alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6454. Responsibilities of Federal agency members

#### (a) In general

A member of the Task Force described in section 6453(a) of this title shall—

(1) identify the actions of the agency that member represents that may affect coral reef ecosystems;

(2) use the programs and authorities of that agency to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems, including through the promotion of basic and applied scientific research;

(3) collaborate with the Task Force to appropriately reflect budgetary needs for coral reef conservation and restoration activities in all agency budget planning and justification documents and processes; and

(4) engage in any other coordinated efforts approved by the Task Force.

#### (b) Co-chairpersons

In addition to their responsibilities under subsection (a), the co-chairpersons of the Task Force shall perform the administrative functions of the Task Force and facilitate the coordination of the members of the Task Force described in section 6453(a) of this title.

#### (c) Briefing

Not less than 30 days before each meeting of the Task Force, the program offices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration responsible for implementing this title shall provide a briefing to the relevant congressional committees on efforts and spending associated with such implementation.

(Pub. L. 117–263, div. J, title C, §10014, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3953.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This title, referred to in subsec. (c), means title C of division J of Pub. L. 117–263, which enacted this chapter and sections 6401 to 6415 of this title, amended section 7504 of this title, repealed sections 6401 to 6409 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 6401 of this title. For complete classification of title C to the Code, see Tables.
### §455b. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, acts June 11, 1926, ch. 555, §3, 44 Stat. 727; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501, related to inclusion of estimate of cost of projected surveys in appropriation estimates. See section 103306(b) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
#### RB Hempstead, LLC, Appellant, v Incorporated Village of Hempstead et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 407]

In an action, inter aha, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, and to permanently enjoin the defendants from accepting or opening any proposals or bids for the sale and development of a particular parking field, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated January 13, 2005, which denied its motion for a preliminary injunction and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court entered March 29, 2005, as granted the motion of the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead and, in effect, granted the separate motion of the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead to vacate a notice of pendency.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent Incorporated Village of Hempstead.

On its motion to dismiss, the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead (hereinafter the Village) provided evidence that clearly established that the plaintiff failed to assert causes of action against it for specific performance and a permanent injunction *(see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The plaintiff essentially alleged, inter alia, *553that a contract it had entered into with the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency (hereinafter the CDA), which involved the sale of a Village-owned parking field, was enforceable. However, the CDA, which never actually acquired the parking field *(see*General Municipal Law § 555 [1] [a], [c]; § 556), and which never obtained the Village’s Board of Trustees’ explicit approval for the sale *(see*Village Law § 4-412 [1] [a]; *cf.*General Municipal Law § 507 [2] [d] [2]; § 556 [2]; *Town of Babylon v Racanelli Assoc.,*171 AD2d 741, 742 [1991]), did not have the authority to sell the parking field. Thus, so much of the contract as pertained to the sale of the parking field is unenforceable *(see Kelly v Cohoes Hous. Auth.,*27 AD2d 463, 465 [1967], *affd*23 NY2d 692 [1968]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the Village’s motion to dismiss the causes of action against it for specific performance and a permanent injunction. Furthermore, upon granting that motion, the court properly granted the Village’s separate motion to vacate a notice of pendency that the plaintiff had filed with respect to the parking field *(see Gallagher Removal Serv. v Duchnowski,*179 AD2d 622, 623 [1992]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either academic in light of our determination *(see Manhasset Bay Assoc. v Town of N. Hempstead,*150 AD2d 533 [1989]), or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### § 636.511 Can there be more than one round of discussions?

Yes, but only at the conclusion of discussions will the offerors be requested to submit a final proposal revision, also called best and final offer (BAFO). Thus, regardless of the length or number of discussions, there will be only one request for a revised proposal (*i.e.,* only one BAFO).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 65908 / December 7, 2011

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-14594

____________________________________ 

 : 

In the Matter of : 

 : 

CREDIT SUISSE ALTERNATIVE : Order Appointing 

CAPITAL, LLC (f/k/a CREDIT : Tax Administrator

SUISSE ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL, : 

INC.), CREDIT SUISSE ASSET : 

MANAGEMENT, LLC and : 

SAMIR H. BHATT :

 : 

 : 

Respondent(s). : 

____________________________________: 

By order dated January 21, 2011, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”), Rel. No. 63749 authorizing the 

Secretary to issue orders during calendar years 2011-2012 appointing, upon request by 

the Commission staff, Damasco and Associates LLP (“Damasco”), a certified public 

accounting firm located in Half Moon Bay, California, as tax administrator (“Tax 

Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur 

tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of 

the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On December 1, 2011, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the 

Omnibus Order, the appointment of Damasco as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in 

the above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Damasco, pursuant to and in accordance with the Omnibus 

Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced 

proceeding. 

 For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

 Elizabeth M. Murphy 

 Secretary
#### Patrick S. CRUISE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 01-3368.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 2, 2002.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000047268
<NAME> HI-SHEAR INDUSTRIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,308
<PP&E>                                             235
<DEPRECIATION>                                     110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              382
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              614
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,136
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,161)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,161)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

****

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the AnnualReport of Hickok Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for theperiod ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L.Bauman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C.section 1350,as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

-   the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

-   the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ R. L. Bauman

R. L. Bauman

Chief Executive Officer

December 22, 2010
MCMINN '11 UNE*EgERM 

## Eigal 

# cc: Tony Lee Smith Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

# 2
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00074-CR

DAVID GENE THOMAS CONAWAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1253390D

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

O RDER

David Gene Thomas Conaway, appellant, has filed a motion to extend time to file the 

appellant brief in this matter. The brief is currently due May 18, 2013.

In his motion, appellant does not provide the Court with a reasonable explanation of the 

need for an extension of time. This Court interprets Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

10.5(b)(1) as requiring counsel to provide the Court with specific information to justify a 

requested extension of time, including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they 

were filed, the dates of trials, how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Broad, general 

statements do not provide the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the 

Rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1).

All future motions to extend time filed with this Court must contain case-specific 

information adequate to justify the request, or they will be denied.

In this instance, we grant appellant’s motion for an extension, for a period of thirty days 

from the current due date, making appellant’s brief now due on or before June 17, 2013. Further 

requests for extensions will not be looked upon with favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: May 9, 2013
§ 3b.203 Rules of conduct. ( a ) The Executive Director of the Commission has the overall administrative responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and overseeing the conduct of all Commission employees with respect to the act.
( b ) It is the responsibility of the Comptroller of the Commission, under the guidance of the Executive Director, to prepare the appropriate internal administrative procedures to assure that all persons involved in the design, development, or operation of any system of records, or in collecting, using, or disseminating any individual record, and who have access to any system of records, are informed of all rules and requirements of the Commission to protect the privacy of the individuals who are the subjects of the records, including the applicable provisions of the FERC Standards of Conduct for Employees, Special Government Employees and Commissioners.
( c ) The Director, Human Resources Division, is responsible for establishing and conducting an adequate training program for such persons whose official duties require access to and collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of such records.
( d ) The General Counsel of the Commission is responsible for providing legal interpretation of the Privacy Act of 1974, and for preparing all agency rules and notices for official publication in compliance with the act.
( e ) Commission employees will be informed of all the implications of their actions in this area, including especially: ( 1 ) That there are criminal penalties for knowing and willful unauthorized disclosure of material within a system of records; for willful failure to publish a public notice of the existence of a system of records; and for knowingly and willfully requesting or obtaining records under false pretenses;
( 2 ) That the Commission may be subject to civil suit due to failure to amend an individual's record in accordance with his request or failure to review his request in conformity with § 3b.224; refusal to comply with an individual's request of access to a record under § 3b.221; willful or intentional failure to maintain a record accurately pursuant to § 3b.201(b) and consequently a determination is made which is adverse to the individual; or willful or intentional failure to comply with any other provision of the Privacy Act of 1974, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect upon an individual.
[Order 536, 40 FR 44288, Sept. 25, 1975, as amended by Order 737, 75 FR 43402, July 26, 2010]
#### Ida Hofstein v. Bronx Water Works, Inc., and City of New York.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 19

- 00897

- CR

IN RE Robert ROBERTS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 15, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 31, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering

the petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordi ngly, the

petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CR6881, styled The State of Texas v. Robert Roberts , pending in the

226th Judicial District Cour t, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Velia J. Meza presiding.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50361 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO JAVIER RAMOS-ARELLANES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2105-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Francisco Javier Ramos-Arellanes raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4763 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4763

    To extend the limited wraparound coverage pilot program for an 
              additional 5 years, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 2019

 Ms. Kaptur (for herself, Mr. Ryan, Mrs. Beatty, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Gibbs, 
 Mr. Stivers, Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio, and Mr. Joyce of Ohio) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the limited wraparound coverage pilot program for an 
              additional 5 years, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wraparound Health Coverage 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LIMITED WRAPAROUND COVERAGE PILOT PROGRAM FOR 
              ADDITIONAL 5 YEARS.

    The provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(vii) of section 146.145 of title 
45, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment 
of this Act), shall apply to limited wraparound coverage (as described 
in such provisions) that, with respect to health insurance coverage 
described in paragraph (b)(3)(vii)(D)(1) or (b)(3)(vii)(D)(2) of such 
section (as such paragraphs are in effect on such date of enactment)--
            (1) is first offered no earlier than January 1, 2016, and 
        no later than December 31, 2023; and
            (2) ends no later than on the later of--
                    (A) December 31, 2024; or
                    (B) the date on which the last employment agreement 
                relating to such health insurance coverage terminates 
                after the date on which such limited wraparound 
                coverage is first offered under paragraph (1) 
                (determined without regard to any extension agreed to 
                after the date on which such limited wraparound 
                coverage is so first offered).
                                 <all>
```
#### Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. Frederick Hier.

Filed April 10, 1901.

No. 11,875.

Former. Decision Herein Res Judicata. The decision of questions presented to this court in reviewing the proceedings of the district court becomes the law of the case, and, for the purposes of the litigation, settles conclusively the points adjudicated.

Error from the district court for Saline county. Tried below before Stubbs, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Abbott é Abbott,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. I. Foss*and *B. Y. Kohout, contra.*

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by Frederick Hier against the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association to enforce restin':'on of money obtained by executing a judgment which *583was afterwards reversed. The trial court found the issues in favor of the plaintiff and gave judgment accordingly. The questions discussed by counsel in the briefs have been squarely decided by this court in this case *(Hier v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing*Ass’n, 60 Nebr., 320), and we have now neither the power nor disposition to alter or modify, in any way, the conclusions heretofore announced. The judgment is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 2.2

                                                               STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                              SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                        DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                       FILED 09:00 AM 07/27/1998
                                                             981292774 - 2407013

                                   CERTIFICATE

                       FOR RENEWAL AND REVIVAL OF. CHARTER

                                       OF

                          EXECUTIVE HELP SERVICES INC.

     EXECUTIVE HELP SERVICES, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware, the Certificate of Incorporation of which was filed in
the Office of the Secretary of State on the thirty-first day of May A.D. 1994,
the charter of which was voided for nonpayment. of taxes, now desires to procure
a restoration, renewal and revival of its charter, and hereby certifies as
follows:

     1. The name of this corporation is:

                          EXECUTIVE HELP SERVICES, INC.

     2. Its registered office in the State of Delaware is located at 1013 Centre
Road, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle and its registered agent
is THE COMPANY CORPORATION.

     3. The date when the restoration, renewal, and revival of the charter of
this company is to commence ;is the twenty-ninth day of February, A.D., 1996,
same being prior to the date of the expiration of the charter. This renewal and
revival of the charter of this corporation is to be perpetual.

     4. This corporation was duly organized and carried on the business
authorized by its charter until the first day of March, A.D., 1996, at which
time its charter became inoperative and void for non-payment of taxes and this
certificate for renewal and revival is filed by authority of the duly elected
directors of the corporation in accordance with the laws of the State of
Delaware.

     IN TESTIMONY Whereof, and in compliance with the provisions of Section 312
of the General Corporation. Law of the state of Delaware, as amended, EXECUTIVE
HELP SERVICES, INC. caused this Certificate to be signed by Craig Shaber this
17th day of July A.D. 1998.


                                          /s/ Craig Shaber
                                          Authorized Officer