alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2251A. Selling or buying of children

(a) Any parent, legal guardian, or other person having custody or control of a minor who sells or otherwise transfers custody or control of such minor, or offers to sell or otherwise transfer custody of such minor either—

(1) with knowledge that, as a consequence of the sale or transfer, the minor will be portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct; or

(2) with intent to promote either—

(A) the engaging in of sexually explicit conduct by such minor for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct; or

(B) the rendering of assistance by the minor to any other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct;

shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 30 years or for life and by a fine under this title, if any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section exist.

(b) Whoever purchases or otherwise obtains custody or control of a minor, or offers to purchase or otherwise obtain custody or control of a minor either—

(1) with knowledge that, as a consequence of the purchase or obtaining of custody, the minor will be portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct; or

(2) with intent to promote either—

(A) the engaging in of sexually explicit conduct by such minor for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct; or

(B) the rendering of assistance by the minor to any other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct;

shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 30 years or for life and by a fine under this title, if any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section exist.

(c) The circumstances referred to in subsections (a) and (b) are that—

(1) in the course of the conduct described in such subsections the minor or the actor traveled in or was transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) any offer described in such subsections was communicated or transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mail; or

(3) the conduct described in such subsections took place in any territory or possession of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7512(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4486; amended Pub. L. 108–21, title I, §103(b)(1)(B), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 653; Pub. L. 110–358, title I, §103(a)(2), (b), Oct. 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 4002, 4003.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–358, §103(b), substituted "in or affecting interstate" for "in interstate" in pars. (1) and (2).

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 110–358, §103(a)(2), inserted "using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or" after "or transported".

2003—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 108–21 substituted "30 years" for "20 years" in concluding provisions.
#### In the Matter of the Examination of George G. Goodrich, Judgment Debtor, Appellant, in Proceedings Supplementary to Execution upon the Application of Nash Rockwood, Respondent, a Judgment Creditor, under a Judgment Recovered in an Action Entitled George G. Goodrich v. Nash Rockwood.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
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 quarterly report of Paramco
Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for
the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Douglas G. Gregg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.


Date:  July 24, 2003      By: /s/ Douglas G. Gregg
                              -----------------------------
                              Douglas G. Gregg
                              Chief Executive Officer
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

DAY HIGH

 201

 205

 202

 207

 213

 219

 222

 232

 226

 228

 237

 234

 232

 315

 387

 360

 311

 255

 233

 231

 225

 190

 182

 188

 202

 203

 209

 212

 186

 197

 188

 199

 204

 209

 213

 217

 216

 207

 219

 218

 211

 223

 224

 222

 216

 211

 201

 197

 188

 174

 170

 175

 179

 183

 194

 193

 197

 201

 193

 203

 207

 214

 217

 221

 221

 222

 225

 224

 224

 243

 251

 258

 240

 223

 215

 211

 200

 182

 177

 180

 187

 191

 198

 202

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 30, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,699

 2,710

 2,713

 2,724

 2,740

 2,761

 2,789

 2,817

 2,848

 2,879

 2,912

 2,943

 2,968

 3,012

 3,066

 3,123

 3,170

 3,190

 3,198

 3,195

 3,178

 3,139

 3,095

 3,053

 3,015

 2,982

 2,956

 2,915

 193

 194

 194

 195

 196

 197

 199

 201

 203

 206

 208

 210

 212

 215

 219

 223

 226

 228

 228

 228

 227

 224

 221

 218

 215

 213

 211

 208

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### Belle E. Sommerich, Respondent, v. Joseph B. Miller, Individually and as Trustee of Series N-69 of New York Title and Mortgage Company, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Martin, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss the complaint.
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 ELEV

 1,194.36

 1,194.38

 1,194.39

 1,194.41

 1,194.43

 1,194.44

 1,194.46

 1,194.51

 1,194.54

 1,194.52

 1,194.52

 1,195.14

 1,195.25

 1,195.31

 1,195.34

 1,195.37

 1,195.41

 1,195.43

 1,195.45

 1,195.48

 1,195.50

 1,195.53

 1,195.56

 1,195.66

 1,195.73

 1,195.96

 1,196.06

 1,196.13

 1,196.17

 1,196.21

 1,196.25

 41.77

 41.81

 41.82

 41.85

 41.89

 41.90

 41.94

 42.02

 42.06

 42.03

 42.03

 43.04

 43.23

 43.32

 43.37

 43.42

 43.49

 43.52

 43.56

 43.61

 43.64

 43.69

 43.74

 43.90

 44.02

 44.40

 44.57

 44.69

 44.76

 44.82

 44.89

STORAGE

+0.03

+0.03

+0.02

+0.03

+0.03

+0.02

+0.03

+0.08

+0.05

-0.03

+0.00

+1.01

+0.18

+0.10

+0.05

+0.05

+0.07

+0.03

+0.03

+0.05

+0.03

+0.05

+0.05

+0.17

+0.12

+0.38

+0.17

+0.12

+0.07

+0.07

+0.07

CHANGE

25

24

17

26

29

22

31

54

45

7

5

514

100

55

30

30

44

25

26

32

26

33

34

89

63

198

90

64

44

43

43

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 5

 5

 5

 5

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

 5

OUTLET

 3

 3

 4

 4

 3

 4

 4

 3

 11

 13

 0

 0

 3

 0

 0

 0

 5

 3

 4

 2

 4

 3

 4

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 5

 4

 4

C.F.S.

 .06

 .06

 .08

 .07

 .05

 .08

 .07

 .05

 .20

 .24

 .00

 .00

 .06

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .05

 .07

 .04

 .07

 .05

 .07

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .07

 .07

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .39

 .00

 .29

 1.15

 1.33

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .61

 .00

 .96

 .30

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2001 EAST PARK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 01/28/2003

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +3.16 1,868 185 0 93 1.71 5.03

ACRE-FEET +3,160 3,705 367 0 184

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 AM.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 367

 367

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 5.03

JULY 1, 2000 8.49

 41.74
§ 685.405 Institutional response. ( a ) For purposes of adjudicating a borrower defense claim other than those based on prior Secretarial final actions in accordance with § 685.404, the Department official notifies the institution of the group claim under § 685.402 or individual claim under § 685.403 and requests a response from the school. Such notification also may include, but is not limited to, requests for documentation to substantiate the school's response.
( b ) ( 1 ) The notification in paragraph (a) of this section tolls any limitation period by which the Secretary may recover from the institution under § 685.409.
( 2 ) The Department official requests a response from the institution, which will have 90 days to respond from the date of the Department official's notification.
( c ) With its response, the institution must submit an affidavit, on a form approved by the Secretary, certifying under penalty of perjury that the information submitted to the Department official is true and correct.
( d ) If the institution does not respond to the Department official's information request within 90 days, the Department official will presume that the institution does not contest the borrower defense to repayment claim.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7860]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit 
Applications

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

    On March 24, 2011, the Commission held a drawing to determine 
priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical 
filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of 
the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop, 
conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the 
region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as 
the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as 
follows:

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

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7860 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Mildred Rowe, Respondent, v. Charles H. Ditson & Company, Appellant.

— Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, with costs to abide event of the action. All concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000790129
<NAME>                        GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                403
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                         368
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                         3,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      403
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      6,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  70
<BONDS>                             2,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                          3,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        6,033
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1,581
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    1,090
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (843)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (843)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       125
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                         (718)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.24)
        


</TABLE>
§ 663.20 How is a Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad Fellow selected? ( a ) The Secretary considers applications for fellowships under this program that have been screened and submitted by eligible institutions. The Secretary evaluates these applications on the basis of the criteria in § 663.21.
( b ) The Secretary does not consider applications to carry out research in a country in which the United States has no diplomatic representation.
( c ) In evaluating applications, the Secretary obtains the advice of panels of United States academic specialists in modern foreign languages and area studies.
( d ) The Secretary gives preference to applicants who have served in the armed services of the United States if their applications are equivalent to those of other applicants on the basis of the criteria in § 663.21.
( e ) The Secretary considers information on budget, political sensitivity, and feasibility from binational commissions or United States diplomatic missions, or both, in the proposed country or countries of research.
( f ) The Secretary presents recommendations for recipients of fellowships to the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, which reviews the recommendations and approves recipients.
(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6), 2456)
#### H. Dudley Warner, Appellant, v. Ostrander & Company, Incorporated, and Frank Ostrander, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
(No. 75-CC-0231

#### David L. Harmon, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 5, 1978.*

*544Richard G. Hamper, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Martin A. Soll, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Holderman, J.

This is a claim for loss of certain items of personal property stolen from Claimant’s home in Elburn, Kane County, Illinois on June 20,1974, by two boys who had escaped from the St. Charles School for Boys, St. Charles, Illinois.

It is stipulated by the parties hereto that the only issue before the Court would be .the amount "of damages involved.

On June 20, 1974, Claimant returned to his home from work at about 5:30 p.m. and found two boys in it who admitted to Claimant that they were from the Boys School. They fled through a window and Claimant notified police.

Claimant and his wife later found the boys had stolen the following items, with the values fixed by Claimant:

> Aquamarine ring in solid gold setting $650.00

> Amythest ring in solid gold setting 400.00

> Gold band 40.00

> Topaz birthstone ring 10.00

> Class ring 25.00

> Garnet ring with gold band 100.00

> Pearl necklace and earrings Browning 22 Rifle S.N. Pair of slacks and T shirt 60.00 84.00 6.00

> $1,375.00

Claimant’s measure of damages is the market value of the stolen items on the day of the theft.

*545It appears that Claimant did sustain some loss as a result of the activities of the escapees from the Illinois institution and there is *some evidence*on which to base a finding of loss.

In considering this case, the Court bears in mind the following quotation from *Hunter, Trial Handbook for Illinois Lawyers,*4th Edition, Chapter LXXX, General Rules relating to Damages, Sec. 80:5, page 815:

> “Damages are not rendered uncertain because they are uncertain in amount, as distinguished from those which are too uncertain to be recoverable because they are not the certain results of the wrong that has been committed.”

There is evidence that $5.00 was paid for the slacks and $1.00 for the T-shirt at the Montgomery Ward store in St. Charles, and that these items were used at the time of the theft. There is also evidence that the pearl necklace and earrings were purchased for $60.00 wholesale in 1970. The evidence as to the value of the remaining items of jewelry was based on an estimate from two jewelers, one in Aurora and one in St. Charles, from descriptions given them by Claimant’s wife, but the quality of this evidence does not justify an award of substance.

Claimant testified that the Browning rifle was purchased in 1963 from a military gun club in Germany and he thought $84.00 was a fair value for it. He offered in evidence a page from a 1973 Sears catalog in which a similar rifle was offered for sale new at $124.50.

It is clear that there was no contributory negligence on the part of Claimant and it is also clear that the loss sustained was the result of negligence on the part of Respondent.

An award is hereby entered in favor of Claimant in the amount of $350.00 for items stolen from his home.
§ 34.15 Consequences of failure to appear for an oral hearing. ( a ) If you do not appear for an in-person hearing you requested, or you do not answer a telephone call convening a telephone hearing, at the time set for the hearing, we consider you to have withdrawn your request for an oral hearing.
( b ) If you do not appear for an oral hearing but you demonstrate that there was good cause for not appearing, we may reschedule the oral hearing.
( c ) If you do not appear for an oral hearing you requested and we do not reschedule the hearing, we provide a paper hearing to review your objections, based on the evidence in your file and any evidence you have already provided.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3720D)
CERTIFICATIONS

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

      I, William Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Adsero Corporation.

1. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

3. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have;

      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


         Date: August 26, 2004               /s/ William Smith
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             William Smith
                                             Title:   Principal Accounting and
                                             Financial Officer
(No. 73-CC-320

#### Ray J. Hagist, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 27, 1973.*

Ray J. Hagist, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.