alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8245. Flight rations

An aircraft flight ration chargeable to the proper Navy or Marine Corps appropriation may be furnished to members of the naval service and to civilian employees of the Department of the Navy while engaged in flight operations. The flight ration is supplementary to any ration or subsistence allowance to which the members or employees are otherwise entitled. However, the flight ration may not be furnished without charge to any person in a travel status or to any person to whom a per diem allowance is granted in place of subsistence.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 380, §6085; renumbered §8245, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(8), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1835.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6085 | 34 U.S.C. 909. | June 5, 1942, ch. 327, 56 Stat. 308. |

The words "members of the naval service and to civilian employees of the Department of the Navy" are substituted for the words "officers, enlisted men, and civilian employees of the Navy and Marine Corps" for uniformity. The words "in kind" and the word "aircraft" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6085 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
##### 



Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
with Respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the Period Ended September 30, 2007
  1.
    
    The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, (the
Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and2.
    
    Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 9, 2007
    /s/ Thomas S. WuThomas S. WuChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  November 9, 2007
    /s/ Dennis WuDennis WuDirector, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer  -59-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: A.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 81 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### § 215.9 Execution of leases.

Whenever a lease award to a proposed lessee has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, as provided in §§ 215.7 and 215.8, the lease contract shall be executed by the Indian owner of the land, if he be an adult and not incompetent as defined in § 215.0(c). Before any lease is entered into by the Indian owners or is approved by the Secretary of the Interior, all the adult and competent owners or co-owners of the tract of land which it is proposed to lease, shall be furnished by the Bureau such geological reports as may be available or that can be secured from the representative of the Geological Survey showing the estimated mineral reserves on said property, the estimated reasonable value of such property for mining purposes, and such other data as might reasonably be necessary to fully advise the owners of said property of the then present status and mining value of their lands. If the Quapaw or other Indian owner of the land is a minor, or is otherwise an incompetent as defined in the regulations in this part, the lease contract shall be executed by the superintendent for and on behalf of such minor or such incompetent. The leases executed, either by the Indian owner of the land or by the superintendent in his behalf, shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and shall be effective only upon such approval.

[22 FR 10608, Dec. 24, 1957. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982; 48 FR 13414, Mar. 31, 1983]
National Archives and Records Administration

Office of the Federal Register

December 2, 20 I0

FA"

800 Independel1':e Avenue, SW

Room 915 J, Regulations Division

Washington, DC 20591

ATTN: Nancy Molitor. FAA Liaison Officer for the Federal Register

Dear .1\1$,Molitor:

The material listed in the attachment is approved for incorporation by reference in 14 CFR PaJ139.

This approval is contingent upon the final !tile containing any language changes, which were agreed upon by

our staffs. The approval to lllcorporate by reference this publication(s) is effective on the effective date of your

final nile. Tfyou wish to enforce some other edition of the publication(s) approved, you must:

]. Pubhsh notice of the change in the Federal Register, and amend the Code ofFedera! Re,gulations; and

2. Ensure that a copy of that edition is on i'ile at the Office of the Federal Register; and

3. Notify me in writing of the change.

NDA. MOSLEY

rofthe Federal Rr;:;gister

Federal Register Attorney: f'r:f6

Attachment

US mail address: 8601 Adelphi Road, College·Park, MD 20740-6001

Office location: 800 North Capitol Street; NW, Suite 700, Washington,.De 20002--4244

Feder~1Register web sites: http://www.archivcs.gov ! federal-register I1l1d http) ! ww'V.gpoilccess.gov! nilra
Incorporation by Reference

Docket No. FAA-2008-0670: Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-339-AD; Amendmem 39-16526: AD 2010-]4-07

Airbus A320

Airbus A320

Mandatory Service Revision 2

Bulletin A32D-25A1555.

exduding Appendix 1

Service Bulletin A32D53-1215

11/0512008

11/0512008

Dockel No. FAA~2008-0934: Directorate Identifier 200B-NM-//3-AD; Amendment 39-/6537; AD 2010-25-04

Argo Tech Service Bulletin 398000- Revision 1

28-2

12102/2008

Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-28- Revision 1

212

06/16/2009

Boeing Service Bulletin MD90- Revision 1

28-010

06/16/2009

Docket No. FAA-20JO-0845; DireclOrate Identifier 2010-CE-0.J4-AD; Amendment 39-/6534: AD 20]0-25-01

Diamond Aircrafllndustries GmbH Mandatory Service

Bulletin NO. MSB 4D070 I NO. MSBD~79

t NO. MSB F4-024

0413012010

04130/2010

Temporary Revision TR- 0413012010

MAM 40--428, Cover

Page and page 3-37b

Work Instruction WIMSB 40-070 / WI-MSB

04-079 I WI-MSB F4-

024

Docker No. FAA-2010-0850. DireCl0rGIe ldent{fier 2010 NM 076 AD; Al1Ieudlllent 39-/6536; AD 2010-2)-03

Diamond Aircrafllndustries GmbH

Diamond Aircrafllndustries GmbH

Airbus A300 Mandatory Service

Bulletin A300-27-0203,

exduding Appendix 01

06/08/2009

Docket No. FAA-2010-0942: Direclorate Jdemijier 2010-CE·049-AD; Amendment 39-/6535; AD 2010~2j-02

BAE Systems British Aerospace Jetstream Series

3100 & 3200

Service Bulletin 05-

JA090143

0413012009

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British Aerospace Service Bulletin 32·

Jelslream series 3100 & 3200 JA990142

03/26/1999

Primed 12/112UIO Page I vf I
Remanded and Opinion Filed January 2, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01293-CV USA EROSION, INC., Appellant V. W.W. CONSTRUCTION WATERING SERVICE, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09061 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Before the Court is appellant’s Decembe r 22, 2014, joint motion to render judgment. USA Erosion appealed the July 14, 2014 final judgme nt in favor of W.W. Construction Watering Service, L.L.C. Webber, L.L.C. d/b/a W.W. We bber L.L.C., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and American Home Assurance Co mpany did not appeal and are not before this Court. In the motion, the parties state they have reached a set tlement and request we set aside the portion of the trial court’s judgment adjudicating all claims against each other, without regard to the merits, and remand the case to the trial court for re ndition of judgment in accordance with their agreement. We grant the motion and set asid e the portion of the trial court’s judgment adjudicating all claims between appellant and appe llee, without regard to the merits, and remand–2– the case to the trial court fo r rendition of judgment in accord ance with their agreement. T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

141293F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
USA EROSION, INC., Appellant No. 05-14-01293-CV V.
W.W. CONSTRUCTION WATERING SERVICE, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-09061. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is set aside without regard to the merits and we REMAND the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
Judgment entered January 2, 2015.
#### Louise Caso, Appellant, v St. Francis Hospital, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 127]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated September 14, 2005, which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered October 21, 2005, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs notice of appeal from the order is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The sole issue to be determined on appeal is whether the action sounds in medical malpractice or in simple negligence for purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations. The critical factor is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant is alleged to have breached. When the chai*715lenged conduct “ ‘constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician,’ ” the claim sounds in medical malpractice *(Weiner v Lenox Hill Hosp.,*88 NY2d 784, 788 [1996], quoting *Bleiler v Bodnar,*65 NY2d 65, 72 [1985]; *see Scott v Uljanov,*74 NY2d 673, 674-675 [1989]).

Here, the incident arose out of the alleged failure of the plaintiffs physician to order bed rails and/or restraints *(see Fox v White Plains Med. Ctr.,*125 AD2d 538 [1986]) and/or the failure of the defendant’s staff to follow that order *(see Collins v New York Hosp.,*49 NY2d 965, 967 [1980]; *Toth v Community Hosp. at Glen Cove,*22 NY2d 255, 265 [1968]; *Kless v Paul T.S. Lee, M.D., P.C.,*19 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2005]; *Bamert v Central Gen. Hosp.,*77 AD2d 559, 560 [1980], *affd*53 NY2d 656 [1981]; *cf. Georgetti v United Hosp. Med. Ctr.,*204 AD2d 271, 272 [1994]). The plaintiffs allegations essentially challenge the defendant’s assessment of her supervisory and treatment needs *(see Scott v Uljanov, supra).*Thus, the conduct at issue derived from the duty owed to the plaintiff as a result of the physician-patient relationship and was substantially related to her medical treatment *(see Chaff v Parkway Hosp.,*205 AD2d 571, 572 [1994]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the action sounds in medical malpractice, for which the 21/2-year statute of limitations is applicable *(see*CPLR 214-a; *Scott v Uljanov, supra).*Accordingly, this action was not timely commenced.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### [§2229b. Renumbered §3072]
154 So.2d 762

#### Joel T. BROWN v. STATE.

3 Div. 83.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 20, 1963.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John G. Bookout, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

L. H. Walden, Montgomery, opposed.

MERRILL, Justice.

Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Brown v. State, 154 So.2d 758.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
#### STATE v. DAVIS

No. 216P90

Case below: 98 N.C.App. 340

Petition by defendant for writ of supersedeas and temporary stay denied 23 May 1990. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 May 1990. Motion by defendant for reconsideration of petition denied 13 June 1990.
### §3132. Availability of appropriations for procurement of technical military equipment and supplies

Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for the procurement of technical military equipment and supplies remain available until spent.

(Added Pub. L. 97–258, §2(b)(4)(B), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1052, §2394; renumbered §2395 and amended Pub. L. 97–295, §1(28)(A), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1291; renumbered §3132, Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1809(c), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4161.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2394 | 31:649c(1). | Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §40(1), 70A Stat. 636; Nov. 17, 1971, Pub. L. 92–156, §201(b), 85 Stat. 424. |

The words "Unless otherwise provided in the appropriation Act concerned" are omitted as unnecessary and for consistency. The word "Funds" is substituted for "moneys" for consistency in title 10. The word "military" is added before "public" for clarity. The words "including moneys appropriated to the Department of the Navy for the procurement and construction of guided missiles" are omitted as included in "technical military equipment".

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2395 | 10:2394. | Sept. 13, 1982, Pub. L. 97–258, §2(b)(4)(B), 96 Stat. 1053. |

This redesignates 10:2394 (enacted by Pub. L. 97–258) as 10:2395 because of the enactment of another 10:2394 by Pub. L. 97–214, §6(a)(1), July 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 171, and amends the section generally to eliminate the words "and the construction of military public works" because of section 10(b)(5) of the Military Construction Codification Act (Pub. L. 97–214, July 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 176) which struck corresponding words from the source statute for 10:2394 subsequent to Apr. 15, 1982, the cut-off date prescribed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 97–258, section 2(b)(4)(B) of which enacted 10:2394.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 renumbered section 2395 of this title as this section.

1982—Pub. L. 97–295 struck out "and the construction of military public works" after "supplies".

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

#### Effective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 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.
# C_2006224EN.01001901.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Canon Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-209/06)

(2006/C 224/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Canon Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Defendant:

Question referred

Should a camcorder, which at the time of importation is unable to record video signals from an external source, be classified under subheading 8525 4099 of the Combined Nomenclature, if its video interface can subsequently be reconfigured as a video input by using certain software, even though the manufacturer and the seller neither have mentioned nor support this possibility? (1)

1

---

(1)  Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and of the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

1

---
#### Roswell W. Post, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
company's September 30, 2000 unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      32,287,000
<SECURITIES>                                98,167,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,564,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           134,638,000
<PP&E>                                       7,950,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,915,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             144,596,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,170,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 138,395,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               138,426,000
<SALES>                                      2,601,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,601,000
<CGS>                                          555,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  555,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            26,678,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,694,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,694,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,694,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Van Ree, Appellant.

Motion denied.
### §873. Art. 73. Petition for a new trial

At any time within three years after the date of the entry of judgment under section 860c of this title (article 60c), the accused may petition the Judge Advocate General for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court. If the accused's case is pending before a Court of Criminal Appeals or before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocate General shall refer the petition to the appropriate court for action. Otherwise the Judge Advocate General shall act upon the petition.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 63; Pub. L. 90–632, §2(33), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1342; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title IX, §924(c)(1), (2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2831; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIX, §5336, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2937.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 873 | 50:660. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 73), 64 Stat. 132. |

The words "the ground" are substituted for the word "grounds". The words "as the case may be" are substituted for the word "respectively", since the prescribed action is alternative, not distributive.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 substituted "three years after the date of the entry of judgment under section 860c of this title (article 60c)" for "two years after approval by the convening authority of a court-martial sentence".

1994—Pub. L. 103–337 substituted "Court of Criminal Appeals" for "Court of Military Review" and "Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces" for "Court of Military Appeals".

1968—Pub. L. 90–632 extended time during which accused may petition Judge Advocate General for a new trial from 1 to 2 years and struck out provisions which limited right to petition for a new trial to cases of death, dismissal, a punitive discharge, or a year or more in confinement.

#### **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.

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–632 to apply in the case of all court-martial sentences approved by the convening authority on or after, or not more than two years before Oct. 24, 1968, see section 4(c) of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DCH
TECHNOLOGY, INC'S  CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND FOR THE
SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,297,079
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  556,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    218,485
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,359,068
<PP&E>                                       1,749,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,236,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          942,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       250,981
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,283,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,236,882
<SALES>                                        576,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               576,431
<CGS>                                          481,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,738,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,090,332)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,090,332)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,090,332)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----