alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 641.480 May the Governor, or the highest government official, make recommendations to the Department on national grant applications? ( a ) Yes, in accordance with § 641.410(b), each Governor, or highest government official, will have a reasonable opportunity to make comments on any application to operate a SCSEP project located in the Governor's, or the highest government official's, State before the Department makes a final decision on a grant award. The Governor's, or the highest government official's, comments should be directed to the Department and may include the anticipated effect of the proposal on the overall distribution of program positions within the State; recommendations for redistribution of positions to underserved areas as vacancies occur in previously encumbered positions in other areas; and recommendations for distributing any new positions that may become available as a result of an increase in funding for the State. The Governor's, or the highest government official's, recommendations should be consistent with the State Plan. (OAA § 503(a)(5)).
( b ) The Governor, or the highest government official, has the option of making the authorized recommendations on all applications or only on those applications proposed for award following the rating process. It is incumbent on each Governor, or the highest government official, to inform the Department of his or her intent to review the applications before or after the rating process.
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-92058, Form S-3 No. 333-82344, Form S-3 No. 333-69052, Form
S-3 No. 333-72964, Form S-3 No. 333-48680, Form S-3 No. 333-31217, and Form S-3
No. 33-77286) of Aphton Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our
report dated March 26, 2003, with respect to the financial statements of Aphton
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2002.

                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Miami, Florida
March 31, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1901 Scope of subpart S. ( a ) *General.* This subpart explains that we may withhold your SSI benefit and/or State supplementary payments and send them to the State (or a political subdivision of the State) as repayment for interim assistance it gave you while your application for SSI was pending, or while your SSI benefits were suspended or terminated if you are subsequently found to have been eligible for such benefits. Before we will do this, the State must have entered into an interim assistance agreement with us authorizing such reimbursement, and you must have given written authorization for us to repay the State (or a political subdivision of the State).
( b ) *Organization of this subpart.* We have organized this subpart as follows: ( 1 ) *Definitions.* Section 416.1902 contains definitions of terms used in this subpart.
( 2 ) *Authorizations.* Sections 416.1904 through 416.1908 give the rules that apply to your written authorization.
( 3 ) *Interim assistance agreements.* Section 416.1910 gives the requirements for interim assistance agreements between us and the State.
( 4 ) *Appeals.* Sections 416.1920 through 416.1922 describe your appeal rights in the State and in SSA.
[46 FR 47449, Sept. 27, 1981, as amended at 56 FR 19262, Apr. 26, 1991]
Editorial Note on Part 655
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

§ 655.161 Criteria for certification. ( a ) The criteria for certification include whether the employer has complied with the applicable requirements of parts 653 and 654 of this chapter, and all requirements of this subpart, which are necessary to grant the labor certification.
( b ) In making a determination as to whether there are insufficient U.S. workers to fill the employer's job opportunity, the CO will count as available any U.S. worker referred by the SWA or any U.S. worker who applied (or on whose behalf an application is made) directly to the employer, whom the employer has not rejected for a lawful, job-related reason.
#### § 641.360 How does the State Plan relate to the equitable distribution report?

The two documents address some of the same areas, but are prepared at different points in time. The equitable distribution report is prepared by State grantees at the beginning of each fiscal year and provides a “snapshot” of the actual distribution of all of the authorized positions within the State, grantee-by-grantee, and the optimum number of participant positions in each designated area based on the latest available Census or other reliable data. The State Plan is prepared by the Governor, or the highest government official, and covers many areas in addition to equitable distribution, as discussed in § 641.325, and sets forth a proposed plan for distribution of authorized positions in the State. Any distribution or redistribution of positions made as a result of a State Plan proposal will be reflected in the next equitable distribution report, which then forms the basis for the proposed distribution in the next State Plan update. This process is iterative in that it moves the authorized positions from overserved areas to underserved areas over a period of time.
### §2595b–1. Review of certain reprogramming notifications

Any notification submitted to the Congress with respect to a proposed transfer, reprogramming, or reallocation of funds from or within the budget of OSIA shall also be submitted to the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and shall be subject to review by those committees.

(Pub. L. 87–297, title V, §503, formerly §64, as added Pub. L. 102–228, title IV, §402(b)(2), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1699; renumbered §503 and amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, subdiv. A, title XII, §1223(19), (21), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–772.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–277, §1223(19) substituted section catchline for former section catchline "Improving congressional oversight of on-site inspection activities", struck out subsec. (b) designation and heading, substituted "International Relations" for "Foreign Affairs", and struck out heading and text of subsec. (a). Text read as follows: "Concurrent with the submission to the Congress of the request for authorization of appropriations for OSIA for fiscal year 1993, the President shall submit a report on OSIA to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and Senate. The report shall include a review of—

"(1) the history of OSIA, including how, when, and under what auspices it was established, including the applicable texts of the relevant executive orders;

"(2) the missions and tasks assigned to OSIA to date;

"(3) any additional missions and tasks likely to be assigned to OSIA during fiscal year 1993;

"(4) the budgetary history of OSIA; and

"(5) the extent to which OSIA plays a role in arms control policy formulation and operational implementation."

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on International Relations of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Foreign Affairs of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Jan. 5, 2007.

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–277 effective Apr. 1, 1999, see section 1201 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6511 of this title.
94°32' 94°31' 94°30' 94°29' 94°28' 

39°00' 

39°01' 

39°02' 

39°03' 

39°04' 

39°05' 

39°06' 

39°07' 

39°08' 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 2006–5089

Blue Parkway gage, stage elevation of 750 feet—PLATE 4.1

Kelly, B.P., Rydlund, P.H., Jr., 2006

Estimated Flood-Inundation Mapping for the Lower Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri, 2003–05

Estimated Flood-Inundation Mapping for the Lower Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri, 2003–05

By

Brian P. Kelly and Paul H. Rydlund, Jr.

2006

* #

* #

* #

* #

* #

A B C D E F 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

I - 435 

EXPLANATION

WATER DEPTH, IN FEET, AT STAGE ELEVATION 

 OF 750 FEET AT BLUE PARKWAY GAGE

 >, greater than

 0 to 1

 >1 to 2

 >2 to 5

 >5 to 10

 >10

LAND SURFACE BELOW RIVER STAGE

 (levee protected or unconnected to river)

STUDY AREA

GAGE OR FLOOD-FORECAST LOCATION

 (ALERT, Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time)

# *

BLUE RIVER FLOOD INUNDATION

FORECAST LOCATION STAGE STAGE ELEVATION 

12TH STREET 21.9 736.3

HIGHWAY 40 17.8 739.5

STADIUM DRIVE 22.8 741.1

BLUE PARKWAY 27.5 750.0 

63RD STREET 42.0 763.8 

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER 

0 0.5 1 MILE 

I - 435 

I-435 

Hawthorne Road 

 Trafficway 

Clary Boulevard 

I-70 

23rd Street 

U S Highway 40 

17th Street 

Road I - 435 

R

a

yto

wn

Coal Mine Road

Van Brunt 

Boulevard

Avenue 

Hard

esty

63rd Steet Brighton

L

e

wis

R

oad

67th

Street

Manchester

Gregory Boulevard

Drive Crest

A

venue

U.S. Geological Survey 

stage gage at 12th Street 

Kansas City, Missouri, 

ALERT gage at Blue Parkway 

National Weather Service

flood-forecast location 

at Highway 40

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow 

gage at Stadium Drive 

Kansas City, Missouri, 

ALERT gage at 63rd Street 

Base from Jackson County Management Information Systems digital data, 1:833, 2003 

 and City of Kansas City, Missouri, digital data, 1:833, 2004

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition 

is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

06-1047 

 

ALZA CORPORATION 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________ 

DECIDED: September 6, 2006 

________________________ 

Before, GAJARSA, CLEVENGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. 

This appeal was heard together with that in Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, 

Inc., No. 06-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Mylan II”), also decided today, in which we affirmed 

the district court’s judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of claims 1-3, 11, 13 and 

14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,124,3551

 (“the ‘355 patent”) in favor of Mylan Laboratories, Inc. 

and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Mylan”), Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 

388 F. Supp. 2d 717 (N.D.W. Va. 2005) (“Mylan I”). Based upon our holding in Mylan II, 

we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

 1

 The ‘355 patent issued to Guittard et al. and was assigned to Alza. 
Alza’s infringement action against Mylan arose from Mylan’s filing of two

Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) for a generic version of the once-a-day 

extended release formulation of the anti-incontinence drug oxybutynin, id. at 720, which 

Alza has been marketing as Ditropan XL®. Mylan I at 738. Impax Laboratories, Inc. 

(“Impax”) likewise submitted an ANDA for generic extended-release oxybutynin, and 

was likewise sued for infringement of all of the claims asserted against Mylan, plus 

claims 4 and 15. Alza stipulated that if the district court in the Mylan litigation found all 

off the claims asserted against Mylan to be invalid, then it would consent to an entry of 

judgment in the Impax litigation “that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the ‘355 

patent are invalid.” Alza Corp. v. Impax Labs., No. C03-04032 VRW, (N.D. Cal., Apr.

15, 2004) (“Stipulation Order”). Subsequently, in Mylan I, the Mylan court held all of the 

asserted claims to be invalid, and pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation Order, the 

Impax court entered final judgment, holding all of the claims asserted in this litigation to

be invalid. Alza Corp. v. Impax Labs., No. C03-04032 VRW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2005) 

(“Impax Final Judgment”). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1). 

Today, in Mylan II, we have affirmed the district court’s invalidity holding in

Mylan I. Accordingly, based on the terms of the Stipulation Order, we affirm the Impax 

Final Judgment and hold that claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the ‘355 patent are 

invalid. 

Costs to Impax. 

06-1047 2
(No. 6976

#### Texaco Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Personnel, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 2, 1973.*

Texaco Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             245
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,898
<ALLOWANCES>                                       165
<INVENTORY>                                        458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,334
<PP&E>                                           4,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           385
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,206
<SALES>                                          1,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,650
<CGS>                                            1,603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    408
<INCOME-TAX>                                       163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                245
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       245
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 655

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

#### § 655.123 [Reserved]
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the  reference to our firm in the  Registration  Statement on Form
S-8 pertaining to the Stock  Incentive Plan and  Non-Employee  Directors  Stock
Option Plan of  iPayment,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  and to the  incorporation  by
reference  therein of our report dated  February 21, 2003 (except as to Note 21,
as to which the date is May 2, 2003), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements  and  schedules of the Company for the year ended  December 31, 2002,
included in the Prospectus (File No.  333-101705)  filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 13, 2003.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Los Angeles, California
June 26, 2003
#### § 618.300 Scope.

This subpart describes the employment and case management services that the State must make available to trade-affected workers, either directly through the TAA Program or through arrangements with partner programs. This subpart requires States, under the Governor-Secretary Agreement at § 618.804, to integrate the provision of benefits and services available to trade-affected workers under the TAA Program with the delivery of employment services and other assistance provided through the one-stop delivery system (established under title I of WIOA), as required by sections 235 and 239(a), (e), and (g) of the Act. It also implements the requirements of section 221(a)(2)(A) of the Act for the provision of rapid response assistance and appropriate career services described in §§ 682.300 through 682.370, and 680.150 of this chapter, respectively, for workers upon receipt of a petition filed covering a group of workers.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4126 

To clarify that any action by the President in contravention of the restriction 

on transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is without legal effect, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Mr. YOHO (for himself, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. ZINKE, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, and Mr. 

MILLER of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To clarify that any action by the President in contravention 

of the restriction on transfer or release of individuals 

detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, is without legal effect, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guantanamo Transfer 

5 Prevention Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4126 IH

1 SEC. 2. ABSENCE OF LEGAL EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL AC2 TION IN CONTRAVENTION OF RESTRICTION 

3 ON TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS 

4 DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STA5 TION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION ON TRANSFERS.—Pursuant to sec7 tion 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

8 Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66; 127 Stat. 851), 

9 as amended by section 1033 of the Carl Levin and Howard 

10 P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 

11 for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 

12 3492), the President is prohibited from using amounts au13 thorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available 

14 to the Department of Defense to transfer, release, or as15 sist in the transfer or release to or within the United 

16 States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mo17 hammed or any other detainee who— 

18 (1) is not a United States citizen or a member 

19 of the Armed Forces of the United States; and 

20 (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 

21 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

22 Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense. 

23 (b) TREATMENT OF EXECUTIVE ACTION.—Any ac24 tion by the President in contravention of such section 

25 1034, as so amended, is without legal effect. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4126 IH

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR REALIGN2 MENT OF FORCES AT OR CLOSURE OF 

3 UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTA4 NAMO BAY, CUBA. 

5 No amounts authorized to be appropriated or other6 wise made available for the Department of Defense for 

7 fiscal year 2016 may be used— 

8 (1) to close or abandon United States Naval 

9 Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; 

10 (2) to relinquish control of Guantanamo Bay to 

11 the Republic of Cuba; or 

12 (3) to implement a material modification to the 

13 Treaty Between the United States of America and 

14 Cuba signed at Washington, DC, on May 29, 1934, 

15 that constructively closes United States Naval Sta16 tion, Guantanamo Bay. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §§31 to 40. Repealed. Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title XI, §1131(2), (3), (5), (6), (15), (19), (27), (28), (30), (31), (52), (55), (57), (58), 60 Stat. 1035

Section 31, act Mar. 2, 1909, ch. 235, 35 Stat. 672, related to restriction against creation of new ambassadorships.

Section 32, R.S. §1675; acts Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 153, 18 Stat. 483; Feb. 27, 1925, ch. 364, 43 Stat. 1015; Jan. 21, 1931, ch. 42, 46 Stat. 1040, related to appointment and salaries of ambassadors, ministers, etc.

Section 32a, act Jan. 21, 1931, ch. 42, 46 Stat. 1040, related to salary of minister to Liberia.

Section 33, R.S. §1744, related to citizenship as prerequisite to payment of compensation.

Section 34, act Sept. 29, 1919, ch. 72, 41 Stat. 291, related to appointment of an ambassador to Belgium.

Section 34a, act Jan. 22, 1930, ch. 22, 46 Stat. 57, related to appointment of an ambassador to Poland.

Section 34b, act June 5, 1930, ch. 404, 46 Stat. 502, related to appointment of a minister to Union of South Africa.

Section 34c, act June 1, 1922, ch. 204, title I, 42 Stat. 600, related to appointment of a minister to Egypt.

Section 35, acts Feb. 27, 1925, ch. 364, title I, 43 Stat. 1016; Apr. 29, 1926, ch. 195, title I, 44 Stat. 331; Feb. 24, 1927, ch. 189, title I, 44 Stat. 1180; Feb. 15, 1928, ch. 57, title I, 45 Stat. 65; Jan. 25, 1929, ch. 102, title I, 45 Stat. 1096; Apr. 18, 1930, ch. 184, title I, 46 Stat. 175, related to clerks at embassies and legations.

Section 36, R.S. §1686, related to compensation of persons filling two offices.

Section 37, act June 11, 1874, ch. 275, §1, 18 Stat. 67, related to special allowance to embassy messenger in Paris.

Section 38, act Feb. 5, 1915, ch. 23, §7, 38 Stat. 807, related to transaction of business by diplomatic officers.

Section 39, R.S. §1688, related to prohibition against uniforms and official costumes.

Section 40, R.S. §1674; acts Feb. 5, 1915, ch. 23, §6, 38 Stat. 806; July 1, 1916, ch. 208, 39 Stat. 252; May 24, 1924, ch. 182, §2, 43 Stat. 140, related to definition of diplomatic offices.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective three months after Aug. 13, 1946, see act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title XI, §1141, 60 Stat. 1040.