alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 115.233 Resident education. ( a ) During the intake process, residents shall receive information explaining the agency's zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment, how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, their rights to be free from sexual abuse and sexual harassment and to be free from retaliation for reporting such incidents, and regarding agency policies and procedures for responding to such incidents.
( b ) The agency shall provide refresher information whenever a resident is transferred to a different facility.
( c ) The agency shall provide resident education in formats accessible to all residents, including those who are limited English proficient, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as residents who have limited reading skills.
( d ) The agency shall maintain documentation of resident participation in these education sessions.
( e ) In addition to providing such education, the agency shall ensure that key information is continuously and readily available or visible to residents through posters, resident handbooks, or other written formats.
Creation Date Mon Nov  9, 1998  02:13 PM                            Page    1
CMB95A

From: The Chase Manhattan Bank

To:   Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.


                   MONTHLY CERTIFICATEHOLDER'S REPORT
                   ----------------------------------

Due Period 38 Beginning Date                     10/01/1998
Due Period 38 End Date                           10/31/1998
Determination Date                               11/10/1998
Remittance Date                                  11/16/1998


I.    Monthly Principal and Principal Carryover Shortfall to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                   $ 9.9622079751

II.   Monthly Interest and Unpaid Interest to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                   $ 0.5725413477

III.  Monthly Expenses Summary

      A. Servicing Fee Disbursement                                $ 143,167.75
      B. Cash Collateral Account Expense                                 $ 0.00
      C. Total Expenses paid
         (per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                $ 0.0954235591

IV.   Cash Collateral Account Deposit Amount                             $ 0.00

V.    Outstanding Advance Summary

      A. From Prior Period                                       $ 3,719,062.26
      B. From Current Period                                     $ 3,713,338.10
      C. Change in Amount Between Periods (Lines B - A)             $ -5,724.16

VI.   Pool Factor Information

      A. Certificate Principal Balance                         $ 156,854,601.55
      B. Initial Certificate Balance                         $ 1,500,339,658.38
      C. Pool Factor (Lines A / B)                               0.104546061070

VII.  Available Cash Collateral Account Information for Due Period

      A. Available Cash Collateral Amount                       $ 11,252,547.44
      B. Available Cash Collateral Amount Percentage            6.549745327575%

VIII. Required Cash Collateral Amount

      A. For the Current Collection Period                      $ 11,252,547.44
      B. For the Next Collection Period                         $ 11,252,547.44
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Caprock Canyon  Investments,
Inc.,  on Form 10- QSB for the period  ending  March 31,  2001 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 832 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 832

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2019

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To nullify the Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America 
  and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, 
                    concluded on November 15, 1865.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NULLIFICATION OF TREATY.

    The Supplemental Treaty Between the United States of America and 
the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians of Middle Oregon, 
concluded on November 15, 1865, and entered into pursuant to the Senate 
resolution of ratification dated March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 751), shall 
have no force or effect.

            Passed the Senate June 27, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Dyer *v.*Hall.

[No. 12,122.

Filed April 1, 1925.]

From Marion Superior Court (A 25,840) *;.Linn D. Hay,*Judge.

Action between John A. .Dyer and Albert W. Hall. From the judgment rendered, the former appéals. *Affirmed.*

*James E. Bingham,*for appellant.

*W. W. Thornton,*for appellee.

Remy, J.

The only question saved by appellant at the trial of this cause, and which is presented to this court for review, is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court. There is substantial evidence to sustain the decision.

Affirmed.
# C_2010288EN.01005801.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/58

---

Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)

(Case T-363/10)

()

(2010/C 288/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States of America) (represented by M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and J. Springer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 June 2010 in Case R 1560/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 June 2010 in Case R 1560/2009-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘RESTORE’ for goods in Class 10

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

| | Infringement of the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal referred in its decision to evidence which was not adduced by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal referred in its decision to evidence which was not adduced by the applicant;

| | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for is not a term which directly describes the goods covered by the application; |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for is not a term which directly describes the goods covered by the application;

| | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the required distinctive character. |
| --- | --- |

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the required distinctive character.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
Editorial Note on Part 284
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 284 appear at 65 FR 10222, Feb. 25, 2000.

§ 284.402 Blanket marketing certificates. ( a ) *Authorization.* Any person who is not an interstate pipeline is granted a blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act authorizing the certificate holder to make sales for resale at negotiated rates in interstate commerce of any category of gas that is subject to the Commission's Natural Gas Act jurisdiction. A blanket certificate issued under Subpart L is a certificate of limited jurisdiction which will not subject the certificate holder to any other regulation under the Natural Gas Act jurisdiction of the Commission, other than that set forth in this Subpart L, by virtue of the transactions under this certificate.
( b ) The authorization granted in paragraph (a) of this section will become effective on January 7, 1993 except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) ( 1 ) The authorization granted in paragraph (a) of this section will become effective for an affiliated marketer with respect to transactions involving affiliated pipelines when an affiliated pipeline receives its blanket certificate pursuant to § 284.284.
( 2 ) Should a marketer be affiliated with more than one pipeline, the authorization granted in paragraph (a) of this section will not be effective for transactions involving other affiliated interstate pipelines until such other pipelines' meet the criterion set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The authorization granted in paragraph (a) of this section is not extended to affiliates of persons who transport gas in interstate commerce and who do not have a tariff on file with the Commission under part 284 of this subchapter with respect to transactions involving that person.
( d ) Abandonment of the sales service authorized in paragraph (a) of this section is authorized pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act upon the expiration of the contractual term or upon termination of each individual sales arrangement.
[Order 547, 57 FR 57959, Dec. 8, 1992, as amended by Order 581, 60 FR 53074, Oct. 11, 1995; Order 644, 68 FR 66337, Nov. 26, 2003]
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 09-50489 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FLORENTINO TOVAR-RIVAS; ROBERTO GARCIA-VALLES, Defendants-Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:08-CR-448-6

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Following a jury trial, Florentino Tovar-Rivas (Tovar) an d Roberto GarciaValles (Garcia) were co nvicted of conspiracy to possess with the intent to di s t rib ute cocaine and of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine

. Tovar’s counsel, the Federal Public Defender ( F P D ) , r a ises a single issue on appeal. Counsel argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), the statute under which Tovar was convicted, is unconstitutional in light of A pprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The FPD concedes that this argument is foreclosed by this U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 20 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-50489 Document: 00511639669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2011No. 09-50489

court’s precedent in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), and he raises the issue solely to preserve it for pos s ible further review. Because Tovar’s argument is foreclosed, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension o f time is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Garcia’s appointed counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has filed a response. Insofar as Garcia argues that his counsel was ineffective, the general rule in this circuit is that a claim of ? ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since

no opportunity existed to develop the record on the meri t s of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Bec a u s e th e present record is not sufficiently developed and Garcia has not even identified

an issue for appeal, we will n o t c o n s ider Garcia’s claim on direct appeal. Cantwell , 470 F.3d at 1091. We have reviewed counsel’s brief, Garcia’s response, an d the relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s a ssessment that the appeal presents no nonf

riv o lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 09-50489 Document: 00511639669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2011
#### Michael Kerner, Respondent, *v.*Surface Transportation Corporation of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

First Department,

June. 22, 1943.

*Addison B. Scoville*of counsel *(Oliver R. Brant*with him on the brief; *Alfred- T. Davison,*attorney), for appellants,

*Harold M. Phillips*of counsel *(John J. McGinty*with him on the brief; *Thomson & McGinty,*attorneys), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

After deliberating for about two hours, the jurors asked to have reread the court’s charge, the testimony of plaintiff Kerner and that of defendant Kelly. The court in declining to comply stated that it did not believe it necessary to read the entire charge or the entire testimony called for, but intimated to the jury that it could have any particular portion of the charge or any particular part of the testimony which was desired. The refusal to comply with the jurors’ request was duly excepted to by all parties. A ten to two verdict in favor of plaintiff and against all three defendants was ren*357dered after the jury had considered the case for four additional hours.

We think that the court erred in declining the request of the jury. The mere direction that the jurors reflect as to whether any further instructions were really needed or as to whether any particular portion of the testimony should be read did not adequately protect the rights of the litigants. The jurors may well have had some difficulty in pointing out certain portions of the record desired or there may have been reluctance on their part to make a further request in view of the court’s initial refusal to comply with their wishes. Because of the unusual nature of the accident, the novelty of the issues of law involved and the evident uncertainty and confusion in the minds of the jurors as to the facts and as to the law, the court should have supplied the aid sought with respect to the evidence and the charge. In the circumstances of this particular case, prejudicial error was committed. *(Futoransky*v. *Nassau Electric R. R. Co.,*169 App. Div. 719; *Van Der Harst*v. *Koenig,*249 App. Div. 235, 237.)

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Mabtin, P. J., Untebmyeb, Dobe, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.144 Determination of basic workweek.

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Commissioner of Federal Prison Industries, Inc., Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Director of the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics, Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and Director of the United States Marshals Service, as to their respective jurisdictions, and the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, as to all other organizational units of the Department, are authorized to exercise the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 6101(a), to determine that the organizational unit concerned would be seriously handicapped in carrying out its functions or that costs would be substantially increased except upon modification of the basic workweek, and when such determination is made to fix the basic workweek of officers and employees of the unit concerned.

[Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52350, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended by Order No. 2650-2003, 68 FR 4928, Jan. 31, 2003]
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION and PUBLIC STAFF-NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION v. CAROLINA UTILITY CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (Appellant), and PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. (Appellant-Cross Appellant)

No. 9110UC205

(Filed 19 May 1992)

APPEAL by intervenor Carolina Utility Customers Association, Inc. from the order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission entered 21 November 1990. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 December 1991.

*307*Byrd, Byrd, Ervin, Whisnant, McMahon & Ervin, P.A., by Sam J. Ervin, IV, for intervenor-appellant Carolina Utility Customers Association, Inc.*

*Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by Jerry W. Amos, for applicant-cross appellant Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.*

WELLS, Judge.

The disposition of this appeal is controlled by our opinion in *State ex rel. Utilities Comm. v. Carolina Utility Cust. Assn.,*106 N.C. App. 218, 415 S.E.2d 758 (1992). Accordingly, the Commission’s order of 21 November 1991 in this case is

Reversed and vacated.

Judges Eagles and Walker concur.
#### § 2.17 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Overhill Farms,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 30, 2007 (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and
Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

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

Dated:  February 7, 2008                     By: /s/ James Rudis
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 James Rudis
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 (principal executive officer)


Dated:  February 7, 2008                     By: /s/ Tracy E. Quinn
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Tracy E. Quinn
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer
                                                 (principal financial officer)


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  STATE OF INCORPORATION
 NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                                   OR ORGANIZATION
<S>                                                               <C>
West Ad.........................................................           Nevada
Reno Projects, Inc..............................................           Nevada
Harveys C. C. Management Company, Inc...........................           Nevada
Harveys L. V. Management Company, Inc...........................           Nevada
Harveys Iowa Management Company, Inc............................           Nevada
Harveys Tahoe Management Company, Inc...........................           Nevada
HCR Services Company, Inc.......................................           Nevada
Harveys P. C., Inc..............................................           Nevada
Harveys BR Management Company, Inc..............................           Nevada
HBR Realty Company, Inc.........................................           Nevada
</TABLE>
#### § 367.15 Contingent assets and liabilities.

Contingent assets represent a possible source of value to the service company contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions regarded as uncertain. Contingent liabilities include items that, under certain conditions, may become obligations of the service company but that are neither direct nor assumed liabilities at the date of the balance sheet. The service company must be prepared to give a complete statement of significant contingent assets and liabilities (including cumulative dividends on preference stock) in its annual report and at such other times as may be requested by the Commission.