alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
120 STAT. 2884 PUBLIC LAW 109–419—DEC. 20, 2006

Public Law 109–419

109th Congress

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a boundary study to evaluate

the significance of the Colonel James Barrett Farm in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the National

Park System as part of the Minute Man National Historical Park, and for other

purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT STUDY.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this Act:

(1) BARRETT’S FARM.—The term ‘‘Barrett’s Farm’’ means

the Colonel James Barrett Farm listed on the National Register

of Historic Places, including the house and buildings on the

approximately 6 acres of land in Concord, Massachusetts.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

(b) STUDY.—Not later than 2 years after the date that funds

are made available for this section, the Secretary shall conduct

a boundary study to evaluate the significance of Barrett’s Farm

in Concord, Massachusetts, as well as the suitability and feasibility

of its inclusion in the National Park System as part of Minute

Man National Historical Park.

(c) CONTENT OF STUDY.—The study shall include an analysis

of the following:

(1) The significance of Barrett’s Farm in relation to the

Revolutionary War.

(2) Opportunities for public enjoyment of the site as part

of the Minute Man National Historical Park.

(3) Any operational, management, and private property

issues that need to be considered if Barrett’s Farm were added

to the Minute Man National Historical Park.

(4) A determination of the feasibility of administering

Barrett’s Farm considering its size, configuration, ownership,

costs, and other factors, as part of Minute Man National Historical Park.

(5) An evaluation of the adequacy of other alternatives

for management and resource protection of Barrett’s Farm.

(d) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—Upon completion of the study,

the Secretary shall submit a report on the findings of the study

Dec. 20, 2006

[H.R. 394]

PUBLIC LAW 109–419—DEC. 20, 2006 120 STAT. 2885

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 394:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109–135 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–311 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): Sept. 20, considered and passed House.

Vol. 152 (2006): Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate

and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.

Approved December 20, 2006.
#### § 39.201 Does ISEF reflect the actual cost of school operations?

ISEF does not attempt to assess the actual cost of school operations either at the local school level or in the aggregate nationally. ISEF is a relative distribution of available funds at the local school level by comparison with all other Bureau-funded schools.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 223 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 25, 1999.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Government Reform: Mr. Vitter.
    Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Vitter.
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Vitter.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
### SUBCHAPTER II—REGULATORY SIMPLIFICATION
#### Ellis Brothers, a corporation, *v.*Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company.

[No. 11,793.

Filed April 29, 1925.]

1. *Appeal.—Question as to amount of recovery not presented unless evidence is set out. in appellant’s*brief.—No question as to amount of recovery is presented on appeal when the appellant has not set out a statement of the evidence in his brief, as the correctness of the action of the court depends on the evidence, p. 52.

*2. Appeal.—Conclusion of law not. reviewed when no exception*thereto.—T-he correctness of a conclusion of law will not be reviewed on appeal when no .exception was taken to such conclusion, p. 53.

From Marion Superior Court (A 15,392); *Clinton H. Givan,*Judge.

Action by Ellis Brothers,' a corporation, against the Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff for unsatisfactory amount, it appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Clarence W. Nichols,*for appellant.

*Samuel D. Miller, Frank C. Dailey, William H. Thompson, Albert. L. Rabb, Thomas D. Stevenson*and *Perry E. O’Neal,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Complaint by appellant to recover damages for the loss of coal from certain carload shipments. The cause was tried by the court and the facts found specially. The court concluded as a matter of law that appellant was entitled to recover $126.29, and a judgment was rendered accordingly. The errors assigned are that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, and in the conclusion of law.

1. The first and only contention relating to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial is that the amount of the recovery is too small. This contention is based upon 1. the theory that the uncontradicted evidence shows appellant was *53entitled to recover $182.20, instead of $126.29, as stated in the conclusion of law. Appellee has called attention to the fact that appellant in its brief has not set out a statement of the evidence as required by the rules of this court. Appellee has refrained from supplying this defect and appellant has made no move to amend its brief so as to comply with the rules. In accordance with repeated decisions of the Supreme Court, by which we are bound, we hold no question relative to the overruling of the motion for a new trial is presented, as the action of the court in that behalf depends on the evidence. See *Rose*v. *City of Jeffersonville*(1916), 185 Ind. 577 ; *Cleveland, etc., R. Co.*v. *Bowen*(1913), 179 Ind. 142 ; *Leedy*v. *Idle, Trustee*(1918), 69 Ind. App. 105; *Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co.*v. *Retz*(1919), 71 Ind. App. 581.

2. No exception having been taken to the conclusion of law, no question is presented under the second assignment of error.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2006271EN.01000101.xml

| 8.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 November 2006

(2006/C 271/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2755 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 150,37 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4584 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66975 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1445 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5963 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,92 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2510 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5777 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,985 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 260,68 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8295 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5100 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,61 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 36,125 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8432 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6500 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4385 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9298 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9067 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9900 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 196,93 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3485 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0439 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3410 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 640,85 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6517 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,590 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,0760 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,770 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2755

JPY

Japanese yen

150,37

DKK

Danish krone

7,4584

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66975

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1445

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5963

ISK

Iceland króna

86,92

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2510

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5777

CZK

Czech koruna

27,985

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

260,68

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8295

RON

Romanian leu

3,5100

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,61

SKK

Slovak koruna

36,125

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8432

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6500

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4385

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9298

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9067

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9900

KRW

South Korean won

1 196,93

ZAR

South African rand

9,3485

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0439

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3410

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 640,85

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6517

PHP

Philippine peso

63,590

RUB

Russian rouble

34,0760

THB

Thai baht

46,770

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Emmons County *vs.*Richard Thistlewaite.

Opinion filed November 13, 1900.

(84 N. W. Rep. 1117.)

Appeal from District Court, Emmons County; *Winchester,*J.

*George M. Register*and *Cochrane & Corliss,*for appellant.

*H. A. Armstrong, Stevens & Allen,*and *F. H. Register,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The controlling questions in this case were involved and decided in the case of *Emmons Co.*v. *Thompson*(decided this term) 9 N. D. 598, 84 N. W. Rep. 385. The order appealed from is in all things reversed, and the District Court is directed to- enter an order reversing the same, and also to enter an order denying the application made herein to vacate said judgment and tax sale, with costs of both courts to appellant.
### [§2689. Renumbered §2917]
Exhibit 32.2 BILLMYPARENTS, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of BillMyParents, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jonathan Shultz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  |                        
|Date:  December 26, 2012 |  | /s/ Jonathan Shultz    
|                         |  | Jonathan Shultz        
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
### §7684. Surplus obsolete ordnance: sale to patriotic organizations

Subject to regulations under section 121 of title 40, any branch, office, or officer designated by the Secretary of the Army may sell, without advertisement and at prices that he considers reasonable—

(1) surplus obsolete small arms and ammunition and equipment for them, to any patriotic organization for military purposes; and

(2) surplus obsolete brass or bronze cannons, carriages, and cannon balls, for public parks, public buildings, and soldiers' monuments.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 262, §4684; Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §512(19), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2930; Pub. L. 107–217, §3(b)(26), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1297; renumbered §7684, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(d), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1839.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4684 | 50:64.50:68. | May 28, 1908, ch. 215, §14, 35 Stat. 443; June 28, 1950, ch. 383, §402(g), 64 Stat. 273; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §2(26), 65 Stat. 707. |
| | | Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 319, §47, 35 Stat. 1075; June 28, 1950, ch. 383, §402(i), 64 Stat. 273; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §2(28), 65 Stat. 707. |

50:68.

50:64 (proviso) and 50:68 (proviso) are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 4684 of this title as this section.

2002—Pub. L. 107–217 substituted "section 121 of title 40" for "section 205 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 486)" in introductory provisions.

1980—Pub. L. 96–513 substituted "section 205 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 486)" for "section 486 of title 40".

#### **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.

#### Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–513 effective Dec. 12, 1980, see section 701(b)(3) of Pub. L. 96–513, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
### §2153. Capstone course: newly selected general and flag officers

(a) Requirement.—Each officer selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general or, in the case of the Navy or the commissioned officer corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, rear admiral (lower half) shall be required, after such selection, to attend a military education course designed specifically to prepare new general and flag officers to work with the other uniformed services.

(b) Waiver Authority.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Commerce, as applicable, may waive subsection (a)—

(A) in the case of an officer whose immediately previous assignment was in a joint duty assignment and who is thoroughly familiar with joint matters;

(B) when necessary for the good of the service;

(C) in the case of an officer whose proposed selection for promotion is based primarily upon scientific and technical qualifications for which joint requirements do not exist (as determined under regulations prescribed under section 619(e)(4) 1 of this title); and

(D) in the case of a medical officer, dental officer, veterinary officer, medical service officer, nurse, biomedical science officer, or chaplain.

(2) The authority of the Secretary of Defense to grant a waiver under paragraph (1) may only be delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, an Under Secretary of Defense, or an Assistant Secretary of Defense. Such a waiver may be granted only on a case-by-case basis in the case of an individual officer.

(Added Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title V, §532(a)(2), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1897; amended Pub. L. 116–259, title II, §205(b)(3), Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1167.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 619(e)(4) of this title, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(C), was repealed by Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title IX, §931(b), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1734. See section 619a(f) of this title.

#### Amendments

2020—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–259, §205(b)(3)(A), inserted "or the commissioned officer corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" after "in the case of the Navy" and substituted "other uniformed services" for "other armed forces".

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 116–259, §205(b)(3)(B), inserted "or the Secretary of Commerce, as applicable," after "the Secretary of Defense" in introductory provisions.

1 See References in Text note below.
# C_2006281EN.01004001.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/40

---

Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Arktouros v Commission

(Case T-260/06)

(2006/C 281/71)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Arktouros (Association for the Protection and Management of the Natural Environment and Wildlife) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission Decision C (2006)3181 final of 7 July 2006, notified to the applicant on 10 July 2006, concerning the ending of the programme ‘Conservation actions in the Northern Pindos National Park’ — Ellas — LIFE03 NAT/GR/000089 and relating to the reimbursement of assistance amounting to EUR 264 684,00 together with default interest amounting to EUR 4 659,53; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C (2006)3181 final of 7 July 2006, notified to the applicant on 10 July 2006, concerning the ending of the programme ‘Conservation actions in the Northern Pindos National Park’ — Ellas — LIFE03 NAT/GR/000089 and relating to the reimbursement of assistance amounting to EUR 264 684,00 together with default interest amounting to EUR 4 659,53;

| — | exclude a sum amounting to EUR 55 658,28 from the sum to be repaid, in respect of eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

exclude a sum amounting to EUR 55 658,28 from the sum to be repaid, in respect of eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the programme;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits, first, that the infringement by the Commission of a provision contained in the LIFE Standard Administrative Provisions constitutes an infringement of a rule of law under Article 230 EC, rendering Commission Decision C (2006)3181 final invalid.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission made a material error of assessment regarding the applicant's ability to complete the programme despite the departure of two of its members, an error which justifies annulment of the Commission decision concerning termination of the agreement and recovery of the assistance granted.

In the alternative, the applicant seeks the exclusion of the sum of EUR 55 658,28 from the sum to be repaid, in respect of eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the programme.

---
# C_2006310EN.01002902.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/29

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Tankstation en Automobielbedrijf Tromp v Commission

(Case T-286/99) (1)

1

(2006/C 310/59)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

1

---
§ 700.117 Criteria for appraisals. ( a ) *Appraisal standards.* The Commission's appraisals shall be based upon nationally recognized appraisal standards and techniques to the extent that such principles are consistent with the concepts of value that the Commission may establish.
( b ) *Documentation.* Appraisal reports must contain sufficient documentation, including supporting valuation data and the appraiser's analyses of that data, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the appraiser's opinion(s) of value.
( c ) *Conflict of interest.* No appraiser shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the habitations and/or improvements which he appraisers for the Commission that would in any way conflict with his performance of the appraisal.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14(A) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   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; andc)
    
    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 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;
andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Joseph M. DonabauerJoseph M. DonabauerVice President & Controller(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-356

_____________________________

RICKY SWEET,

Appellant,

v.

ALICIA MONIQUE TUCKER,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Francis Allman, Judge.

January 7, 2019

B.L. THOMAS, C.J.

On December 20, 2017, the trial court issued an order of 

recusal in Appellant’s case, and subsequently issued an order 

denying Appellant’s motion to dissolve injunction, without 

prejudice to refile. 

In the order of recusal, the judge indicated that he was aware 

of the grounds for recusal at the hearing on Appellant’s motion, 

but still issued the order denying Appellant’s motion after the 

hearing. We therefore vacate the order denying Appellant’s 

motion to dissolve injunction and remand to the trial court for a 

new hearing on the motion. See Lance Block, P.A. v. Searcy, 

Denney, Scarola, Barnhart and Shipley, P.A., 85 So. 3d 1122, 1124 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (vacating order and remanding where trial 

judge “may well have known of the grounds for the recusal order 

when he entered the order” at issue) (footnote removed). 
2

WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Ricky Sweet, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.