alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §361e. Acceptance of donations

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to accept on behalf of the United States donations of lands or interests in land within the city limits of Hot Springs, Arkansas, the title to such lands or interests in land to be satisfactory to said Secretary. Upon the acquisition of such lands or interests in land, they shall become a part of the Hot Springs National Park and shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable thereto.

(June 15, 1936, ch. 554, §3, as added Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 639, 53 Stat. 1342.)
### §231d. Repeal of inconsistent laws

All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with this subchapter are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

(Aug. 10, 1939, ch. 640, §5, 53 Stat. 1342.)
§ 40.18 Suspension of certification. ( a ) *Reasonable belief of non-compliance.* If the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that a previously certified grievance procedure may no longer be in substantial compliance with the minimum standards or may no longer be fair and effective, the Attorney General shall suspend certification. The suspension shall continue until such time as the deficiency is corrected, in which case certification shall be reinstated, or until the Attorney General determines that substantial compliance no longer exists or that the procedure is no longer fair and effective, in which case, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Attorney General shall withdraw certification pursuant to § 40.19 of this part.
( b ) *Defect may be readily remedied; good faith effort.* If the Attorney General determines that a grievance procedure is no longer in substantial compliance with the minimum standards or is no longer fair and effective, but has reason to believe that the defect may be readily corrected and that good faith efforts are underway to correct it, the Attorney General may suspend certification until the grievance procedure returns to compliance with the minimum standards or is otherwise fair and effective.
( c ) *Recertification after suspension pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.* The Attorney General shall reinstate the certification of an applicant whose certification was suspended pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section upon a demonstration in writing by the applicant that the specific deficiency on which the suspension was based has been corrected or that the information that caused the Attorney General to suspend certification was erroneous.
( d ) *Recertification after suspension pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.* The Attorney General shall reinstate the certification of an applicant whose certification has been suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section upon a demonstration in writing that the deficiency on which the suspension was based has been corrected.
( e ) *Notification in writing of suspension or reinstatement.* The Attorney General shall notify an applicant in writing that certification has been suspended or reinstated and state the reasons for the action.
[Order No. 957-81, 46 FR 48186, Oct. 1, 1981, as amended by Order No. 1955-95, 60 FR 13903, Mar. 15, 1995]
### §410aaa–49. Study as to validity of mining claims

(a) The Secretary shall not approve any plan of operation prior to determining the validity of the unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites affected by such plan within the preserve and shall submit to Congress recommendations as to whether any valid or patented claims should be acquired by the United States, including the estimated acquisition costs of such claims, and a discussion of the environmental consequences of the extraction of minerals from these lands.

(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall permit the holder or holders of mining claims identified on the records of the Bureau of Land Management as Volco #A CAMC 105446, Volco #B CAMC 105447, Volco 1 CAMC 80155, Volco 2 CAMC 80156, Volco 3 CAMC 170259, Volco 4 CAMC 170260, Volco 5 CAMC 78405, Volco 6 CAMC 78404, and Volco 7 CAMC 78403, Volco Placer 78332, to continue exploration and development activities on such claims for a period of two years after October 31, 1994, subject to the same regulations as applied to such activities on such claims on the day before October 31, 1994.

(2) At the end of the period specified in paragraph (1), or sooner if so requested by the holder or holders of the claims specified in such paragraph, the Secretary shall determine whether there has been a discovery of valuable minerals on such claims and whether, if such discovery had been made on or before July 1, 1994, such claims would have been valid as of such date under the mining laws of the United States in effect on such date.

(3) If the Secretary, pursuant to paragraph (2), makes an affirmative determination concerning the claims specified in paragraph (1), the holder or holders of such claims shall be permitted to continue to operate such claims subject only to such regulations as applied on July 1, 1994 to the exercise of valid existing rights on patented mining claims within a unit of the National Park System.

(Pub. L. 103–433, title V, §509, Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4491.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII....  Project No. 13739-000.
FFP Missouri 10, LLC.............  Project No. 13751-000.
Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC.......  Project No. 13778-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received three preliminary permit applications 
deemed filed on May 18, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects to 
be located at the Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock Lock and Dam on the 
Monongahela River, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The applications 
were filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII for Project No. 13739, FFP 
Missouri 10, LLC, for Project No. 13751, and Braddock Hydro, LLC for 
Project No. 13778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any 
document received after regular business hours is considered filed 
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) 
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 24, 2011, at 10 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the 
Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine 
the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The 
Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided 
in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority established by this 
drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with 
identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the 
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing 
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6772 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
### §430. Kings Mountain National Military Park; establishment

In order to commemorate the Battle of Kings Mountain, which was fought on the 7th day of October 1780, the Kings Mountain battle ground, in the State of South Carolina, including such adjacent and contiguous lands as may be useful and proper in effectually carrying out the purpose of sections 430, 430a, and 430b to 430e of this title, is declared to be a national military park, to be known as the Kings Mountain National Military Park, when such land including said battle ground, shall become the property of the United States.

(Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 437, §1, 46 Stat. 1508.)
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Company

                                  Percentage Owned          State of
Subsidiaries                          by Company         Incorporation

EdVISION Corporation                     100               California

Harland Checks and Services, Inc.        100               Georgia

Harland Financial Solutions, Inc.        100               Oregon

HFS Core Systems, Inc.                   100               Delaware

HFS Internet Services, Inc.              100               Minnesota

HFS Phoenix Systems, Inc.                100               Delaware

Interlinq Software Corporation           100               Washington

Intrieve, Incorporated                   100               Ohio

John H. Harland Company of Puerto Rico   100               Georgia

Liberty Checks and Services, Inc.        100               Minnesota

Scantron Corporation                     100               Delaware

The Check Store, Inc.                    100               Georgia


This list excludes subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant subsidiary".
### §291b. Administration, protection, development, and maintenance

The Secretary of the Interior shall administer, protect, develop, and maintain the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat 535; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),1 as amended and supplemented.

(Pub. L. 89–517, §3, July 23, 1966, 80 Stat. 325.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat 535; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, known as the National Park Service Organic Act, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

1 See References in Text note below.
Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SOLECTRON CORPORATION:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the statements
(Nos. 333-02523, 33-75270, 33-58580, 33-58580,33-46686, and 33-
33461) on Forms S-3 and S-8 of Solectron Corporation of our
report dated September 13, 1996, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Solectron Corporation and subsidiaries as of
August 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related combined statements of
income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended August 31, 1996, and the
related schedule, which report appears in the August 31, 1996,
annual report on Form 10-K of Solectron Corporation.



Palo Alto, California
November 25, 1996


                                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


___________________________
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER ABEL NIETO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10152 

D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00475-SOM-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Christopher Abel Nieto appeals from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United 

States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

DEC 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-10152 

Nieto contends that the district court abused its discretion because it failed to 

recognize its discretion to reduce his sentence to a lower term of imprisonment, 

believing instead that it was limited to considering only whether Nieto should be 

immediately released. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court 

determined—after thoroughly considering Nieto’s medical conditions and the risks 

posed by COVID-19, his mitigating arguments, and the relevant 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors—that Nieto had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances warranting any reduction in his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). To the extent the court discussed whether Nieto was entitled to 

immediate release, it was properly responding to Nieto’s argument that the thenexisting circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic warranted a sentence reduction 

to time served. The district court applied the proper legal standard and its decision 

to deny relief was both reasonable and supported by the record. Accordingly, it 

did not abuse its discretion by denying Nieto’s motion. See United States v. 

Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its 

discretion only if its application of the correct legal rule was illogical, implausible, 

or without support in the record). 

AFFIRMED.
First Amendment

                                       To

                              ACQUISITION AGREEMENT


Entered into by and between the following parties:

     Meridian Holdings Inc., ("MDHG") a Florida corporation;

     The Old Fashioned Syrup Company, Inc. ("Syrup") a Florida
corporation; and

     Mark Streisfeld and Alan Posner.



1. In  consideration  of the  promises  and the mutual and  dependent  covenants
herein and as  contained in the  Acquisition  Agreement  dated,  January 8, 1999
between the parties,  the parties  hereby agree that  paragraph  1.7 of the said
Acquisition Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced by
the following:

"1.7  Consideration,  Issuance and Delivery of Stock.  In  consideration  of the
delivery of all of the issued and  outstanding  shares of the  Capital  Stock of
Syrup to MDHG,  and  compliance by Syrup with its  warranties  and  undertakings
contained  herein,  MDHG  shall at  Closing,  deliver  one or more  certificates
representing the aggregate of 3,026,794 shares of MDHG Common Stock."

All such shares  issuable  pursuant to this agreement will be investment  stock,
and are subject to all restrictions upon resale,  assignment and transfer as may
be imposed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended;  and when so issued and
delivered,  such shares, each with an appropriate  restrictive legend thereupon,
shall be fully paid and non-assessable. As a condition precedent to the issuance
of the  certificates,  Syrup  undertakes  to provide  duly  executed  Investment
Letters from each person or entity,  other than Streisfeld and Posner,  in whose
name any of the aforementioned shares shall be issued.

2. The numeric headings in the Acquisition Agreement do not contain Sections 1.8
or 1.9.

3. Governing Law. This  Agreement  shall be governed in all respects,  including
validity,  interpretation  and  effect,  pursuant  to the  laws of the  State of
Florida without regard to the principles of 'conflict of laws'.


<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to the
Acquisition Agreement between the parties as of the 10th day of January, 1999.


                              Meridian Holdings Inc.
                             by:/s/ Paul M.Galant
                                    Paul M. Galant, Secretary



                              The Old Fashioned Syrup
                         Company, Inc.
                              by/s/ MarkStreisfeld
                                     Mark Streisfeld, President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY L. PRYDE ; DENISE E. PRYDE,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 17041

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00926

- SRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Gary L. Pryde and Denise L. Pryde appeal pro se from the district co urt’s

judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims against

mortgage related entities . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R . Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

. Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.

,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17041

838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Prydes’ quiet title claim because

the Prydes failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that they were entitled to

such relief

. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must allege

facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

lia ble for the misconduct alleged”); Manicom v. CitiMortgage, Inc. , 336 P.3d 1274,

12 82 (Ariz. 2014) ( requiring mortgagors to pay off any unsatisfied balances in

order to quiet title under Arizona law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Prydes’ motion

for leave to amend be cause amendment would be futile. See C ervantes v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth

standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper

when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F. 3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6524 

MARK ANTHONY BELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. BROOKS, Warden; JOHN DOE, Institutional

Doctor; MS. APPANTE, Hospital Administrator,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MS. APONTAY, Medical Administrator,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-03-938-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 6, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Anthony Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Anita Claire Snyder, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mark Anthony Bell appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Bell v. Brooks, No.

CA-03-938-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2005). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            1919
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7566
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9485
<PP&E>                                           89942
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1687182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1846752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     127000
<COMMON>                                       1868511
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2155081)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1687182
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   524
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                705833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (705309)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (705309)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (705309)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
#### § 700.27 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under 5 U.S.C. 552a.