2015 CBI claims associated with 

petition
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     OPUR1
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM T
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                          924,752
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         79,237
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             119,466
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           153,191
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,276,646
<COMMON>                                            84,311
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                          267,355
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                114,211
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     465,877
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               35,000
<PREFERRED>                                         21,030
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               335,362
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   5,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       47,610
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                     366,767
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    1,276,646
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          459,482
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                21,870
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         379,744
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         401,614
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             57,868
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   7,344
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      65,212
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            22,959
<NET-INCOME>                                        42,253
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          2,422
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       39,831
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            18,400
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           18,039
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              71,877
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Application of Alvin L. Baker, Respondent, to Lay Out a Highway in the Town of Roxbury, Delaware County, N. Y., and to Assess Damages Therefor. John M. Cronk, Appellant.

Order affirmed,-with ten'dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. All concurred.
# C_2006224EN.01005303.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/53

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Smit Harbour Towage Rotterdam v Commission

(Case T-328/02) (1)

1

(2006/C 224/111)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Third Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.

1

---
# C_2006224EN.01002503.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Verias (Greece) by decision of that court of 7 June 2006 — Georgios Diamantis and Others v Fanco AE

(Case C-315/06)

(2006/C 224/48)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikio Verias

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Georgios Diamantis and Others

Claimants:

Defendant: Fanco AE

Defendant:

Question referred

Given that Greek (national) law does not provide for a prior judicial decision where an undertaking or establishment is closed down definitively on the sole initiative of the employer, under Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC (1) does that directive apply to collective redundancies caused by the definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or establishment which has been decided on voluntarily by the employer without a prior judicial decision on the matter?

1

---

(1)  OJ No L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32



Section 906 Certification



Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Host Marriott Corporation (the
Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 20, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended: and



(ii) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: August 4, 2003

/s/    CHRISTOPHER J. NASSETTAChristopher J. Nassetta Chief Executive Officer




/s/    W. EDWARD WALTERW. Edward Walter Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §850. Art. 50. Admissibility of sworn testimony from records of courts of inquiry

(a) Use as Evidence by Any Party.—In any case not capital and not extending to the dismissal of a commissioned officer, the sworn testimony, contained in the duly authenticated record of proceedings of a court of inquiry, of a person whose oral testimony cannot be obtained, may, if otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, be read in evidence by any party before a court-martial or military commission if the accused was a party before the court of inquiry and if the same issue was involved or if the accused consents to the introduction of such evidence. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.

(b) Use as Evidence by Defense.—Such testimony may be read in evidence only by the defense in capital cases or cases extending to the dismissal of a commissioned officer.

(c) Use in Courts of Inquiry and Military Boards.—Such testimony may also be read in evidence before a court of inquiry or a military board.

(d) Audiotape or Videotape.—Sworn testimony that—

(1) is recorded by audiotape, videotape, or similar method; and

(2) is contained in the duly authenticated record of proceedings of a court of inquiry;

is admissible before a court-martial, military commission, court of inquiry, or military board, to the same extent as sworn testimony may be read in evidence before any such body under subsection (a), (b), or (c).

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 54; Pub. L. 109–366, §4(a)(2), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2631; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVII, §5232, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2915.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 850(a)850(b) | 50:625(a).50:625(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 50), 64 Stat. 124. |
| 850(c) | 50:625(c). | |

850(b)

50:625(b).

In subsections (a) and (b), the word "commissioned" is inserted for clarity.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328, §5232(b), amended section catchline generally, substituting "Admissibility of sworn testimony from records of courts of inquiry" for "Admissibility of records of courts of inquiry".

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–328, §5232(c)(1), inserted heading.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–328, §5232(c)(2), inserted heading.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328, §5232(c)(3), inserted heading.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 114–328, §5232(a), added subsec. (d).

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–366 inserted last sentence.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIAN CAI LIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70117

Agency No. A076-641-165

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Dian Cai Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §

1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v.

FILED

JUL 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70117

Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for

review.

The agency denied Lin’s motion to reopen as untimely, and also denied it as

a matter of discretion based upon Lin’s failure to appear at his asylum merits

hearing in 2000 and his subsequent failure to apprise the government of his address

until he filed a motion to reopen in 2006. In his opening brief, Lin failed to

challenge the agency’s discretionary denial of his motion to reopen, which is

dispositive. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)

(stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned); see also

Sequeira-Solano v. INS, 104 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The BIA considered

all of the relevant circumstances in [petitioner’s] case and decided that a favorable

exercise of its discretion in this case was not warranted.”).

Lin’s contention that he is entitled to file a successive asylum application is

foreclosed by this court’s decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th

Cir. 2008) (an alien may file a successive asylum application only in connection

with a successful motion to reopen, subject to the time and number limitations).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 162.411 How long may the term of a business lease run? ( a ) A business lease must provide for a definite term, state if there is an option to renew, and if so, provide for a definite term for the renewal period. The maximum term of a lease approved under 25 U.S.C. 415(a) may not exceed 50 years (consisting of an initial term not to exceed 25 years and one renewal not to exceed 25 years), unless a Federal statute provides for a longer maximum term (e.g., 25 U.S.C. 415(a) allows for a maximum term of 99 years for certain tribes), a different initial term, renewal term, or number of renewals.
( b ) For tribal land, we will defer to the tribe's determination that the lease term, including any renewal, is reasonable. For individually owned Indian land, we will review the lease term, including any renewal, to ensure it is reasonable, given the: ( 1 ) Purpose of the lease;
( 2 ) Type of financing; and
( 3 ) Level of investment.
( c ) The lease may not be extended by holdover.
### §12682. Reserves: discharge upon becoming ordained minister of religion

Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a Reserve who becomes a regular or ordained minister of religion is entitled upon his request to a discharge from his reserve enlistment or appointment.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1662(i)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2997.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 1162(b) of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1662(i)(2).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
ACCEPTED 01-13-00284-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/31/2014 4:49:01 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00061

- CR

Archie Atkins

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 371st District Court

o f Tarrant Count y (1277396D )

December 4, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. I t is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Anne Gardner

____________ Justice Anne Gardner
### [§2447e. Renumbered §4425]
### [§2313. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1881(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4293]

Section, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 132; Pub. L. 89–607, §1(2), Sept. 27, 1966, 80 Stat. 850; Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VII, §2727(c), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1195; Pub. L. 99–145, title IX, §935, Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 700; Pub. L. 100–26, §7(g)(1), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 282; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XIII, §1301(9), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1668; Pub. L. 103–355, title II, §2201(a)(1), title IV, §4102(c), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3316, 3340; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, §1502(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 502; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VIII, §808(a), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2607; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1032(a)(2), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 751; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title VIII, §871(b), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4555; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1835(b)(1), (2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4239, related to examination of records of contractor. See section 3841 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.