alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 101.53 Amendment of notice or answer.

The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights may amend the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing once as a matter of course before an answer thereto is served, and each respondent may amend his answer once as a matter of course not later than 10 days before the date fixed for hearing but in no event later than 20 days from the date of service of his original answer. Otherwise a notice or answer may be amended only by leave of the presiding officer. A respondent shall file his answer to an amended notice within the time remaining for filing the answer to the original notice or within 10 days after service of the amended notice, whichever period may be the longer, unless the presiding officer otherwise orders.
### §482n. Coconino National Forest; mining rights; protection of scenic values

On and after May 24, 1949, mining locations made under the mining laws of the United States within the following-described lands within the Coconino National Forest, Coconino County, Arizona: Sections 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 34, of township 19 north, range 6 east; and sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, and 34 of township 18 north, range 6 east; and sections 1, 2, 3, 4, southeast quarter of section 8, sections 9, 10, 11, and 12, of township 17 north, range 6 east; Gila and Salt River base and meridian, shall confer on the locator the right to occupy and use so much of the surface of the land covered by the location as may be reasonably necessary to carry on prospecting, mining, and beneficiation of ores including the taking of mineral deposits and timber required by or in the mining and ore reducing operations, and no permit shall be required or charge made for such use or occupancy: Provided, however, That the cutting and removal of timber, except where clearing is necessary in connection with mining operations or to provide space for buildings or structures used in connection with mining operations, shall be conducted in accordance with the rules for timber cutting on adjoining national-forest land, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining and prospecting shall be allowed except under the national-forest rules and regulations, nor shall the locator prevent or obstruct other occupancy of the surface or use of surface resources under authority of national-forest regulations, or permits issued thereunder, if such occupancy or use is not in conflict with mineral development.

(May 24, 1949, ch. 136, §1, 63 Stat. 75.)
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5062 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 9930 Conroy Windermere Road in 

Windermere, Florida, as the ‘‘Officer Robert German 

Post Office Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5062 RFS

1 SECTION 1. OFFICER ROBERT GERMAN POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 9930 Conroy Windermere Road 

5 in Windermere, Florida, shall be known and designated 

6 as the ‘‘Officer Robert German Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Officer Robert Ger11 man Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99-1




                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Evan Kechyans,  President and Chief Executive  Officer  (principal  executive
officer)  of (the  "Registrant"),  certifies  that to the best of my  knowledge,
based upon a review of the 10KSB  Amendment No 1 for the period  ended  December
31, 2001 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

     (1) The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)
[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ Evan Kechyans
------------------------------
Name: Evan Kechyans



Date: September 12, 2002









<PAGE>





                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Richard Cokl , Chief Financial Officer (principal  financial officer) of (the
"Registrant"),  certifies that to the best of my knowledge,  based upon a review
of the 10KSB  Amendment  No 1 for the  period  ended  December  31,  2001 of the
Registrant (the "Report"):

     (1) The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)
[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



/s/ Richard Cokl
------------------------------
Name: Richard Cokl


Date: September 12, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4983 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4983

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
    To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based 
outpatient clinic in Gilbert, Arizona, as the ``Staff Sergeant Alexander 
            W. Conrad Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
    Congress finds the following:
        (1) Staff Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad of Chandler, Arizona, 
    joined the United States Army on June 1, 2010.
        (2) Staff Sergeant Conrad's decorated service includes two 
    deployments to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring 
    Freedom.
        (3) Staff Sergeant Conrad subsequently deployed to Africa in 
    support of Operation Octave Shield, while assigned to 1st 
    Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as 
    a Human Intelligence Noncommissioned Officer.
        (4) On June 8, 2018, Staff Sergeant Conrad died in Somalia from 
    injuries sustained from indirect enemy fire.
        (5) Staff Sergeant Conrad was posthumously awarded the Purple 
    Heart, Bronze Star with Valor, and Meritorious Service Medal.
SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF STAFF SERGEANT ALEXANDER W. CONRAD VETERANS 
AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE CLINIC.
    (a) Designation.--The Southeast Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic 
located at 3285 South Val Vista Drive, Gilbert, Arizona, shall after 
the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 
``Staff Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad Veterans Affairs Health Care 
Clinic''.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
§ 606.2 What institutions are eligible to receive a grant under the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program? ( a ) An institution of higher education is eligible to receive a grant under this part if— ( 1 ) At the time of application, it has an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic students;
( 2 ) It provides assurances that not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income individuals;
( 3 ) It has an enrollment of needy students as described in § 606.3(a), unless the Secretary waives this requirement under § 606.3(b);
( 4 ) It has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student as described in § 606.4(a), unless the Secretary waives this requirement under § 606.4(c);
( 5 ) It is legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree; and
( 6 ) It is accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered.
( b ) A branch campus of a Hispanic-Serving institution is eligible to receive a grant under this part if— ( 1 ) The institution as a whole meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(6) of this section; and
( 2 ) The branch campus satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
( c ) ( 1 ) An institution that receives a grant under the Strengthening Institutions Program (34 CFR part 607) or the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program (34 CFR part 608) for a particular fiscal year is not eligible to receive a grant under this part for that same fiscal year, and may not relinquish its grant under those programs to secure a grant under this part.
( 2 ) A Hispanic-Serving institution under this part may not concurrently receive grant funds under the Strengthening Institutions Program, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program, or Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1101a and 1101d)
[64 FR 70147, Dec. 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 1263, Jan. 8, 2001]
NEWYORK Department of STATE OF 

OPPORTUNITY Transportation 

ANDREW M. CUOMO JOAN McDONALD 

Governor Commissioner 

March 5. 2015 

Ms. Molly W. Smith 

Office of Aviation Policy and Plans 

APO-001 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Dear Ms. Smith: 

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) requests an extension of the 

comment period for pocket No. FAA-2014-1073, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Slot 

Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport 

and Newark Liberty International Airport. The notice instituting this proceeding directs that 

comments be filed on or before April 8, 2015. NYSDOT hereby requests that the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) extend the comment period for an additional 60 days. 

NYSDOT's interest in this NPRM is two-fold. First, NYSDOT owns two airports in the New York 

metropolitan region, (Republic Airport in Farmingdale and Stewart Airport in Newburgh). While 

these two airports are not slot-controlled, the FAA policies governing LaGuardia, John F. 

Kennedy International, and Newark Liberty International airports have regional effects that may 

impact the two state-owned airports. Second, NYSDOT is hopeful that the reform of the slot 

program may create opportunities for utilizing more slots within the region and in communities 

with commercial air senrice in upstate New York. 

NYSDOT appreciates FAA's efforts in developing the NPRM. It is clear that during this multiyear endeavor, FAA staff spent time and effort to examine the many complex issues related to 

slot management. NYSDOT is particularly pleased that the proposed rule notes that the U.S. 

Department of Transportation will be involved in reviewing slot transactions as they potentially 

impact competition, public interest, and senrice to small communities. Given the breadth of the 

issues that the FAA has asked for comment and the importance of this effort for the aviation 

industry, I respectfully request an extension of 60-days in which to submit comments. 

Sincerely, 

6 

oan McDonald 

ommissioner 

50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 1 www.dot.ny.gov
Exhibit 11
                 Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings


                     CAVALIER HOMES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                (dollars in thousands except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<S>                                                <C>              <C>               <C>
                                                               For the Year Ended December 31,
                                                    ---------------------------------------------------
                                                          1996              1995              1994
                                                    ---------------------------------------------------
 PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED
      Net Income                                   $         15,366  $          9,020  $          5,079
                                                    ===============   ===============   ===============
 SHARES:

 Primary
   Average common shares outstanding                     11,833,415        11,071,665         9,624,174

   Dilutive effect if stock options
     were exercised                                         425,046           414,580           211,350
                                                    ---------------   ---------------   ---------------
   Average common shares outstanding
     as adjusted (primary)                               12,258,461        11,486,245         9,835,524
                                                    ===============   ===============   ===============

 Fully Diluted
   Average common shares outstanding                     12,258,461        11,486,245         9,835,524

   Additional dilutive effect if
     stock options were excercised
     (fully)                                                      -                 -                 -
                                                    ---------------   ---------------   ---------------
   Average common shares outstanding
     as adjusted (fully diluted)                         12,258,461        11,486,245         9,835,524
                                                    ===============   ===============   ===============

 Primary and Fully Diluted Net
   Income per Common Share                         $           1.25  $            .79  $            .52
                                                    ===============   ===============   ===============

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF HUGHES SUPPLY, INC. AS OF JANUARY 31, 1997, AND
THE RELATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000049029
<NAME> HUGHES SUPPLY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,809
<INVENTORY>                                    250,113
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               476,769
<PP&E>                                         140,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 649,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          146,381
<BONDS>                                        221,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,518
<OTHER-SE>                                     267,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   649,502
<SALES>                                      1,516,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,516,088
<CGS>                                        1,200,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,200,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               255,794
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   842
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,528
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,528
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.07
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6682

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE LAMONT MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:98-cr-00013-H-1)

Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Lamont Moore, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Lamont Moore seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
H. R. 5062 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9930 Conroy 

Windermere Road in Windermere, Florida, as the ‘‘Officer Robert German Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. OFFICER ROBERT GERMAN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 9930 Conroy Windermere Road in Windermere, 

Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Officer Robert 

German Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Officer Robert German Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 463.735 How are infrastructure cost budgets for the one-stop centers in a local area determined in the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism? ( a ) Local WDBs must provide to the Governor appropriate and relevant materials and documents used in the negotiations under the local funding mechanism, including but not limited to: The local WIOA plan, the cost allocation method or methods proposed by the partners to be used in determining proportionate share, the proposed amounts or budget to fund infrastructure, the amount of total partner funds included, the type of funds or non-cash contributions, proposed one-stop center budgets, and any agreed upon or proposed MOUs.
( b ) ( 1 ) If a local area has reached agreement as to the infrastructure budget for the one-stop centers in the local area, it must provide this budget to the Governor as required by paragraph (a) of this section. If, as a result of the agreed upon infrastructure budget, only the individual programmatic contributions to infrastructure funding based upon proportionate use of the one-stop centers and relative benefit received are at issue, the Governor may accept the budget, from which the Governor must calculate each partner's contribution consistent with the cost allocation methodologies contained in the Uniform Guidance found in 2 CFR part 200, as described in § 463.736.
( 2 ) The Governor may also take into consideration the extent to which the partners in the local area have agreed in determining the proportionate shares, including any agreements reached at the local level by one or more partners, as well as any other element or product of the negotiating process provided to the Governor as required by paragraph (a) of this section.
( 3 ) If a local area has not reached agreement as to the infrastructure budget for the one-stop centers in the local area, or if the Governor determines that the agreed upon budget does not adequately meet the needs of the local area or does not reasonably work within the confines of the local area's resources in accordance with the Governor's one-stop budget guidance (which is required to be issued by WIOA sec. 121(h)(1)(B) and under § 463.705), then, in accordance with § 463.745, the Governor must use the formula developed by the State WDB based on at least the factors required under § 463.745, and any associated weights to determine the local area budget.
(No. 77-CC-2491

#### Louis C. Malone, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 2,1978.*

Polos, C.J.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

Claimant complains that he was deprived of the possession of a stereo tape player. On cross examination, Claimant admitted that prison officials had found his stereo after the instant claim was filed, and had offered to return it to him, but that he refused to accept return of the item.

As the property in question is no longer lost, and has been made available to Claimant, the Court finds that this claim has been rendered moot.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.