alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9413. Local administration

#### (a) Local Council

#### (1) In general

To be eligible to receive funds under this chapter, a local government entity, Indian tribe, Regional Corporation, or Native Hawaiian entity, as appropriate, shall establish or designate a Local Council, which shall be composed of—

(A) representatives of local agencies directly affected by early learning programs assisted under this chapter;

(B) parents;

(C) other individuals concerned with early learning issues in the locality, such as representative entities providing elementary education, child care resource and referral services, early learning opportunities, child care, and health services; and

(D) other key community leaders.

#### (2) Designating existing entity

If a local government entity, Indian tribe, Regional Corporation, or Native Hawaiian entity has, before December 21, 2000, a Local Council or a regional entity that is comparable to the Local Council described in paragraph (1), the entity, tribe, or corporation may designate the council or entity as a Local Council under this chapter, and shall be considered to have established a Local Council in compliance with this subsection.

#### (3) Functions

The Local Council shall be responsible for preparing and submitting the application described in section 9412 of this title.

#### (b) Administration

#### (1) Administrative costs

Not more than 3 percent of the funds received by a Local Council under this chapter shall be used to pay for the administrative costs of the Local Council in carrying out this chapter.

#### (2) Fiscal agent

A Local Council may designate any entity, with a demonstrated capacity for administering grants, that is affected by, or concerned with, early learning issues, including the State, to serve as fiscal agent for the administration of grant funds received by the Local Council under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(1) [title VIII, §814], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–88.)
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 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 Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I, Allan L. Schwartz, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Allan L. Schwartz
 Allan L. Schwartz
 Executive Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer
 October 15, 2012
§ 9.113 North Fork of Long Island. ( a ) *Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “North Fork of Long Island.”
( b ) *Approved maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundaries of the “North Fork of Long Island” viticultural area are 5 U.S.G.S. maps. They are entitled: ( 1 ) Wading River, N.Y., 7.5 minute series, scaled at 1:24,000 edition of 1967.
( 2 ) Riverhead, N.Y., 7.5 minute series, scaled at 1:24,000, edition of 1956.
( 3 ) New York, N.Y.; N.J.; Conn., U.S., 1:250,000 series, scaled at 1:250,000, edition of 1960, revised 1979.
( 4 ) Providence, R.I.; Mass.; Conn., N.Y., U.S., 1:250,000 series, scaled at 1:250,000, edition of 1947, revised 1969.
( 5 ) Hartford, Conn.; N.Y.; N.J.; Mass., U.S., 1:250,000 series, scaled at 1,250,000, edition of 1962, revised 1975.
( c ) *Boundaries.* The boundaries of the proposed viticultural area are as follows: The North Fork of Long Island viticultural area is located entirely within eastern Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. The viticultural area boundaries consist of all of the land areas of the North Fork of Long Island, New York, including all of the mainland, shorelines and islands in the Townships of Riverhead, Shelter Island, and Southold. ( 1 ) The point of beginning is on the Wading River, N.Y., 7.5 minute series, U.S.G.S. map at the northern boundary of the Brookhaven/Riverhead Township line on the Long Island Sound (approximately 500 feet east of the mouth of the Wading River);
( 2 ) The boundary goes south on the Brookhaven/Riverhead Town line for approximately 6.5 miles until it meets the Peconic River approximately 1 mile east of U.S. Reservation Brookhaven National Laboratory;
( 3 ) Then the boundary travels east on the Peconic River (Brookhaven/Riverhead Town line) for 2.7 miles until it meets the Riverhead/Southampton Township line on the Riverhead, N.Y., U.S.G.S. map;
( 4 ) It then goes east on the Riverhead/Southampton Township line for 4.2 miles until it reaches an area where the Peconic River widens north of Flanders;
( 5 ) Then the boundary proceeds east to Orient Point then west along the shoreline, beaches, islands, and mainland areas of the North Fork of Long Island, described on the “New York”, “Providence” and “Hartford” U.S.G.S. maps until it reaches the Brookhaven/Riverhead Township line at the point of beginning. These boundaries consist of all the land (and isolated islands including without limitation, Wicopesset Island, Robins Island, Fishers Island, Great Gull Island, Plum Island, and Shelter Island) in the Townships of Riverhead, Shelter Island, and Southold.
[T.D. ATF-240, 51 FR 36398, Oct. 10, 1986]
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

#### § 70.65 Use of commercial banks.

For provisions relating to the use of commercial banks and electronic fund transfer of taxpayment to the Treasury Account, see the regulations relating to the particular tax.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 775 (26 U.S.C. 6301); June 29, 1956, ch. 462, 70 Stat. 391 (26 U.S.C. 6301))

[T.D. ATF-77, 46 FR 3002, Jan. 13, 1981. Redesignated by T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47606, Nov. 14, 1990]
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

§ 70.23 Service of summonses. ( a ) *In general.* A summons issued under 26 U.S.C. 7602 shall be served by an attested copy delivered in hand to the person to whom it is directed, or left at his last and usual place of abode. The certificate of service signed by the person serving the summons shall be evidence of the facts it states on the hearing of an application for the enforcement of the summons. When the summons requires the production of books, papers, records, or other data, it shall be sufficient if such books, papers, records, or other data are described with reasonable certainty.
( b ) *Persons who may serve summonses.* Any appropriate TTB officer may serve a summons issued under 26 U.S.C. 7602.
(68A Stat. 902, as amended (26 U.S.C. 7603); 26 U.S.C. 7805 (68A Stat. 917), 27 U.S.C. 205 (49 Stat. 981 as amended), 18 U.S.C. 926 (82 Stat. 959), and sec. 38, Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778, 90 Stat. 744), 27 U.S.C. 205, 22 U.S.C. 2778, 26 U.S.C. 7602, and 5 U.S.C. 301)
[T.D. ATF-6, 38 FR 32445, Nov. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. ATF-48, 43 FR 13531, Mar. 31, 1978; T.D. ATF-201, 50 FR 12533, Mar. 29, 1985; T.D. ATF-249, 52 FR 5961, Feb. 27, 1987; T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47608, Nov. 14, 1990; T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29023, May 29, 2001]
### §1140a. Purpose

It is the purpose of this subpart to support model demonstration projects to provide technical assistance or professional development for postsecondary faculty, staff, and administrators in institutions of higher education to enable such faculty, staff, and administrators to provide students with disabilities with a quality postsecondary education.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title VII, §761, as added Pub. L. 110–315, title VII, §709(2), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3362.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1140a, Pub. L. 89–329, title VII, §762, as added Pub. L. 105–244, title VII, §701, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1801, related to authorization of competitive grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 110–315, title VII, §709(2), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3361.

A prior section 761 of Pub. L. 89–329 was classified to section 1140 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 110–315.

Another prior section 761 of Pub. L. 89–329 was classified to section 1132g of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–325.

Another prior section 761 of Pub. L. 89–329 was classified to section 1132d of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 96–374.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Sarah Hanft, Deceased. Sam Hanft, as Administrator of the Estate of Sarah Hanft, Deceased, Appellant; Anna Stein, Respondent.

Decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD J. COPPOLA, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED AND

ADOBE INCORPORATED,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 725 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED and the Application to QUASH is DISMISSED.
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

 370

 361

 354

 355

 358

 355

 355

 360

 361

 369

 372

 360

 358

 356

 354

 358

 364

 374

 382

 386

 399

 426

 475

 483

 478

 485

 501

 521

 545

 537

 553

 301

 300

 312

 309

 312

 298

 313

 304

 288

 294

 291

 298

 309

 302

 303

 301

 307

 316

 316

 298

 326

 338

 344

 334

 343

 358

 374

 394

 396

 393

 414

 342

 337

 338

 339

 336

 335

 331

 332

 335

 338

 340

 338

 338

 336

 334

 335

 336

 344

 346

 340

 353

 369

 391

 396

 408

 423

 440

 458

 469

 466

 478

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 5, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
#### Wembach Corporation, Appellant, v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### §2114d. Foreign export requirements; consultations and negotiations for reduction and elimination; restrictions on and exclusion from entry of products or services; savings provision; compensation authority applicable

(1) If the United States Trade Representative, with the advice of the committee established by section 1872 of this title, determines that action by the United States is appropriate to respond to any export performance requirements of any foreign country or instrumentality that adversely affect the economic interests of the United States, then the United States Trade Representative shall seek to obtain the reduction and elimination of such export performance requirements through consultations and negotiations with the foreign country or instrumentality concerned.

(2) In addition to the action referred to in subsection (1), the United States Trade Representative may impose duties or other import restrictions on the products or services of such foreign country or instrumentality for such time as he determines appropriate, including the exclusion from entry into the United States of products subject to such requirements.

(3) Nothing in paragraph (2) shall apply to any products or services with respect to which—

(A) any foreign direct investment (including a purchase of land or facilities) has been made directly or indirectly by any United States person before October 30, 1984, or

(B) any written commitment relating to a foreign direct investment that is binding on October 30, 1984, has been made directly or indirectly by any United States person.

(4) Whenever the international obligations of the United States and actions taken under paragraph (2) make compensation necessary or appropriate, compensation may be provided by the United States Trade Representative subject to the limitations and conditions contained in section 2133 of this title for providing compensation for actions taken under section 2253 of this title.

(Pub. L. 98–573, title III, §307(b), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3012; Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, §1889(5), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2926.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the International Trade and Investment Act, and also as part of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, and not as part of the Trade Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.

Section is comprised of subsec. (b) of section 307 of Pub. L. 98–573. Subsec. (a) of such section amended section 2112(g)(3) of this title.

#### Amendments

1986—Par. (3). Pub. L. 99–514 struck out "or paragraph (3)" after "paragraph (2)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Plan Amendments Not Required Until January 1, 1989

For provisions directing that if any amendments made by subtitle A or subtitle C of title XI [§§1101–1147 and 1171–1177] or title XVIII [§§1801–1899A] of Pub. L. 99–514 require an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1989, see section 1140 of Pub. L. 99–514, as amended, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
### §1066g. Minority business enterprise utilization

In the performance of and with respect to the Secretary's effectuation of his responsibilities under section 1066d(1) of this title and to the maximum extent feasible in the implementation of the purposes of this part, minority business persons, including bond underwriters and credit enhancers, bond counsel, marketers, accountants, advisors, construction contractors, and managers should be utilized.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title III, §348, formerly title VII, §728, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title VII, §704, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 747; renumbered title III, §348, and amended Pub. L. 105–244, title III, §301(a)(3), (4), (c)(7), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1636, 1637.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1132c–7 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 105–244.

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–244, §301(c)(7), substituted "section 1066d(1)" for "section 1132c–4(1)".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–244 effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105–244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–244, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We have issued our report dated February 7, 2002 accompanying the financial
statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of The Sportsman's Guide,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements
of The Sportsman's Guide, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-26311, effective May
1, 1997; File No. 333-26313, effective May 1, 1997; File No. 333-26315,
effective May 1, 1997; File No. 333-26317, effective May 1,1997; File No.
333-39765, effective November 7, 1997; and File No. 333-80869, effective June
17, 1999) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-50369, effective May 8, 1998).



                                         /s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 7, 2002
#### Mario Alfonso GARCIA-OLIVARES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75743.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

*195Sarah J.M. Jones, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, John S. Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mario Alfonso Garcia-Olivares, his wife Emma Ramirez De Garcia, and their two minor children, Emmelin Mayte Garcia-Ramirez and Bruno Alfonso Garcia-Ramirez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order pretermitting their applications for cancellation of removal on the ground that they were statutorily precluded from establishing good moral character. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review whether an alien’s conduct falls within a per se exclusion category for purposes of eligibility for cancellation of removal. *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). We review findings of fact for substantial evidence. *Moran v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.

The adult petitioners testified that they paid a smuggler to assist them and their minor children to enter the United States without inspection. The BIA concluded that the adult petitioners were statutorily ineligible for cancellation and ineligible for a waiver. *See 8*U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(6)(E)® (stating that an alien who assists another alien to enter the United States in violation of the law fails the moral character requirement for cancellation of removal). The agency, however, did not have the benefit of this court’s recent decision in *Moran,*395 F.3d at 1094, which indicates that the adult petitioners are eligible for a family unity waiver. *See id.*(stating that “the alien-smuggling provision ... does not operate to deny the applicant statutory eligibility for cancellation of removal ... because the *196Attorney General may waive the applicability of the alien-smuggling provision” when the applicant assisted his or her son or daughter to enter the United States in violation of the law.) The adult petitioners therefore remain eligible for cancellation of removal and the agency improperly pretermitted their applications. *See id.*

In accordance with *INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), we remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 7.102 False or untrue statements.

Malt beverage labels, containers, or packaging may not contain any statement or representation that is false or untrue in any particular.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilber JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-16965

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 25, 2006.

William Gregory Hughes, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Richard H. Loftin, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Gregory Hughes, appointed counsel for Wilber Jackson in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. We are unpersuaded by the argument Jackson raises in his response to counsel’s motion, as it does not raise an issue of arguable merit.1

*856Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Jackson’s motion for new counsel is denied as MOOT, and Jackson’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

. Jackson suggests that he did not understand the plea agreement he signed and that his trial counsel lied to him in order to get him to sign the agreement. Our independent review reveals that the district court fully complied with the three "core concerns” of Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(b), *see United States v. Quinones,*97 F.3d 473, 475 (11th Cir.1996) (discussing core concerns of Rule 11), and we have found *856
        *no*evidence in the record of improper inducement or misrepresentation of the plea agreement.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4332

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY WADDELL HAYES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00116-BO-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2019 Decided: March 5, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Waddell Hayes appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the 

42-month sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation. On appeal, Hayes

argues that his revocation sentence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because he also 

was sentenced by the state court for the same conduct that led to the revocation of his 

supervised release. We affirm.

“We review de novo questions concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause.” United 

States v. Schnittker, 807 F.3d 77, 81 (4th Cir. 2015). This court has previously 

determined that “[t]he sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release 

is an authorized part of the original sentence, just as the term of supervised release is an 

authorized part of the original sentence for commission of the felony.” United States v. 

Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359, 361 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 

694, 699–701 (2000); United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). Therefore, 

a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release does not implicate the Double 

Jeopardy Clause. Woodrup, 86 F.3d at 361–63.

Hayes’s argument is thus foreclosed by binding precedent. “A decision of a panel 

of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is 

overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary 

decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 

2005). As there has been no subsequent contrary en banc or Supreme Court decision 

affecting this precedent, Hayes’ argument must fail. 
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s revocation judgment. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED