alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 499 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to clarify the treatment 

of certain surviving spouses under the definition of small 

business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled 

veterans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 499 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Service-Disabled Vet3 erans Small Business Continuation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT REGARDING TREATMENT 

5 OF CERTAIN SURVIVING SPOUSES UNDER 

6 THE DEFINITION OF SMALL BUSINESS CON7 CERN OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SERV8 ICE-DISABLED VETERANS. 

9 Effective on the date specified in subsection (e) of 

10 section 1832 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

11 for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 

12 2660), section 3(q)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 

13 U.S.C. 632(q)) is amended— 

14 (1) in subparagraph (C)(i)(II), by striking 

15 ‘‘rated as 100 percent’’ and all that follows through 

16 ‘‘service-connected disability’’; and 

17 (2) by amending subparagraph (C)(ii)(III) to 

18 read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(III) the date that— 

20 ‘‘(aa) in the case of a surviving 

21 spouse of a veteran with a service-con22 nected disability rated as 100 percent 

23 disabling or who dies as a result of a 

24 service-connected disability, is 10 

25 years after the date of the death of 

26 the veteran; or 
3 

•HR 499 EH

1 ‘‘(bb) in the case of a surviving 

2 spouse of a veteran with a service-con3 nected disability rated as less than 

4 100 percent disabling who does not 

5 die as a result of a service-connected 

6 disability, is 3 years after the date of 

7 the death of the veteran.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 499 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to clarify the 

controlled by service-disabled veterans. definition of small business concern owned and treatment of certain surviving spouses under the
#### Michael Devlin, Appellant, v. The Booth Steamship Company, Limited, and T. Hogan & Sons, Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ro opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam., JJ.
906 A.2d 360

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Christopher H. LYNT.

No. 17,

Sept. Term, 2006.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 30, 2006.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for disciplinary or remedial action filed in the above entitled matter in accordance with Md. Rule 16-773 and no response having been made by Christopher H. Lynt, the respondent, to the show cause order, it is this 30th day of August, 2006

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Christopher H. Lynt is suspended for a period of two (2) years, effective immediately, from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall forthwith strike the name of Christopher H. Lynt from the register of *355attorneys, in this Court and shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State in accordance with Rule 16-760(e).
#### Zella J. MARTIN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.

No. 01-3283.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2002.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file an appendix required by Federal Circuit Rule 30(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.
### §1919. False statement to obtain unemployment compensation for Federal service

Whoever makes a false statement or representation of a material fact knowing it to be false, or knowingly fails to disclose a material fact, to obtain or increase for himself or for any other individual any payment authorized to be paid under chapter 85 of title 5 or under an agreement thereunder, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §3(d), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 609.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 42 U.S.C. 1368(a). | Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1212, §4(a) "Sec. 1508(a)", 68 Stat. 1135. |

Statutes at Large

The words "under chapter 85 of title 5" are substituted for "under this title" (Title XV of the Social Security Act, as amended) to reflect the codification of the Title in title 5, United States Code.
March 20

, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Delivery of Contend Corp.'s UAS Operations Manual [ Docket No. FAA

- 2015

-

0155 ]

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this office represents Contend Corp. ("Contend") regarding the above

referenced Petition for Exemption, filed on January 19, 2015, in which Contend seeks regulatory

relief to al low commercial filming, cinematography and videography using small unmanned

aerial vehicles

. Please accept this letter as confirmation that Contend's UAS Operations Manual,

which contains proprietary information, was hand

- delivered to Jake J. Troutman, Program

Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Safety, Airmen and Airspace Rules

Division , on March 19, 2015.

If you have any other questions, or need any additional information to process this

exemption request, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Matthew J. Clark

Mark E. McKinnon

Mark A. Dombroff

Counsel for Contend Co rp. Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York 1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKi nnon

703.336.8714

Matthew J. Clark

703.336.871 Email Address

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com
#### Edmund W. Caskie, Appellant, v. Margaret C. Plass, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
430 P.2d 778

#### Henry J. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Boyd W. WEST and Helen M. West, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8360.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

July 31, 1967.

Manuel A. Sanchez, Santa Fe, for appellants.

Matías A. Zamora, Santa Fe, for appel-lee.

OPINION

CARMODY, Justice.

This appeal is solely from a judgment awarding costs to the plaintiff in a suit to quiet title. The defendants object to the assessment against them of the entire filing fee of $12.50, the service fee upon two witnesses of $6.00, and an award of an expert-witness fee in the sum of $104.00.

The statute, § 22-14-7, N.M.S.A. 1953, insofar as is pertinent here, provides that the defendant in a suit to quiet title, if he appears and disclaims, shall recover his costs; then the section reads, “and in all other cases the costs shall be in the discretion of the court.” It is not contended that the defendants disclaimed; therefore, the awarding of costs was in the discretion of the trial court. Cf., Corman v. Cree (10th Cir. 1938), 100 F.2d 486.

Defendants seem to contend, particularly with reference to the award of the *282expert-witness fee, that the calling of the expert (who was a surveyor) was unnecessary, because the plat prepared by the expert had been stipulated to by the parties. The trial court stated that it wanted' to have the benefit of the expert’s testimony, “even in spite of the stipulation.”In view of this statement and other matters appearing in the record which we need not relate, we do not feel that there was-an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in awarding this fee or the other items assessed. Under the statute and our cases, the assessing of costs is discretionary, with the trial court. Mills v. Southwest Builders, Inc., 1962, 70 N.M. 407, 374 P.2d 289; Farmers Gin Company v. Ward, 1964, 73 N.M. 405, 389 P.2d 9; Lanier v. Securities Acceptance Corporation, 1965, 74 N. M. 755, 398 P.2d 980; Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank, 1966, 76 N.M. 735, 418 P.2d 191. And we note with approval the special concurring opinion by Justice Moise in Danielson v. Miller, 1965, 75 N.M. 170, at 173, 402 P.2d 153, as espécially apropos here.

The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

COMPTON, J., and WALDO SPIESS, J., Court of Appeals, concur.
#### § 236.10 Description of program.

The family unity program implements the provisions of section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649. This Act is referred to in this subpart as “IMMACT 90”.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 16,465

 14,661

 14,076

 14,422

 13,879

 15,363

 16,513

 17,818

 18,678

 18,389

 19,760

 20,610

 20,200

 20,357

 20,322

 16,570

 15,252

 13,760

 13,757

 13,047

 13,986

 15,704

 15,633

 16,088

 18,091

 13,180

 11,566

 11,219

 10,387

 9,529

 8,329

 6,346

 6,539

 5,547

 5,250

 4,956

 5,032

 6,292

 7,183

 6,169

 6,238

 6,963

 6,757

 8,336

 8,992

 8,167

 7,321

 6,515

 6,361

 4,254

 5,166

 4,493

 6,098

 3,889

 4,564

 5,582

 3,196

 3,205

 2,372

 1,750

 1,770

 1,516

 10,829

 10,237

 9,417

 9,664

 9,160

 9,202

 10,567

 11,161

 11,389

 11,541

 12,863

 13,811

 14,520

 13,383

 13,318

 12,101

 10,846

 9,851

 8,841

 8,234

 8,288

 10,098

 9,868

 9,338

 11,618

 8,720

 6,742

 6,019

 5,520

 5,106

 4,646

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 6, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
§ 225.20 When may a grantee draw down funds? ( a ) A grantee may draw down funds after it has signed a performance agreement acceptable to the Department of Education and the grantee.
( b ) A grantee may draw down and spend a limited amount of funds prior to reaching an acceptable performance agreement provided that the grantee requests to draw down and spend a specific amount of funds and the Department of Education approves the request in writing.
[70 FR 15003, Mar. 24, 2005, as amended at 84 FR 25998, June 5, 2019]
### §508a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Feb. 15, 1927, ch. 152, 44 Stat. 1099, related to exchange of lands in Black Hills National or Harney National Forest. See Codification note set out under sections 486a to 486w of this title.
### §7506. Annual report

#### (a) Requirement for annual report

Subject to subsection (c),1 beginning with fiscal year 2017, not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Foundation shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report on the operation of the Fund during that fiscal year.

#### (b) Content

Each annual report submitted under subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall include—

(1) a full and complete statement of the receipts, including the source of all receipts, expenditures, and investments of the Fund;

(2) a statement of the amounts deposited in the Fund and the balance remaining in the Fund at the end of the fiscal year; and

(3) a description of the expenditures made from the Fund for the fiscal year, including the purpose of the expenditures.

(Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title IX, §907, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 3034.)

1 So in original.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Carolina Investment Partners, Limited Partnership (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Alton L. Smith III, General Partner of Walsmith Associates Two, general partner of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 Registrant.



/s/ Alton L. Smith IIIAlton L. Smith IIIGeneral Partner of Walsmith AssociatesTwo, general partner of the RegistrantMarch 28, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Carolina
Investment Partners, Limited Partnership and will be retained by Carolina Investment Partners, Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Lumie SOUCEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAWSON MARDON USA, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1198.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2002.

Decided May 6, 2002.

Lumie Soucek, Appellant Pro Se. John Christopher Tillman, Associate, Alcan Aluminum Corporation, Mayfield Heights, Ohio, for Appellee.

*908Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Lumie Soucek appeals the district court’s order dismissing her wrongful termination, harassment, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims raised on behalf of her husband. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Soucek v. Lawson Mardon USA, Inc.,*No. CA-01-423 V (W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 8, 2002; entered Feb. 11, 2002). 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.*
§ 303.416 Destruction of information. ( a ) The participating agency must inform parents when personally identifiable information collected, maintained, or used under this part is no longer needed to provide services to the child under Part C of the Act, the GEPA provisions in 20 U.S.C. 1232f, EDGAR, 34 CFR part 76, and 2 CFR part 200, as adopted in 2 CFR part 3474.
( b ) Subject to paragraph (a) of this section, the information must be destroyed at the request of the parents. However, a permanent record of a child's name, date of birth, parent contact information (including address and phone number), names of service coordinator(s) and EIS provider(s), and exit data (including year and age upon exit, and any programs entered into upon exiting) may be maintained without time limitation.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1417(c), 1435(a)(5), 1439(a)(2), 1439(a)(4), 1442)
[76 FR 60244, Sept. 28, 2011, as amended at 79 FR 76097, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### § 35.9 Penalties.

A person who files a false claim or makes a false or fraudulent statement in a claim against the United States may be liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both (18 U.S.C. 287.1001), and, in addition, to a forfeiture of $2,000 and a penalty of double the loss or damage sustained by the United States (31 U.S.C. 231).
#### George Meisner, appellant, v. John Moore et al., appellees.

Filed March 6, 1901.

No. 9,367.

Finding: Review. A finding of fact based upon conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on review.

Appeal from the district court for Hall county. Heard below before Thompson, J.

*Affirmed.*

*R. R. Horth,*for appellant.

*W. E. Thompson, contra.*

Norval, C. J.

This suit was brought to foreclose a real estate mortgage. The plea of usury was interposed as a defense, which was sustained on the trial by the court, and plaintiff appeals. There is evidence tending to show that the note secured by the mortgage in question was given ,'in renewal of a prior note given for the loan of money. The defendant insisted that the original note antedated the loan and that the plaintiff exacted and retained the sum of $25 as a bonus for making the loan, which plaintiff denies. It is unnecessary to set out the evidence adduced by the respective parties upon this point. Suffice it to say that the proofs are conflicting, but that submitted by defendant is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the court. The decree is accordingly

Affirmed.
#### § 101.82 Exceptions to rulings of presiding officer unnecessary.

Exceptions to rulings of the presiding officer are unnecessary. It is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling of the presiding officer is sought, makes known the action which he desires the presiding officer to take, or his objection to an action taken, and his grounds therefor.
EXHIBIT 32.1    SECTION 906 CEO CERTIFICATION  FORM OF CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE   I, Jeff Jenson, the President and Director of Ardmore Holding Corp, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the calendar year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ardmore Holding Corp   /s/ Jeff Jenson President and Director  Dated: 3/31/2008   A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ardmore Holding Corp. The statement will be retained by Ardmore Holding Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 33.19 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) The ALJ may schedule perhearing conferences as appropriate.
( b ) Upon the motion of any party, the ALJ shall schedule at least one perhearing conference at a reasonable time in advance of the hearing.
( c ) The ALJ may use prehearing conferences to discuss the following: ( 1 ) Simplification of the issues.
( 2 ) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, including the need for a more definite statement.
( 3 ) Stipulations, admissions of fact or as to the contents and authenticity of documents.
( 4 ) Whether the parties can agree to submission of the case on a stipulated record.
( 5 ) Whether a party chooses to waive appearance at an oral hearing and to submit only documentary evidence (subject to the objection of other parties) and written argument.
( 6 ) Limitation of the number of witnesses.
( 7 ) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits.
( 8 ) Discovery.
( 9 ) The time and place for the hearing.
( 10 ) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the fair and just disposition of the proceedings.
( d ) The ALJ may issue an order containing all matters agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the ALJ at a prehearing conference.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3803(g))
### Tertiary geology of the Beaver Rim area, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming

By: Franklyn B. Van Houten

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1164

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **3**                            (1494 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### §61. Rules and regulations in parks

The Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such general rules and regulations as he may deem necessary and proper for the management and care of the park and for the protection of the property therein, especially for the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, mineral deposits other than those legally located prior to the passage of the respective Acts creating and establishing said parks, natural curiosities or wonderful objects within said parks, and for the protection of the animals in the park from capture or destruction, and to prevent their being frightened or driven from the said parks; and he shall make rules and regulations governing the taking of fish from the streams or lakes in the said parks or either of them. He shall cause all persons trespassing upon the same to be removed therefrom.

(Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1263, §2, 26 Stat. 651; June 2, 1920, ch. 218, §5, 41 Stat. 732.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The first sentence of this section was from section 5 of the act of June 2, 1920.

The last sentence of this section is from section 2 of act Oct. 1, 1890.
# Trading Suspensions

The latest Trading Suspensions from the Securities and Exchange Commission

- Agri-Fintech Holdings, Inc. Agri-Fintech Holdings, Inc.
- Tingo Group, Inc. Tingo Group, Inc.
- Green Automotive Company Green Automotive Company
- TOP Financial Group Limited TOP Financial Group Limited
- Viabuilt Ventures, Inc., Viabuilt Ventures, Inc.,
- Digatrade Financial Corporation Digatrade Financial Corporation
- Instadose Pharma Corp. Instadose Pharma Corp.
- Yus International Group, Ltd. Yus International Group, Ltd.
- Vista International Technologies Inc. Vista International Technologies Inc.
- Sports Field Holdings, Inc. Sports Field Holdings, Inc.
- Real Goods Solar, Inc. Real Goods Solar, Inc.
- Stealth Technologies, Inc. Stealth Technologies, Inc.
- Skye Life Ventures Ltd. Skye Life Ventures Ltd.
- MyDx, Inc. MyDx, Inc.
- Online Disruptive Technologies, Inc. Online Disruptive Technologies, Inc.
- Medifirst Solutions, Inc. Medifirst Solutions, Inc.
- Ngen Technologies Holdings Corp. Ngen Technologies Holdings Corp.
- GelTech Solutions, Inc. GelTech Solutions, Inc.
- LevelBlox, Inc. LevelBlox, Inc.
- Intelligent Highway Solutions, Inc. Intelligent Highway Solutions, Inc.
- Consumer Capital Group, Inc. Consumer Capital Group, Inc.
- Incoming, Inc. Incoming, Inc.
- Citadel Exploration, Inc. Citadel Exploration, Inc.
- Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated
- Brightlane Corp. Brightlane Corp.
#### Louisville Lumber Company, Respondent, v. Claremont E. Smith and George Dana Sessions, Appellants.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.