alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3421. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–113, title VI, §601, Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 78

Section, Pub. L. 103–182, title III, §361, Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2122, set out agricultural standards on peanut butter and peanut paste, established a grant for an animal health biocontainment facility, and required annual reports on inspections of certain imported foods.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Prior to repeal, section was comprised of section 361 of Pub. L. 103–182, which consisted of subsecs. (a) to (i). Subsecs. (g) to (i) of section 361 were set out as the text of this section. Subsecs. (a) to (f) of section 361 are classified as follows: subsec. (a) amended section 1582 of Title 7, Agriculture; subsec. (b) amended section 104 of Title 21, Food and Drugs; subsec. (c) amended section 105 of Title 21; subsec. (d) amended section 1306 of this title and section 281 of Title 7; subsec. (e) amended section 466 of Title 21; and subsec. (f) amended section 620 of Title 21.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the date on which the USMCA entered into force (July 1, 2020), see section 601 of Pub. L. 116–113, set out as a note under former section 3301 of this title.
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT-GRANT THORNTON LLP


Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


We have issued our report dated January 11, 1999 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of Granite
State Bankshares, Inc. and Subsidiary on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1998.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report
in the Registration Statements of Granite State Bankshares, Inc. and Subsidiary
on Form S-8 (File No. 33-57720, effective February 1, 1993) and on Form S-8
(File No. 333-42287, effective December 15, 1997).


                                                /s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 1999
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

 585.09

 585.56

 585.20

 584.55

 585.48

 583.64

 585.45

 585.72

 585.98

 585.17

 585.48

 584.77

 584.02

 583.56

 584.18

 584.42

 585.88

 585.97

 584.87

 586.37

 584.07

 584.56

 584.82

 584.60

 584.27

 584.36

 583.32

 581.66

 583.89

 584.14

 583.45

 22,564

 22,859

 22,633

 22,229

 22,808

 21,671

 22,790

 22,959

 23,122

 22,614

 22,808

 22,365

 21,902

 21,623

 22,001

 22,149

 23,060

 23,116

 22,427

 23,371

 21,933

 22,236

 22,396

 22,260

 22,057

 22,112

 21,477

 20,487

 21,823

 21,976

 21,556

STORAGE

+19

+295

-226

-404

+579

-1,137

+1,119

+169

+163

-508

+194

-443

-463

-279

+378

+148

+911

+56

-689

+944

-1,438

+303

+160

-136

-203

+55

-635

-990

+1,336

+153

-420

CHANGE

12,239

12,004

11,901

11,797

12,309

11,447

12,118

11,476

11,372

11,154

11,538

11,396

11,366

11,479

11,805

11,026

10,788

10,432

10,158

10,996

9,790

10,250

9,726

9,574

8,961

8,374

7,874

7,290

8,363

7,281

6,934

INFLOW

 12,224

 11,849

 12,009

 11,996

 12,011

 12,013

 11,548

 11,385

 11,286

 11,404

 11,434

 11,614

 11,599

 11,615

 11,608

 10,945

 10,322

 10,397

 10,497

 10,513

 10,512

 10,091

 9,640

 9,638

 9,058

 8,341

 8,190

 7,783

 7,684

 7,199

 7,140

POWER

 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

 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

FISHTRAP

 5

 6

 6

 5

 6

 7

 6

 6

 4

 6

 6

 5

 0

 5

 6

 6

 7

 7

 8

 7

 3

 6

 5

 5

 5

 5

 4

 6

 5

 5

 6

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2013 KESWICK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: September 1, 2013

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -989 323,218 323,545 0 0 169

ACRE-FEET -989 641,103 641,752 0 0 335

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 641,752

SPILL 0

 22,545

FISH TRAP 0

SPRING

CR. P. P.

RELEASE (1)

 2,866

 3,149

 3,058

 2,751

 3,115

 2,469

 3,003

 3,126

 3,125

 3,231

 2,545

 2,319

 2,087

 1,826

 2,182

 2,119

 2,110

 1,851

 1,882

 2,059

 1,374

 2,014

 2,012

 1,995

 1,224

 84

 1,078

 921

 1,195

 1,157

 1,787

 65,714

 130,344

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

(1) EVAPORATION RECORDS TAKEN FROM SHASTA PAN.

SHASTA

RELEASE

C.F.S

 9,190

 8,516

 8,667

 8,756

 8,835

 8,763

 8,759

 8,005

 7,878

 7,570

 8,721

 8,877

 9,037

 9,501

 9,454

 8,668

 8,290

 8,199

 7,898

 8,472

 8,078

 7,833

 7,253

 7,240

 7,561

 8,349

 7,117

 6,591

 7,295

 6,261

 5,175

 250,809

 497,480
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 HealthRenu Medical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert W. Prokos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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) 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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  April 3, 2006

                                                 /s/ Robert W. Prokos
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Robert W. Prokos, President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### § 72.64 Terms of sale.

The terms of sale shall be cash, cashier's check, certified check, or postal money order, in the amount of the accepted bid.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Ventresco, Appellant, against Perini & Sons et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

All concur.
#### § 7.131 [Reserved]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00398-CV

ALYSE W. WASHINGTON APPELLANT

V.

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On October 1, 2012, and December 13, 2012, we notified appellant, in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 10, 2013 

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
#### § 6.82 [Reserved]
#### Kevin Murphy, Appellant, *v.*Walter L. Appelli, Respondent.

First Department,

March 1, 1948.

*262
      *Abraham Wilson*for appellant.

*Morris Gelbman*of counsel *(Waxstein & Gelbman,*attorneys), for respondent.

*Per*Curiam.

The matter pleaded in paragraphs Fifth to Ninth of the answer is not sustainable as a counterclaim or as a partial defense for ‘there are no ultimate facts of damage set forth which present an issue either by way of defense or counterclaim.

The facts alleged as a complete defense" and counterclaim in paragraphs Tenth to Fifteenth of the answer are clearly insufficient as a defense. In an action such as this to recover damages for fraud and deceit, it is not a defense for defendant to assert that he has sustained damage by reason of his later unlawful arrest and prosecution therefor at the instance of plaintiff. We think too that the matter set forth as a complete defense should not in the exercise of a fair discretion be permitted to stand as a counterclaim. There is nothing in common *263to be found in the plaintiff’s action for fraud and deceit and the counterclaim of defendant for damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Such a counterclaim, if permitted to remain, might prejudice the conduct of an orderly trial. “ The avoidance of a multiplicity of suits is much to be desired, but where, as here, the enforcement of such a rule might occasion prejudice to appellant’s substantial rights and might tend to confuse the jury, the divergent causes of action should be separately tried.” *(Sporn*v. *Hudson Transit Lines,*265 App. Div. 360, 362.)

The order accordingly should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion to dismiss the partial defense and counterclaim and the complete defense and counterclaim granted, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer with respect to such partial defense and counterclaim, on payment of said costs, and without prejudice to an independent action by defendant for false arrest and malicious prosecution.

Dose, J. t\, Cohn, Callahan, Van Vooehis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the motion to dismiss the partial defense and counterclaim and the complete defense and counterclaim granted, with lea've to the defendant to serve an amended answer with respect to such partial defense and counterclaim, on payment of said costs, and without prejudice to an independent action by defendant for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Settle order on notice.
### §1231g. Applications

#### (a) Submission and amendments of applications

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless expressly in limitation of the provisions of this section, the Secretary is authorized to provide for the submission of applications for assistance effective for more than one fiscal year under any applicable program with whatever amendments to such applications being required as the Secretary determines essential.

#### (b) Uniform dates

The Secretary shall, insofar as is practicable, establish uniform dates during the year for the submission of applications under all applicable programs and for the approval of such applications.

#### (c) Development of common applications

The Secretary shall, insofar as is practicable, develop and require the use of—

(1) a common application for grants to local educational agencies in applicable programs administered by State educational agencies in which the funds are distributed to such local agencies pursuant to some objective formula, and such application shall be used as the single application for as many of these programs as is practicable;

(2) a common application for grants to local educational agencies in applicable programs administered by State educational agencies in which the funds are distributed to such local agencies on a competitive or discretionary basis, and such application shall be used as the single application for as many of such programs as is practicable; and

(3) a common application for grants to local educational agencies in applicable programs which are directly administered by the Secretary, and such application shall be used as the single application for as many of these programs as is practicable.

(Pub. L. 90–247, title IV, §436, formerly §430, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title XII, §1213, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2342; renumbered §436 and amended Pub. L. 103–382, title II, §§212(b)(1), 246, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3913, 3923.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 436 of Pub. L. 90–247 was renumbered section 442, and is classified to section 1232e of this title.

Another prior section 436 of Pub. L. 90–247 was classified to section 1232e of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–561.

Another prior section 436 of Pub. L. 90–247 was renumbered section 446, and was classified to section 1233e of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–382.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–382, §246(2), substituted "Secretary" for "Commissioner" wherever appearing.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–382, §246(1), substituted "for more than one fiscal year" for "for three fiscal years".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 1530(a) of Pub. L. 95–561, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1221e–3 of this title.
### §5321. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §391(l), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4023

Section, Pub. L. 101–589, title II, §231, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2892, related to awards to science-technology centers.
### **CHAPTER 37—ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSPORTATION OF STUDENTS**

Sec.
1651.
Prohibition against assignment or transportation of students to overcome racial imbalance.
1652.
Repealed.
1653.
Omitted.
1654.
Intervention authorization in implementation of court orders.
1655.
Uniform rules of evidence of racial discrimination.
1656.
Prohibition against official or court orders to achieve racial balance or insure compliance with constitutional standards applicable to entire United States.
### §5301. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §391(l), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4023

Section, Pub. L. 101–589, title I, §101, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2882, stated findings of Congress and national objectives relating to mathematics, science, and engineering education.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 101–589, §1, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2881, provided that Pub. L. 101–589 (enacting this chapter and sections 2994 to 2994g of this title, redesignating section 2993 of this title as section 2996 of this title, amending sections 237, 240, 1201a, 1221e–1, 2983 to 2992, and 4512 of this title and sections 1869 and 1873 of Title 42, the Public Health and Welfare, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 240 and 2982 of this title) could be cited as the "Excellence in Mathematics, Science and Engineering Education Act of 1990", prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §391(l), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4023.
#### Catherine M. Brady, Respondent, v. Greater New York Savings Bank et al., Appellants.

*790No opinion. Carswell, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 28 76

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Alex an de r J.C . Man sf

ie ld

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 12 , 20 14 Fil ed : J an ua ry

30 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, SHEPHERD, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Alex an de r J.C

. Man sf

ie ld pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r en te red by th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) affi rm in g an im m ig rat io n ju dg e's de te rm in at io n t ha t Man sf ie ld was in el ig ib le fo r waiv er of in ad m is si bi l i t y u n de r 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (h ) be cau se he co m

m it te d an agg rav at ed fel on y
. Man sf ie ld in it ia ll y en te red th e Uni te d St at es on a no n- imm ig ran t vi sa

. He la te r ad jus te d hi s st at us to la wfu l pe r man en tres id en t (LPR)

. Man sf ie ld arg ue s th e ag gr av at ed fel on y ba r to waiv er of in ad m is si bi li ty un de r § 11 82 (h ) on ly ap pl ie s to al ie ns who in it ia ll y en te r th e Uni te d St at es as LPR s.

Man sf ie ld 's arg um en t is fo recl os ed by ci rcu it pr ec e d e n t

. See Ro be rts v. Hol de r, 74 5 F.3 d 92 8, 93 2- 33 (8 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 4) (co nc lu di ng § 11 82 (h ) is am bi gu ou s wit h res pe ct t o w h e t h e r it ap pl ie s to al ie ns who on ly ob ta in LPR st at us aft er th ei r in it ia l en try in to th e Uni te d St at es , an d de ferr in g to th e BIA's de te rm in at io n th at th e st at ut e ap pl ie s to pe rs on s su ch as Man sf ie ld ). "On e pa ne l m ay no t ov erru le an ot he r." Uni te d S ta te s v . Rey no ld s, 1 16 F.3d 32 8, 3 29 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

W e th eref

or e d en y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leodegario GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40830.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Philip G. *658Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Leodegario Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to importation of more than one kilogram of heroin into the United States. Guzman correctly notes that his argument, made for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by *United States v. Slaughter,*238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000).

Guzman also argues for the first time on appeal that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a condition of supervised release that requires him to cooperate in the collection of his DNA. Guzman’s claim is not ripe for review. *See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
| 1.   | The      undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial      Officer of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (“Crown Media      Holdings”).  This Certification is made pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This      Certification accompanies the 10-Q Report of Crown Media Holdings for the      quarter ended September 30, 2009. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | We      certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and      that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Crown Media Holdings. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Archives /
              - 2012 Compendium Statistics /
              - 2012 Vocational Rehabilitation /
              - 2012 12.7 Vocational Rehabilitation—State Agencies on Order of Selection

## Table 12.7: Vocational Rehabilitation—State Agencies on Order of Selection: 2005 through 2010

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
### Part F—Secretary's Fund for Innovation in Education