alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 115.403 Audit contents and findings. ( a ) Each audit shall include a certification by the auditor that no conflict of interest exists with respect to his or her ability to conduct an audit of the agency under review.
( b ) Audit reports shall state whether agency-wide policies and procedures comply with relevant PREA standards.
( c ) For each PREA standard, the auditor shall determine whether the audited facility reaches one of the following findings: Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard); Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for the relevant review period); Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action). The audit summary shall indicate, among other things, the number of provisions the facility has achieved at each grade level.
( d ) Audit reports shall describe the methodology, sampling sizes, and basis for the auditor's conclusions with regard to each standard provision for each audited facility, and shall include recommendations for any required corrective action.
( e ) Auditors shall redact any personally identifiable inmate or staff information from their reports, but shall provide such information to the agency upon request, and may provide such information to the Department of Justice.
( f ) The agency shall ensure that the auditor's final report is published on the agency's Web site if it has one, or is otherwise made readily available to the public.
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/28

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

★

●

●

●

●
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

In re: Thomas Searson Case No: 16-30033

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Upon consideration of the Chapter 13 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case With

Prejudice, §§ 105 and 1307(c), the Court finds that there is just and sufficient cause to

grant relief sought by the Chapter 13 Trustee, therefore, it is

ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice. The Debtor is prohibited

from filing any bankruptcy petition under Title 11, in any court, for a period of two (2)

years from the date of this entry of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, upon entry, the Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all

parties in interest in this case.

Dated: ______________________________

Kevin R. Huennekens

Bankruptcy Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

_____________________

I ASK FOR THIS:

/s/Carl M. Bates

Carl M. Bates 

Standing Chapter 13 Trustee

P. O. Box 1819

Richmond, VA 23218-1819

(804) 237-6800

VSB #27815

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Entered On Docket _______________

Case 16-30033-KRH Doc 22 Filed 02/23/16 Entered 02/23/16 09:35:27 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 1.5 Information furnished by State highway departments.

At the request of the Administrator the State highway department shall furnish to him such information as the Administrator shall deem desirable in administering the Federal-aid highway program.
### §420. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Mar. 4, 1911, ch. 238, 36 Stat. 1253; May 27, 1952, ch. 338, 66 Stat. 95; Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, § 706(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2793; Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272, which authorized heads of departments to grant easements for rights-of-way on "the public lands, national forests, and reservations of the United States" for electrical power and communications purposes, was omitted because act Mar. 4, 1911, is also classified to section 961 of Title 43, Public Lands. It was also classified to sections 5 and 523 of this title prior to their omission from the Code.
86° Bae

82°

46°

a

Location and value of Ordovician CAlmax sample (this
report)—al, allochthonous strata; au, autochthonous strata

Location of Ordovician CAImax sample—Data from Harris and
others (1978)
The senior author has assigned a CAI value of 1.5 to 2.0 for the
Trenton Limestone in this well
The CAI value of 3.0 is from the Beekmantown Dolomite about
1,500 to 2,000 ft below the Trenton Limestone in this well
(No. 8610T James)
The senior author has assigned a CAI value of 3.5 to 4.0 for the
Trenton Limestone at this outcrop location
Ordovician CAlmax isograd (this report)—Dashed where inferred;
hachured to indicate isograd depression

Ordovician CAlmax isograd—Data from Harris and others (1978)
Upper Ordovician oil-stained dolomite locality in Kentucky

7
EXPLANATION
~

7 T

Cy Ga8fields of Ordovician and Cambrian age associated with
oil—Data from Baranoski and others (1996), Harris and Baranoski
(1996), and Riley and others (1996b)

Gas fields of Ordovician and Cambrian age—Data from Wilson
and Sutton (1973, 1976), New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (1986, 2004), Baranoski and others
(1996), Harris and Baranoski (1996), Laughrey and Harper
(1996), Nuttall (1996), Wickstrom (1996a,b), Cazee (1998), and
Avary (2006) \

Oil fields of Ordovician and Cambrian age—Data from Baranoski
and others (1996)\ Riley and others (1996b), Wickstrom (1996a,b),
and Cazee (1998) \

Oil and gas fields of Ordovician age—Data from Wilson and
Sutton (1973, 1970, Milici and others (1980), Nuttall (1996), and
Wickstrom (1996a,b)

A eee

Neas %,
i C “Auburn field |S,
‘ tes purse 4.
45

Fayette-Waterlo 10 field
N

a \
\ Randolph
| 01.5 [Rance

— Tt
Stall gas field
‘oncealedyby

(EX six welll,

718 Ss

\

a

Rose Hill field ~~

25

75

100 MILES
J

oso

50

T
100

T
150 KILOMETERS

L
82° 80° 78°

Figure 6.—Ordovician conodont color alteration index (CAI max) isograds superimposed on oil and gas fields in Cambrian and Ordovician reservoirs.

Ll
76

L
74°
§ 76.36 Administrative and judicial review. ( a ) Upon entry of an order by a Judge, any party may file with the Attorney General, within ten (10) days of the date of the Judge's decision and order, a written request for review of the decision and order together with supporting arguments. Within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of the request for review, the Attorney General may enter an order which adopts, affirms, modifies or vacates the Judge's order.
( b ) If a party does not seek review of the Judge's decision, or if the Attorney General enters no order within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of the request for review, the order of the Judge becomes the final order of the Attorney General. If the Attorney General modifies or vacates the order, the order of the Attorney General becomes the final order.
( c ) An individual subject to an order assessing a penalty after a hearing may, before the expiration of the thirty (30) day period beginning on the date the final order is entered, either by the Judge or the Attorney General, whichever is applicable, bring a civil action in the appropriate District Court of the United States pursuant to the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 844a(g) and obtain *de novo* judicial review of the final order.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00797- CV

Darr ell J. Harper, Appellant

v. Texas Com m ission on Jail S tandards an d Anthon y Mikesh, App ellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 98TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 4-0 0126 3, H ONO RAB LE GISELA D. TRI ANA, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Dar

rell J
. Har per, an inmate proce eding pro se, has filed a notice of appea l from the district court’s order d i s m i s s i n g his suit ag ainst appellee s Texas Commi ssion on J ail Standards and A nthony

Mikesh. On May

11, 2016, this Court not ified Ha rper that his a ppellant’s brief was overdue and that if we di d not rec eive a satisfac tory response rea sonably explaining Har per’ s failure to f

ile a brief on or befor e May 23, 2016, his appea l ma y be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution. On May 20, 2016, we rec eived what Har per sty led a “satisfa ctory response ” to this Court’s notice. Howeve r, the response contained no explanation of why Har per had failed to file a brief. Moreove r, as of this date, n o b ri ef h as been filed. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for want of pr osecution. 1

See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b). 1__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Jul y

14, 2016

2
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF MISSOULA,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ALLEN E. NELSON, Defendant.

NO. 7987 DECISION

DATED this 9th day of March, 1990.

On January 17, 1990 the Defendant had his sentence for Attempted Aggravated Assault revoked. He received eight (8) years, dangerous designation, and ineligible for parole until defendant presents a plan to the Parole Board for alcohol treatment upon release from Montana State Prison; plus 108 days credit for time served.

On March 9, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Dirk Beccari, Attorney at Law from Missoula. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be modified by changing the dangerous designation to non-dangerous offender. The remaining portion of the sentence shall remain the same.

The reasons for the modification are the case of *State v. Beecham,*616 P.2d 337, and the Sentence Review Division’s belief that the change in designation from non-dangerous to dangerous after the date of the offense would amount to an ex post facto application of the law to the detriment of the defendant.
#### § 54.605 Enforcement procedures.

The investigative, compliance, and enforcement procedural provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) (“Title VI”) are hereby adopted and applied to these Title IX regulations. These procedures may be found at 28 CFR 42.106 through 42.111.

[Order No. 2320-2000, 65 FR 52881, Aug. 30, 2000]
§ 34.104 Use of peer review. ( a ) *Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications.* ( 1 ) For competitive applications, each program announcement will indicate the program specific peer review procedures and selection criteria to be followed in peer review for that program. In the case of competitive programs for which a large number of applications is expected, preapplications (concept papers) may be required. Preapplications will be reviewed by qualified OJJDP staff to eliminate those pre-applications which fail to meet minimum program requirements, as specified in a program announcement, or clearly lack sufficient merit to qualify as potential candidates for funding consideration. The Administrator may subject both pre-applications and formal applications to the peer review process.
( 2 ) For noncompetitive applications, the general selection criteria set forth under subpart A of this part may be supplemented by program specific selection criteria for the particular part C program. Applicants for noncompetitive continuation awards will be fully informed of any additional specific criteria in writing.
( b ) When formal applications are required in response to a program announcement, an initial review will be conducted by qualified OJJDP staff, in order to eliminate from peer review consideration applications which do not meet minimum program requirements. Such requirements will be specified in the program announcement. Applications determined to be qualified and eligible for further consideration will then be considered under the peer review process.
( c ) Ratings will be in the form of numerical scores assigned by individual peer reviewers as illustrated in the OJJDP “Peer Review Guideline.” The results of peer review under a competitive program will be a relative aggregate ranking of applications in the form of “Summary Ratings.” The results of peer review for a noncompetitive new or continuation project will be in the form of numerical scores based on criteria established by the Administrator.
( d ) Peer review recommendations, in conjunction with the results of internal review and any necessary supplementary review, will assist the Administrator's consideration of competitive, noncompetitive, applications and selection of applications for funding.
( e ) Peer review recommendations are advisory only and are binding on the Administrator only as provided by section 262(d)(B)(i) for noncompetitive assistance awards to programs determined through peer review not to be of such outstanding merit that an award without competition is justified. In such case, the determination of whether to issue a competitive program announcement will be subject to the exercise of the Administrator's discretion.
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 A Better  Way  Financial
Corp., on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 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.
OFFICE OF.THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Bonor8blO -mod Borrir 

oounty Auditor 

Polk countl .. 

Ll*lagston, ?*xsa 

Your rw3.ur~t for an 

omulrrrl~rrr' Co&t &.ly authorizer 

rrr lr ta l nt d door no t nus a or b o a - 

t 1s our oplalon, uader the rtrthortti~r 

a. O+O, O-875 and O-1954, eoplea ot 

hioh an 8 hrrowlth Sor your ltioraablcm, that suoh 

l ppOi~ttSJlIt WOUl6 ;aot h ilb&. 

COMMilTEE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6856/June 22, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of :

:

DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC : ORDER

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Temporarily Suspending Exemption Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 

258 of Regulation A Thereunder and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on March 16, 2022. 

Respondent DF Growth REIT II, LLC, requested a hearing, and the Commission ordered that the 

matter be heard by an Administrative Law Judge on March 31, 2022. On May 16, 2022, the 

proceeding was reassigned to the undersigned. 

The parties’ proposed case schedule was adopted at the May 26, 2022, prehearing 

conference. The schedule proposed: June 20, 2022, a holiday, as the due date for Respondent’s 

opposition to the Division of Enforcement’s motion for summary disposition; and June 27, 2022, 

for the Division’s reply. The undersigned mistakenly adopted the schedule without specifying the 

opposition due date as June 21. Respondent filed its opposition on that date. The Division has 

requested a parallel one-day extension of the due date for its reply.

The Division’s request will be granted. Its reply will be due on June 28, 2022. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge
### §430l. Leases with preceding owners of acquired lands; conditions

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to lease to the immediately preceding owner or owners any lands acquired pursuant to an agreement that such lessee or lessees will occupy such lands in a manner consistent with the purposes of sections 430j to 430m and 430o to 430s of this title and that they will preserve the present breastworks, earthworks, walls, defenses, shelters, buildings, and roads, and the present outlines of the battlefields, and that they will only cut trees or underbrush or disturb or remove the soil, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, and that they will assist in protecting all tablets, monuments, or such other artificial works as may from time to time be erected by proper authority.

(June 21, 1934, ch. 694, §3, 48 Stat. 1199; Pub. L. 94–578, title III, §319(3), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2738.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–578 substituted "lease to the immediately preceding owner or owners any lands acquired pursuant to an agreement that such lessee or lessees will occupy such lands in a manner consistent with the purposes of sections 430j to 430m and 430o to 430s of this title and" for "enter into leases with the owners of such of the lands, works, defenses, and buildings thereon within the Monocacy National Military Park, as in his discretion it is unnecessary to forthwith acquire title to, and such leases shall be on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, and may contain options to purchase, subject to later acceptance, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, it is as economical to purchase as condemn title to the property: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior may enter into agreements upon such nominal terms as he may prescribe, permitting the present owners or their tenants to occupy or cultivate their present holdings, upon condition".
### §410jj–9. Authorization of appropriations

Effective October 1, 1981, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter but not to exceed $2,500,000 for acquisition of lands and interests in lands and $1,000,000 for development.

(Pub. L. 96–565, title I, §110, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3324.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

May 10, 2021

In the Matter of

Cerebain Biotech Corp.,

File No. 500-1

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF

TRADING

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Cerebain Biotech Corp.

(“CBBT1”) (CIK No. 1453099), a revoked Nevada corporation located in Costa Mesa, CA with a 

class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

("Exchange Act") Section 12(g) because it is delinquent in its periodic filings with the 

Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period 

ended March 31, 2019. On November 13, 2020, the Commission’s Division of Corporation 

Finance (“Corporation Finance”) sent a delinquency letter to CBBT requesting compliance with 

its periodic filing requirements, which was delivered. As of May 5, 2021, the common stock of 

CBBT was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (formerly “Pink Sheets”) 

(“OTC Link”), had nine market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of 

Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is 

ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the 

 

1 The short form of each issuer’s name is also its stock symbol.
2

securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 

11, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 24, 2021.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00431-CR

Crystal B. WILLIAMS,

Appellant

 

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR2757C

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 26, 2017.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
§ 552.41 Program procedures. ( a ) *Program Coordinator.* Each institution must have a Program Coordinator for the institution's suicide prevention program.
( b ) *Training.* The Program Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that appropriate training is available to staff and to inmates selected as inmate observers.
( c ) *Identification of at risk inmates.* ( 1 ) Medical staff are to screen a newly admitted inmate for signs that the inmate is at risk for suicide. Ordinarily, this screening is to take place within twenty-four hours of the inmate's admission to the institution.
( 2 ) Staff (whether medical or non-medical) may make an identification at any time based upon the inmate's observed behavior.
( d ) *Referral.* Staff who identify an inmate to be at risk for suicide will have the inmate placed on suicide watch.
( e ) *Assessment.* A psychologist will clinically assess each inmate placed on suicide watch.
( f ) *Intervention.* Upon completion of the clinical assessment, the Program Coordinator or designee will determine the appropriate intervention that best meets the needs of the inmate.