alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §410vv–3. Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park Scenic Zone

#### (a) In general

There is established the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park Scenic Zone (hereinafter in this subchapter referred to as the "scenic zone"), which shall include those lands as generally depicted on the map entitled "Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park Scenic Zone Map" and dated November 19, 1991.

#### (b) Purpose

The purpose of the scenic zone shall be to protect portions of the natural setting beyond the park boundaries that are visible from the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller Mansion, by such means and in such a manner as will permit current and future compatible uses.

#### (c) Acquisition of scenic easements

Within the boundaries of the scenic zone, the Secretary is authorized only to acquire scenic easements by donation.

(Pub. L. 102–350, §5, Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 935; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(e) [title I, §143], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–231, 2681–267.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–277 substituted "Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller" for "Marsh-Billings" in section catchline and wherever appearing in subsecs. (a) and (b).
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Annual Report of TELEFÓNICA DE ARGENTINA S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Miguel Angel Gutiérrez, Chairman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|By:                                                 
|Name:    Miguel Angel Gutiérrez Title:      Chairman



April 15, 2003
PHANTOM Product Release Notes

© 2013 DJI Innovations. All Rights Reserved.

Date: 2015/02/03

ESC firmware version: 4.06

What’s new?

The ESC Software has been updated to Version 4.06.

This enhances the Phantom 1’s performance through:

1. An optimized drive algorithm, which improves responsiveness and stability.

2. Factory calibration, which ensures a consistent idle speed for each motor.
PHANTOM Product Release Notes

© 2013 DJI Innovations. All Rights Reserved.

Date: 2013/01/15

NAZA-M firmware version: 3.00

NAZA-M assistant software version: 2.00

NAZA-M quick start guide version: 1.0

PHANTOM quick start manual version: 1.2

PHANTOM advanced manual version: 1.1

Battery and Charger instruction: 1.0

 Ready to Fly

 Assistant Software for Configuration

 Light and Handy Cameras Mount Supported

 2.4GHz Transmitter

 Functions

 Atti. Mode

 GPS Atti.Mode

 Manual Mode(option)

 Intelligent Orientation Control

 Enhanced Fail-Safe

 Low-Voltage Alert

 Built-in

 NAZA-M Autopilot System

 GPS Module

 Compass Module

 R/C Receiver

 Power System for Flight

 LED Indicator
#### In the Matter of New York Title and Mortgage Company (Series FW). Martin T. Birmingham et al., Appellants; Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of New York Title and Mortgage Company, et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.
Motion Granted and Order filed August 12 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 3

- 00 711

- CV

____________ IN RE ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 23rd District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 60307



### O R D E R

On August 9 , 2013 , relator s , Ullico Casualty Company, et al.
, filed a petition 

### for writ of mandamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221. Relator asks
this c ourt to ord er t he Honorable Ben Hardin , Judge of 23rd District C ourt , in
Brazoria County, Texas, to set aside his order dated August 5, 2013 , entered in t rial
court cause number 60307 , styl ed Charlene Hembree , et al. v. Thermal Polymer System, LC, et al. Relator s claim respondent abused his discretion by denying their opposed emergency motion for entry of an order confirming stay of all proceedings

.
Relator has also filed a motion for a temporary stay of proceedings below

. SeeT ex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On August 9 , 2013, relator s asked this court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of
mandamus.
It appears fr om the facts stated in the petition and motion that relators ’ request for relief requires further consideration and that relator s will be prejudiced unless
immediat e temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators ’ motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER all proceedings in trial court cause number 60307 , styled
Charlene Hembree , et al. v.Thermal Polymer System, LC, et al. STAYED until a final decision by this court on relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus, or until
further order of this court.
In addition, t he court requests Matthiesen, Wicker & Lehrer, S.C. and Kelly, Smith & Murrah, P.C. , the real part ies

- in

- interest , to file a response to the petition
for writ of mandamus on or before August 26 , 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Busby, and Donovan

.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith J. Randall,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Keith J. Randall   
|    |  | Keith J. Randall       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer

November 12, 2009
#### § 48.12 *Ex parte* communications.

No person shall communicate on any matter related to these proceedings with the administrative law judge, the Attorney General or anyone having decisional responsibility, except as provided in these regulations.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50230

Summary Calendar

 

BARBARA JO WEBB,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAROLE DIVISION, Texas Department of Criminal Justice -

Institutional Division; SUSAN CRANFORD; FRED RHEA,

Lieutenant; ANTHONY HOWARD, Captain; TOMMIE D. COLLIER;

RUSSELL WEAVER, Captain; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, Inmate Legal Service; LINDA MOTEN, Warden;

PHILLIP ZEIGLER, Judge; DISTRICT COURT 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT;

GIANNA M. DEBOTTIS, Special Prosecutor; ANDERSON MOLLY,

Correctional Officer 3; KENNETH SELLER, Correctional Officer 3;

BIEL, Correctional Officer 3; BAURER MARTIN, Dr., U.T.M.B.,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-99-CV-202

--------------------

September 14, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Barbara Jo Webb, Texas prisoner # 33682, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as

frivolous. Webb’s § 1983 complaint involved mostly claims

relating to a criminal charge filed against her in prison. That

charge was pending while her instant § 1983 suit was pending in
No. 00-50230

-2-

the district court. Although Webb may now be able to assert

civil rights claims relating to the charge which has since been

dismissed, the district court did not abuse its discretion when

it dismissed Webb’s claims relating to the charge. See Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n.8 (1994); see also Gabel v.

Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125 (5th Cir. 1988) (this court does not

consider claims not presented to the district court).

Webb does not sufficiently brief challenges to the district

court’s dismissal of her claims that 1) two officers improperly

seized, withheld, and/or destroyed Webb’s legal documents, 2) she

received inadequate medical care by the prison doctor, and 3) she

was sexually harassed by a prison officer. Webb has thus waived

any challenges that the district court abused its discretion by

dismissing these claims as frivolous. See Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, a review of these

claims, as alleged in the district court, reveals that Webb did

not allege conduct by the defendants rising to the level of a

constitutional violation. The district court did not abuse its

discretion by dismissing these claims as frivolous. See Siglar

v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Nor did the

district court abuse its discretion by denying Webb’s motion for

the appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d

209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court judgment dismissing

Webb’s § 1983 complaint is AFFIRMED.
§ 551.109 Community activities. ( a ) The Warden may not grant a furlough to a pretrial inmate (18 U.S.C. § 3622).
( b ) In an emergency, staff shall facilitate contact with the pretrial inmate's attorney of record, who may seek from the court a decision concerning release from custody or an escorted trip.
( c ) Except by order of the court, a pretrial inmate may not be considered for participation in community programs.
#### § 65.52 Civil rights.

The Act provides that “no person in any state shall on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under or denied employment in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this title.” Recipients of funds under the Act are also subject to the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; and the Department of Justice Non-Discrimination Regulations 28 CFR part 42, subparts C, D, E, and G.
§ 45.4 Personal use of Government property. ( a ) Employees may use Government property only for official business or as authorized by the Government. See 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(9), 2635.704(a). The following uses of Government office and library equipment and facilities are hereby authorized: ( 1 ) Personal uses that involve only negligible expense (such as electricity, ink, small amounts of paper, and ordinary wear and tear); and
( 2 ) Limited personal telephone/fax calls to locations within the office's commuting area, or that are charged to non-Government accounts.
( b ) The foregoing authorization does not override any statutes, rules, or regulations governing the use of specific types of Government property (e.g. internal Departmental policies governing the use of electronic mail; and 41 CFR (FPMR) 101-35.201, governing the authorized use of long-distance telephone services), and may be revoked or limited at any time by any supervisor or component for any business reason.
( c ) In using Government property, employees should be mindful of their responsibility to protect and conserve such property and to use official time in an honest effort to perform official duties. See 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(9), 2635.704(a), 2635.705(a).
[62 FR 23943, May 2, 1997]
Having type 1 

or type 2 

diabetes can 

mean you 

are also 

at risk 

for serious 

complications 

from the flu. 

When you 

get your 

flu shot, 

you protect 

yourself 

and those 

around you.

CS254717-C

For more information, visit: http://www.cdc.gov/flu

for office use

My doctor just told me I have diabetes.

She also said, “Get a flu shot!”

 I heard her loud and clear. I’ll get vaccinated.
### §430t–1. Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park boundary

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Map

The term "map" means the map entitled "Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, Proposed Boundary Adjustment", numbered 325/80,020, and dated February 2010.

#### (2) Park

The term "Park" means the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park.

#### (b) Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park boundary adjustment

#### (1) Boundary adjustment

The boundary of the Park is modified to include the approximately 8 acres of land or interests in land identified as "Wallis House and Harriston Hill", as generally depicted on the map.

#### (2) Map

The map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.

#### (3) Land acquisition

The Secretary may acquire land or interests in land described in paragraph (1) by donation, purchase from willing sellers, or exchange.

#### (4) Administration of acquired land

The Secretary shall administer land and interests in land acquired under this section as part of the Park in accordance with applicable laws (including regulations).

(Pub. L. 116–9, title II, §2103, Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 725.)

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

#### Definition of "Secretary"

Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior, see section 2 of Pub. L. 116–9, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
### §429b–1. Acquisition and use of lands

#### (a) Acquisition of property or interests in property; scenic preservation of views

(1) In order to effectuate the purposes of sections 429b to 429b–5 of this title, the Secretary is authorized to acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds or exchange, any property or interests therein which are located within the boundaries of the park, except that property owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia or by any political subdivision thereof may be acquired only by donation.

(2) The Secretary shall cooperate with the Commonwealth of Virginia, the political subdivisions thereof, and other parties as designated by the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions in order to promote and achieve scenic preservation of views from within the park through zoning and such other means as the parties determine feasible.

#### (b) Acquisition of fee simple title with the consent of owner; hearing and review

With respect to areas within the 1954 boundaries of the park, as identified on the map referred to in section 429b of this title, the Secretary may not acquire fee simple title to such areas without the consent of the owner so long as the lands continue to be devoted to a use which is the same as that in effect on September 1, 1980. Further, if the Secretary proposes to acquire fee simple title to such property because of a change in use, the owner of such property may seek a review of the proposed acquisition of his or her property and is entitled to a hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of title 5.

#### (c) Secretary authorized to make land available for Route 234 bypass

If the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation determines that the proposed Route 234 bypass should be properly located between the Virginia Electric Power Company powerline easement and route 705, the Secretary shall make available the land necessary for such bypass, subject to such revisions, terms, and conditions as the Secretary deems are necessary and appropriate to assure that such bypass is located, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the administration of the park.

#### (d) Secretary not to close State roads

The Secretary may not close any State roads within the park unless action permitting the closing of such roads has been taken by appropriate officials of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

(Apr. 17, 1954, ch. 153, §2, as added Pub. L. 96–442, §2, Oct. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 1885; amended Pub. L. 100–647, title X, §10003, Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3811.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–647 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).
| Delaware                                                                                     |  | 000-23143                              |  | 13-3379479                                                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|----------------------------------------|--|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| (State                or other jurisdictionof                incorporation)                  |  | (CommissionFile                Number) |  | (IRS                EmployerIdentification                No.) |
|                                                                                              |  |                                        |  |                                                                |
|  777                Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York                        |  |  10591                            |
| (Address                of principal executive offices)                                      |  | (Zip                Code)              |
|  Registrant's                telephone number, including area code (914) 789-2800  |

----

----

SIGNATURES
§ 54.225 Educational institutions eligible to submit transition plans. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to each educational institution to which §§ 54.300 through 54.310 apply that: ( 1 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1972; or
( 2 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1965, but thereafter admitted, as regular students, students of the sex not admitted prior to June 23, 1965.
( b ) *Provision for transition plans.* An educational institution to which this section applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in admission or recruitment in violation of §§ 54.300 through 54.310.
### §19d. Repealed. Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1076, §1(25), 68 Stat. 968

Section, act July 10, 1935, ch. 375, §6, 49 Stat. 478, required the National Park Trust Fund Board to submit an annual report to Congress of the moneys or securities received and held by it, and of its operations.
#### § 549.10 Purpose and scope.

The Bureau will manage infectious diseases in the confined environment of a correctional setting through a comprehensive approach which includes testing, appropriate treatment, prevention, education, and infection control measures.
#### Garbutt Lumber Company *et al. v.*Prescott.

April 21, 1910.

Trover. Before Judge Whipple. Ben Iiill superior court.

August 2, 1909.

*L. Kennedy*and *Hal Lawson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Haygood & Cutts*and *A. J. McDonald,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. An action of trover was brought against a corporation and four individuals, to recover two promissory notes. They did not set up separate defenses, but pleaded jointly. In their answers they admitted possession, but denied conversion or that the notes belonged to the plaintiff. They pleaded in abatement' that there had been no demand upon any of them for the property, and the action was premature but there was no separate trial on that plea. They also pleaded, that the notes were given for the purchase-price of certain property, bought from the husband and agent of plaintiff by the maker; that there was fraud in the transaction on the part of the plaintiff’s agent, and the trade was rescinded; that the plaintiff contemplated discounting the notes, and left them with defendants for investigation with that end in view; that, upon the agreement of rescission, the plaintiff’s agent directed the notes to be delivered to the maker, which was done; and that the notes were valueless, and the defendants had offered to deliver them to the plaintiff. There was evidence to show, that the four individual defendants were brothers and controlled the corporation; that a written demand had been made on the company for the notes; that one of the brothers, with the notes in his possession, met the husband and agent of the plaintiff, and, after a conversation with him, delivered the notes to the maker (another brother), and his name was torn off. The notes were demanded of the brother so acting. Evidence was introduced as to whether the plaintiff’s husband agreed to a rescission of the trade as part of which the notes were given, and to their delivery to the maker, and, if so, whether he acted without authority to do so, and whether he was only a special agent. *Reid,*that a verdict for the plaintiff against all the defendants will not be set aside as to- all or any of them on the ground that a demand for the notes was not shown to have been made on each of them.

2. In other respects the verdict was supported by the evidence.

3. The other grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit, and are not such as to require separate discussion.

4. Under the special facts of this case, damages for bringing it to this court for delay only will be denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*